Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[zubi]

Well there was nothing strapped under them because if you watch the videos of it happening it just looks like a normal bloody plane. And show me a video with a flash before they hit because thats just bull. You've just made a load of things up for the sake of it there. When you can actually watch real footage of it happening etc. and you still believe there were flashes and extra things strapped to planes when they are 100% not there you know know someone is talking complete shit.

This is probably a better video, plus it has the Flashes Danny was talking about

[zubi]

Its probably been explained in this thread however, sorry if I open another can of worms here.

The pentagon, regarded as the most watched and secured building in the world? supposedly the pentagon has thousands of CCTV cameras watching it? Both on the in and outside?

Why is there no footage what so ever of a plane hitting the pentagon? No plane debry?

The whole in the pentagon isn't that big.. A plane would surely do more damage than the whole in all the photos?

I do think terriots attacked America that day yes but some things aren't correct about that day, maybe I'm looking into things to much...

Apparantly the Pentagon doesn't need CCTV on the outside because what's inside is more important... You can have a tank on the lawn outside but it doesn't matter until they get inside.

Apparantly a plane won't do so much damage to the pentagon because the pentagon walls were reinforced... but somehow it can still make a big gaping hole which went through to one of the other courtyards

[OzFox]

did you even watch the video before? It could be interesting seeing how they are reputable architects.

Thanks for that el, will check that out when I have the time

Every other video posted on here by a conspiracy theorist has been drivel, so why would this one be any different? People lose credibility by posting this stuff.

Anyway, I watched the trailer. That was enough. Looks like it had a bit of time and money spent on it, but at the end of the day it's produced and funded by a conspiracy group, so hardly going to be balanced is it? Not exactly BBC, Channel 4 etc.

Has it been reviewed in any mainstream media? In other words, does anyone with any credibility take it seriously?

All these high rise architects, metallurgists and engineers....how many of their peer group are sitting on the other side of the fence I wonder?

[danny.]

You can't even see anything.

Please start actually presenting evidence, because so far it's nothing but laughable.

You can't see a cylinder on what should be an otherwise smooth chassis?

[breadandcheese]

c) Can you please stop with this ridiculous argument about the plane being some kind of feather light object. PARTS of the plane are made from lightweight materials. Many parts ARE NOT made from light materials. The plane weighs 100's of tonnes, it is not a feather like object. Get a gcse maths book and do some working out for goodness sake.

Further to this, El Empty, please learn F=ma. If you don't believe Newton, please look up the damage a fleck of paint (no bigger than a mm) is capable of doing to the reinforced window of a space shuttle in space.

How is a fleck of paint no bigger than a mm able to do such damage? Is the paint made by Dick Cheney enterprises? No. The answer is down to force, of which mass is only a part.

[Babylon]

This is probably a better video, plus it has the Flashes Danny was talking about

This gets better, a missile was fired before the plane impacted? I'm sorry but this is ridiculous, it's evidence of nothing. It's quite clearly the point of impact of the nose of the plane.

Let say it was a missile, what's the point of it exactly if the building is already wired to blow up?

[Babylon]

You can't see a cylinder on what should be an otherwise smooth chassis?

Tell you what, this explains it all using physics and by comparing pictures of the planes that hit with planes similar. Not to a different plane!!!

[OzFox]

This is probably a better video, plus it has the Flashes Danny was talking about

See what I mean about losing credibility? That's got to be one of the dumbest videos yet.

Missiles fired at the moment of impact. Wow. Just wow.

[zubi]

See what I mean about losing credibility? That's got to be one of the dumbest videos yet.

Missiles fired at the moment of impact. Wow. Just wow.

Oh no... I've lost credability on foxes talk... I must perform Harikiri... I have brought dishonour on my family

[OzFox]

Oh no... I've lost credability on foxes talk... I must perform Harikiri... I have brought dishonour on my family

I just can't take you seriously any more....

[zubi]

I just can't take you seriously any more....

You don't know what your missing though!!

[Brown Fox]

This is probably a better video, plus it has the Flashes Danny was talking about

That is so obviously the nose of the plane hitting it. The fact the video is as grainy as a bag of Basmati rice shows it's just bull.

Quite enjoying this thread and watching Babylon single handedly piss over every single conspiracy argument! Good work mate

[danny.]

Tell you what, this explains it all using physics and by comparing pictures of the planes that hit with planes similar. Not to a different plane!!!

that does pretty much answer it it seems!

BTW, I'm not 100% pro-conspiracy, I just think things don't add it at all, WTC7 seems so weird still and other bits just don't add up. Going to watch the BBC documentary about it all to get some perspective from the other side.

[BoneDog]

It's about you because you're the one constantly being abusive to anyone who doesn't believe your crack pot theories. You still didn't answer my question. If you are not qualified to work things out (you have already proven a complete lack of understanding regarding GCSE level physics) how do you know who is telling the truth?

The only thing I claim to know for sure is that the people we are told were responsible for 911 were not responsible. Some of the hijackers were still alive after 911 and Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't make sure that the US Air Force didn't follow standard operating procedure (for the first time) that day. Just two of many things.

The laws of physics prove that the buildings couldn't collapse like they did so I'm not sure how you come to your physics conclusion. Path of least resistance. I've heard some of the best high rise architects and engineers talk about this. And please don't bring the NIST report into it because that thing isn't worth the paper it is written on and everything they say can be proved wrong, including the pancake theory. It's what the NIST report doesn't talk about that is the important stuff.

I'm not abusive, I even said that it was light hearted when I called you all dipshits. I've read worse character assassinations coming from the pro official story side but they're not worth taking to heart.

[OzFox]

The only thing I claim to know for sure is that the people we are told were responsible for 911 were not responsible. Some of the hijackers were still alive after 911 and Osama Bin Laden certainly didn't make sure that the US Air Force didn't follow standard operating procedure (for the first time) that day. Just two of many things.

The laws of physics prove that the buildings couldn't collapse like they did so I'm not sure how you come to your physics conclusion. Path of least resistance. I've heard some of the best high rise architects and engineers talk about this. And please don't bring the NIST report into it because that thing isn't worth the paper it is written on and everything they say can be proved wrong, including the pancake theory. It's what the NIST report doesn't talk about that is the important stuff.

I'm not abusive, I even said that it was light hearted when I called you all dipshits. I've read worse character assassinations coming from the pro official story side but they're not worth taking to heart.

And your proof for this is...?

I've heard Mohammed Atta's dad claimed to have spoken to his son 2 days after 9/11. But then he would wouldn't he?

[BoneDog]

And your proof for this is...?

I've heard Mohammed Atta's dad claimed to have spoken to his son 2 days after 9/11. But then he would wouldn't he?

There was/is lots of proof of this.

There is also lots of proof that Atta et al were in contact with the CIA/FBI before the attacks. Some of the hijackers were living on military property. And one hijacker even rented property from an FBI agent.

I'm having none of this 'the FBI didn't suspect them' bullshit. They were known assholes before the attacks. And there was also nothing Islamic about their characters at all, so if you believe that they did hijack the planes then they certainly weren't working for 'Allah' as the PTB and MSM would like you to believe.

[OzFox]

There was/is lots of proof of this.

There is also lots of proof that Atta et al were in contact with the CIA/FBI before the attacks. Some of the hijackers were living on military property. And one hijacker even rented property from an FBI agent.

I'm having none of this 'the FBI didn't suspect them' bullshit. They were known assholes before the attacks. And there was also nothing Islamic about their characters at all, so if you believe that they did hijack the planes then they certainly weren't working for 'Allah' as the PTB and MSM would like you to believe.

Wheres the proof then? I'm all ears.

I did laugh that Mr Atta also refused to believe his son was off his face and gambling in a Florida bar

[shen]

That is so obviously the nose of the plane hitting it. The fact the video is as grainy as a bag of Basmati rice shows it's just bull.

Quite enjoying this thread and watching Babylon single handedly piss over every single conspiracy argument! Good work mate

Not mine. But then again it isn't as spectacular or grand like the others suggested...

[The Doctor]

Further to this, El Empty, please learn F=ma. If you don't believe Newton, please look up the damage a fleck of paint (no bigger than a mm) is capable of doing to the reinforced window of a space shuttle in space.

How is a fleck of paint no bigger than a mm able to do such damage? Is the paint made by Dick Cheney enterprises? No. The answer is down to force, of which mass is only a part.

I might just point out that in this case, F=ma might not be of any use. The planes would most likely be moving at constant velocity at the point of impact, giving an acceleration of 0 ms² which would immediately give F=0 no matter the mass, however the velocity at which the plane was travelling, combined with the mass would still produce a big force.

The principle to consider is Newton's third law of motion, "when one object applies a force on a second object, the second object applies a force on the first that has an equal magnitude but opposite direction", The overall net force will be 0 but the net force on each object will not, the plane will apply force on the building and vice versa.

The fact that the plane burst into the building may suggest that the opposing forces are not equal but at the exact point of impact they are as the building temporarily stops the plane, much like how a fly hitting a train head on will momentarily (and we're talking nanoseconds) stop the train.

Basic physics can be used to calculate the force though. If I take the speeds in the video babylon posted (approx 850 f/s) and apply the momentum equations P=mv & P= Fnet * Delta t (time)

then rearrange we get mv = Fnet * time or Fnet = mv / time.

mv is mass * velocity. If we assume that the 757 was at half max capacity (and it was probably more) then we're looking at 90 metric tons (based on the figures in the link in breadandcheese's post below), which is equal to 90,000 kilograms. 850 feet is 259 metres hence mv = 90,000 * 259 = 23,310,000

Now if we also assume that the time period of the collision was 0.4 seconds then the Net Force = 23,310,000 / 0.4 which would equal 58,275,000KJ

I'll do some further calculations later with regard to the tolerance of concrete but I'm sure that we can all agree that over 58 million KJ of force applied (before we even factor in the effect of the jet fuel) will do sufficient damage to even the re-enforced walls of the pentagon.

edit: Re-calculated using different weights as I suspect the weight conversion I used originally may have been a tad wrong.

[BoneDog]

That is so obviously the nose of the plane hitting it. The fact the video is as grainy as a bag of Basmati rice shows it's just bull.

Had to delete this line of codswallop

Carbon fibre noses don't create a bright flash before they make contact with anything. But it fits nicely in with the official story so I suppose people will continue to cling to the theory.

Have you ever seen what a goose does to the nose of a big plane? You know, a 10 or 20lb goose - not a reinforced building weighing hundreds of thousands of tons.

This third one was possibly caused by air pressure, if not a bird.

And yet the official story folk want us to believe that a 757 went striaght through The Pentagon and made this hole on it's way out after travelling hundreds of feet through many reinforced concrete and steel walls and concrete pillars!

THE PENTAGON IS THE MOST REINFORCED BUILDING ABOVE GROUND LEVEL. And yet an aluminium and carbon fibre empty shell went straight through the many reinforced walls. Not happening i'm afraid.

Sorry if I seem to be ignoring anyone talking specifically to me, I'll try to get round to you soon, bit busy at home aswell as trying to catch up with this thread. (I dread to think what's awaiting me later in reply to the religious stuff in the EDL thread )

[breadandcheese]

I might just point out that in this case, F=ma might not be of any use. The planes would most likely be moving at constant velocity at the point of impact, giving an acceleration of 0 ms² which would immediately give F=0 no matter the mass, however the velocity at which the plane was travelling, combined with the mass would still produce a big force.

The principle to consider is Newton's third law of motion, "when one object applies a force on a second object, the second object applies a force on the first that has an equal magnitude but opposite direction", The overall net force will be 0 but the net force on each object will not, the plane will apply force on the building and vice versa.

The fact that the plane burst into the building may suggest that the opposing forces are not equal but at the exact point of impact they are as the building temporarily stops the plane, much like how a fly hitting a train head on will momentarily (and we're talking nanoseconds) stop the train.

Basic physics can be used to calculate the force though. If I take the speeds in the video babylon posted (approx 850 f/s) and apply the momentum equations P=mv & P= Fnet * Delta t (time)

then rearrange we get mv = Fnet * time or Fnet = mv / time.

mv is mass * velocity. If we assume that the 757 was at half max capacity (and it was probably more) then we're looking at 50,000 short tons (based on the figures in an earlier post), which is equal to 45,359,237 kilograms. 850 feet is 259 metres hence mv = 45,359,237 * 259 = 11,748,042,383.

Now if we also assume that the time period of the collision was 5 seconds (and it's almost certainly a lot faster) then the Net Force = 11,748,042,383 / 5 which would equal 2,349,608,476.6

Therefore the theoretical force exerted by the 757 on the pentagon was 2,349,608,476.6 N.

I'll do some further calculations later with regard to the tolerance of concrete but I'm sure that we can all agree that over 2 billion newtons of force applied (before we even factor in the effect of the jet fuel) will do sufficient damage to even the re-enforced walls of the pentagon.

The good gentlemen at MIT have done some work for you with regards the planes. Please check their calculations.

F = ma ⇒ ∫t2 t1 F dt = m(v2 – v1)

Impulse = change in momentum

d = distance travelled by plane to a stop ≈ 50 m

v = velocity of plane ≈ 250 m/s

m = mass ≈ 200 ton

F = collision force

F = mv / td = ½ mv2 / d ≈ 12,500 ton

(weight of each floor ≈ 2,500 ton)

td = duration of collision = 2 d / v ≈ 0.4 s

Ek = kinetic energy

Ek = ½ MV2 = 6250 MJ

Doesn't show up well on foxestalk. Here's the link. http://web.mit.edu/istgroup/ist/documents/EFCA2004_Istanbul04.pdf Slide 15

[OzFox]

Carbon fibre noses don't create a bright flash before they make contact with anything.

And you can tell that from a grainy 30 frame per second interaced video? Don't kid yourself.

[BoneDog]

Wheres the proof then? I'm all ears.

I did laugh that Mr Atta also refused to believe his son was off his face and gambling in a Florida bar

I'm sure you can find the proof if you really want to. It might take a bit more effort than just clicking on a few of the stupid links that come up when you google conspiracy stuff though. Stay away from fruitcake sites and stick to what the military men, engineers, architects, ex embassy staff etc. have to say. Have you ever heard the US embassy staff talking about the strange ways that the 'hijackers' recieved their US visas?

Atta's father was probably devastated when he realised his son wasn't the man he thought. Does this mean that we agree that Islam or Muslims were not to blame? Because there is no doubt that Atta and his cronies were not Muslims in the slightest.

[Zingari]

watch this video and pause it at 6 seconds

I' m just a little bit suspicious of a radome (or nosecone of an aircraft) exiting like that , seemingly in tact

but no doubt there are some gcse physics explanations

[marko]

I'm sure you can find the proof if you really want to. It might take a bit more effort than just clicking on a few of the stupid links that come up when you google conspiracy stuff though. Stay away from fruitcake sites and stick to what the military men, engineers, architects, ex embassy staff etc. have to say. Have you ever heard the US embassy staff talking about the strange ways that the 'hijackers' recieved their US visas?

Atta's father was probably devastated when he realised his son wasn't the man he thought. Does this mean that we agree that Islam or Muslims were not to blame? Because there is no doubt that Atta and his cronies were not Muslims in the slightest.

:crylaugh:

It doesn't work like that 'el empty head'. When you're arguing a point, especially such a critical point that would blow the lid off 9/11, it's up to YOU to provide evidence that proves they are alive. You've had no problem posting other videos/evidence that "explains" 9/11, so this shouldn't prove a problem.

I'm looking forward to it.

Edit - what do you think they blew up the WTC's with? Thermite?