9/11 Truth for Dummies: Wrap Your Head Around One Thing

[keith99]

How many of those were pointing up?





Almost all the plane footage from NY is from the second plane impact. No-one was expecting the first one.




Again - people don't just film random parts of the sky for fun. And since they didn't have forwarning of the crash, people weren't looking for a plane.

If cameras were pointing up, if someone was filming the sky, that would be suspicious. Why would someone be doing that? Only reasonable answer is because they KNEW of the attack ahead of time.

No matter what we have the truthers will see it as evidence of a conspiracy.

 

[Zanting]

I would like to see evidence of the plane that hit the pentagon as well.

"NO PLANE HIT THE PENTAGON" only once aired report - YouTube

 

[TheQuietRiot]

Did you not see the photo of plane wreckage on grass infront of the pentagon?

If that is not evidence of a plane crash in your eyes than what is your explanation for it?

 

[Btodd]

I would like to see evidence of the plane that hit the pentagon as well.

[URL=http://s100.photobucket.com/user/blackaspirin/media/911%20Photos/Pentagon-fuselagefragment.jpg.html] [/URL]


Btodd

 

[Zanting]

Mountains of evidence...ummm

911 - Proof a plane did NOT hit PENTAGON - Experts agree - YouTube

 

[Btodd]

Mountains of evidence...ummm

911 - Proof a plane did NOT hit PENTAGON - Experts agree - YouTube

Maybe you should send those guys the pictures of all the stuff they just said wasn't there.

And have them address the 100+ eyewitness accounts, the DNA matches, and finally...give a plausible scenario of what happened to Flight 77 and its crew, if that question isn't 'off-topic'.

By the way, the 2nd guy to speak in that video? Jim Fetzer. He believes that no planes hit the Twin Towers, they were just holograms.

Enjoy the rabbit hole!


Btodd

 

[Zanting]

I have already looked at enough information from both perspectives on the pentagon "plane" crash while investigating the 9/11 disaster and I stand by my assertion. What I have seen as evidence of an alleged jet liner having hit the pentagon doesn't make any sense. And apparently it doesn't to many others as well.

How do you explain that size of an aircraft making such a small hole, no indications or marks on the pristine lawn, and very little debris? It certainly didn't just disintegrate.

 

[drjean]

The OP did not mention the jet fuel that supposedly ran down the building, causing the fires and melting the steel.

Now about building 7... haven't a clue how that occurred on it's own...

 

[Btodd]

I have already looked at enough information from both perspectives on the pentagon "plane" crash while investigating the 9/11 disaster and I stand by my assertion. What I have seen as evidence of an alleged jet liner having hit the pentagon doesn't make any sense. And apparently it doesn't to many others as well.

How do you explain that size of an aircraft making such a small hole, no indications or marks on the pristine lawn, and very little debris? It certainly didn't just disintegrate.

Are you referring to the damage to the actual FRONT of the Pentagon, or the C-ring exit hole?

The fact that you can be shown all of those pictures, all of which match debris from a Boeing 757, including engine parts, landing gear, wheels, aluminum skin with the distinct markings of AA logos, along with several other photographs of other parts...and then call that 'very little debris' is a remarkable psychological phenomenon to witness, although I've witnessed it many times.

And you continue to ignore the 100+ eyewitness accounts, the fact that there were DNA matches for almost every victim, Saudi Arabia and the families of the hijackers acknowledging their disappearances, Al Qaeda's honoring of the hijackers for their deed, and the question of 'name any other plausible scenario that accounts for the disappearance of Flight 77 and all of its passengers'.

You offer no other plausible scenario, let alone any evidence for one if you could think of it, but still feel assured that you're on the right track...whatever the official explanation is, it must be wrong, no matter how much evidence is provided.

All I can do is provide you with the information you try to claim doesn't exist. Beyond that, you're on your own, and it's pretty clear that you're going to choose no explanation over one that has multiple lines of evidence. Whatever; it's your life.


Btodd

 

[Btodd]

The OP did not mention the jet fuel that supposedly ran down the building, causing the fires and melting the steel.

Now about building 7... haven't a clue how that occurred on it's own...

Nobody claims that there was 'melted steel', except Truthers. That isn't part of the explanation of how the Twin Towers collapsed at all, nor is it necessary.


Btodd

 

[TheQuietRiot]

I have already looked at enough information from both perspectives on the pentagon "plane" crash while investigating the 9/11 disaster and I stand by my assertion.

What I have seen as evidence of an alleged jet liner having hit the pentagon doesn't make any sense. And apparently it doesn't to many others as well.

So even though that its a fact that,

A) A 757-223 (American Airlines Flight 77) with 59 passengers and staff including the 5 hijackers took off from Washington Dulles International Airport

B) The flight began to deviate from its normal course at 8:54AM
1) Engaged autopilot to fly back to Washington DC
2) Had transponder disabled by 8:56AM

C) A passenger and crew member made independent calls between 9.12AM and 9.36AM informing family that the plane had been hijacked.

D) Five miles away the plane was tracked by multiple air traffic controllers making a 330 degree turn towards the Pentagon descending down to 670m and continuing until finally leveling out seconds away from impact (also spotted and identified by a National Guard pilot as a American Airlines 75/767 aircraft)

E) Hundreds of witnesses reporting seeing a plane hit the pentagon which also struck streetlamps on its final approach

F)Refer to Btodds collection of pictures of the immediate aftermath for visual evidence of damage and the large amount of wreckage.

G)Evidence identifying nearly all the passengers and crew taken from crash site

You still don't think the evidence is convincing?

How do you explain that size of an aircraft making such a small hole, no indications or marks on the pristine lawn, and very little debris? It certainly didn't just disintegrate.

Modern airliners including the 757 are largely composed of aluminum.

The 757 has a top speed of nearly 980kmph.

This is a modern airliner crashing at a comparatively low speed.

RAW FOOTAGE - National Airlines 747-400 Plane Crash - Apr 29, 2013 - YouTube

Now compare that to the plane hitting WTC 2

2nd Plane WTC - facebook.com/autonomous.anonymous - YouTube

Both planes turned tragically into a roar of intense flames but the in the second video the plane disintegrated almost instantly. Incredible forces are at work in a high speed plane crash, far exceeding the structural integrity which is designed to be as strong but lightweight as possible to achieve flight.

 

[Btodd]

I think what this shows is the point I made earlier, that Truthers are not actually comparing explanations...they have a double-standard about the whole matter. They want the highest standards of proof, even the impossible, for the real explanation...or else the Inside Job™ explanation is true by default, with no plausible narrative or evidence necessary.

You can point out all of the debris that was at the Pentagon, all of the eyewitness testimony, the DNA evidence, the Saudis and the families admitting that their hijackers are gone, Al Qaeda taking credit and honoring the 19 hijackers, the phone calls, and...nope, that's not enough. Nor is any plausible explanation, or evidence, of what happened to Flight 77 and its passengers...necessary. "I need video of it happening. But if you produced that video, I would call it faked, anyway."

But when it comes to the 'Inside Job™' hypothesis? There is no standard of evidence at all. You don't have to present anything that positively supports a hypothesis to account for the events of that day. You just have to stick your fingers in your ears, and pretend that your personal incredulity is an argument for an alternative explanation.


Btodd

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

Btodd - it's trutherism writ large, the constant demand for evidence while providing none of your own beyond could-have speculation.

They demand that we product actual footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon, but can produce none of all the people supposedly wiring up the WTC for demolition.

They claim to have "found" the hijackers alive, but can't find any evidence of the passengers they had to "dissappear" to make their theory work.

They claim phones calls and TV footage can be faked, except when it shows sonething that supports their side - then it's real.

 

[Paul01]

...Incredible forces are at work in a high speed plane crash...

No doubt. If we conservatively assume a 757 is about 130,000 lb empty and traveling at a stall velocity of about 170 mph, you still get about 350 million Joules of translational energy. And since energy varies directly as the square of velocity, it's likely my number is very low.

 

[ManFromUncle]

By your logic, every point on the first floor is designed to carry the 109 stories above it. Buildings are not designed this way. Show me a building code from anywhere in the world that requires it. As I have clearly stated, columns and other components at the building's base carry the entire building load, not individual floors. If the collapsing floors had landed only on the columns and not also crashed into weaker members supporting individual floor loads, the lower floor on the receiving end of the collision could have withstood the impact. That's not what happened.



False. Falling bodies subjected to gravitional force accelerate (W=mg). Acceleration is a measure of rate of change of velocity (a=dv/dt).

\

Um, yes, it is elementary that every point in a structure must be built to withstand the load above it, or you get failure. Take a course in statics. The towers were over-engineered to support, at a minimum, five times maximum live load, which would be standing room only on every floor. Failure would not be like a house of cards come tumbling down, but slow and piecemeal. If one floor fails, that constitutes failure. There would be creaking and bending and more bending.

Yes falling bodies accelerate, but only through thin air. The columns could not have "collapsed" on themselves at the same speed they would fall through air. That's elementary too. Steel is 8,000 times denser than air. Bodies do not accelerate as a function of weight, since all streamlined bodies of any weight accelerate through air at the same rate. So your "domino effect" of the building falling faster and faster as floors accumulate is fantasy physics.

[youtube]Z789eth4lFU[/youtube]

 

[Supreme2]

Btodd - it's trutherism writ large, the constant demand for evidence while providing none of your own beyond could-have speculation.

They demand that we product actual footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon, but can produce none of all the people supposedly wiring up the WTC for demolition.

They claim to have "found" the hijackers alive, but can't find any evidence of the passengers they had to "dissappear" to make their theory work.

They claim phones calls and TV footage can be faked, except when it shows sonething that supports their side - then it's real.

Unfortunately, this is completely true. Despite the huge volume of evidence for the 9/11 attacks being the work of Middle Eastern terrorists, Truthers don't accept it, and instead greatly lower their standards in order to accept less plausible theories with much poorer evidence to support them.

 

[Vylo]

All this horrible lack of physics knowledge aside, if I was a government trying to make this a false flag attack, the best and simplest way would be....

To fly 2 planes into the twin towers.

I wouldn't demo a building in a way that could be discovered, I wouldn't need to. Even if they towers had stood, the intense heat and smoke would have killed nearly the same number of people. The damage would have been immense, and the international result pretty much the same. And it would be a heck of a lot harder to figure out that I was behind it, than if I set some elaborate demolition job in a busy building, and then had to make sure it was timed right with the crashing of 2 separate planes that might take down the buildings anyhow.

Yes falling bodies accelerate, but only through thin air. The columns could not have "collapsed" on themselves at the same speed they would fall through air. That's elementary too. Steel is 8,000 times denser than air. Bodies do not accelerate as a function of weight, since all streamlined bodies of any weight accelerate through air at the same rate. So your "domino effect" of the building falling faster and faster as floors accumulate is fantasy physics.

Stop. Just stop. When the first few floors began to fall, they wasn't falling at free fall acceleration. No one is claiming that. They was meeting resistance from the damaged supports, walls, etc. But it was still accelerating.....FAST. The supports had suffered a critical failure and buckled, the amount of weight pressing down was immense, easily shrugging off a large amount of the remaining resistance. As it struck the floor beneath it, that floor suffered many times its maximum rated wait, while being on top of damaged supports, this caused another critical failure. Now another floor of falling debris added its mass and force to the equation. As each successive floor fell, the weight compounded, and even as they reached the less damaged floors the supports were not sufficient to hold back the fall. You can see though that the increased resistance from those floors seems to break apart and throw some of the rubble though.

 

[Trogdor the Burninator]

\

Um, yes, it is elementary that every point in a structure must be built to withstand the load above it, or you get failure. Take a course in statics.

But that is not the same as withstanding the entire weight of the structure. Each load bearing member or joint only supports a certain proportion of the structure.

 

[IanCG]

You resurrected this thread to post the same video that was already discussed. Are you stuck in a loop?

 

[Paul01]

Um, yes, it is elementary that every point in a structure must be built to withstand the load above it, or you get failure...

Wrong again. This is why real engineers don't take truthers seriously.