Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[The People's Hero]

I don't really understand all that so lets cut to the chase, was it a lightbulb (giant or otherwise) that damaged the Pentagon or not?

[Legend_in_blue]

Oh dear. Please take some time to look beyond that video into the physical evidence retrieved from the site.

Indeed I will.

Hardly the picture of professionalism there...

And this one? I'm not convinced. If the FBI didn't hide away all the footage from various cameras around the site I would be less sceptical.

[fleckneymike]

Indeed I will.

Hardly the picture of professionalism there...

And this one? I'm not convinced. If the FBI didn't hide away all the footage from various cameras around the site I would be less sceptical.

Now try looking inside the building because that is where nearly all the plane went. If you are incredibly mawkish there is a map of where the body parts were found.

[He's not bald]

Some really interesting reading on here especially the Pentagon stuff and has really made me think!

However, there is no disputing the fact that lot's of innocent people died on that horrible day 10 years ago but if there was some sort of conspiracy we will never know because if the people concerned were powerful enough to conceive,plan,execute and then bury/keep totally secret such a complex operation they ain't about to go public anytime ever!

[OzFox]

I don't really understand all that so lets cut to the chase, was it a lightbulb (giant or otherwise) that damaged the Pentagon or not?

You might be onto something here. Could it have been one of those energy saving globes? Maximum penetration for the least amount of effort...clever buggers al Qaeda

Would also explain the dull blue tint on all these Youtube videos

[The Doctor]

You might be onto something here. Could it have been one of those energy saving globes? Maximum penetration for the least amount of effort...clever buggers al Qaeda

Would also explain the dull blue tint on all these Youtube videos

:laugh: - At least they're environmentally conscious as they destroy western society.

[Zingari]

Bone can resist forces of 25000N and bone is 40 times more resilient than concrete: Link

The pentagon wall is 8 inches of brick, encased either side by a lattice of 1 inch concrete, with up to 6 inches of limestone. If 1 inch thick bone can withstand a force of 25,000 newtons, then 1 inch thick concrete can withstand 625 newtons. Assuming that brick is as resilient as concrete (it isn't as anyone who has done DIY with both will testify) and likewise limestone (also weaker than concrete), the a 16 inch thick block of concrete will resist a force of 625 * 16= 10,000N.

However if we take into consideration the weaker structures of limestone and brick, plus the lattice structure rather than a plain slab then the true value will be lower. Factor in the steel rods which would be less than an inch thick to be in-cased in the concrete and they will make up for the difference in my value calculated with the assumptions & the true theoretical value and then not much more given their size (bone is also more resilient than steel of the same mass) giving a high end estimate of 20,000N to break through.

1 Newton equals 1 joule/metre according to this site hence 20,000 newtons = 20,000J.

i was under the impression that both walls of all three C D and E rings of pentagon were each 18inch steel reinforced concrete .

that is 6 walls of 18 inch steel reinforced concrete walls . (thats not including the interior walls of each of the three rings and the upright steel columns)

whatever , it certainly looks as if more than an 8 inch brick and 6 inch limestone facia wall has been pierced

[The Doctor]

i was under the impression that both walls of all three C D and E rings of pentagon were each 18inch steel reinforced concrete .

that is 6 walls of 18 inch steel reinforced concrete walls . (thats not including the interior walls of each of the three rings and the upright steel columns)

whatever , it certainly looks as if more than an 8 inch brick and 6 inch limestone facia wall has been pierced

Possibly the internal walls are, but according to the link I posted earlier in the thread the outer wall is 1 inch reinforced concrete > 8 inch Brick > 1 inch reinforced concrete > 6 inch limestone facia.

The actual bowels of the building would put up less of a resistance than the walls, as they would mostly be hollowed out rooms. Even if we take your suggestion of 6 walls of 18 inch thick reinforced concrete, we're still looking at over 67500 newtons of force to break through.

The plane itself would generate approximately 4,527,967,500 newtons of force, so would the steel reinforcements and building interiors stand up to 4,527,900,000N of force, plus the impact of any debris from the first wall?

Steel has an UTS of 440 MN/m² so so each square metre would resist 440,000,000N of force.

4,527,900,000 / 440,000,000 = 10.2906... so you'd theoretically need about 10 square metres of steel to resist the extra force - is there going to be that in 1 wall over the area of impact? unlikely - in the 6 walls penetrated? possible.

[Houdini Logic]

Care to give a page number? All I remember about temperatures is that they were below those required to considerably weaken the steel structure, even in the East penthouse.

Page 54 of the 'Final Report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7'

'The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors.'

I know little about this whole thing, I only looked at this report yesterday and even still it's easy to invalidate all of the claims on here.

Would it not be easier if you all looked into this yourselves before posting?

[shen]

That part refers to them not knowing what happened to the fire proofing when the planes hit, this is why they included the following footnote on page 20

The reader should bear in mind that the described damage to the building exterior was derived from eyewitness and photographic evidence. The described damage to the aircraft and the building interior was deemed most likely from the computer simulations and analysis carried out under the Investigation

That's just circular reasoning. The computer simulation can only return results based on the values plotted into them. If they didn't have reliable values for the fire proofing, how can they be deemed most likely? Do you agree with me that the physical evidence (the debris) would've had the answers? Considering the fire proofing (according to the simulation) proved critical to the collapse of all three WTC buildings, don't you think it's a great shame that they didn't have access to the evidence?

Page 54 of the 'Final Report on the collapse of World Trade Center Building 7'

'The fires thermally weakened Floors 8 to 14. As Floor 13 fell onto the floor below, a cascade of floor failures continued until the damage reached the massive Floor 5 slab, leaving Column 79 without lateral support for nine floors.'

I know little about this whole thing, I only looked at this report yesterday and even still it's easy to invalidate all of the claims on here.

Would it not be easier if you all looked into this yourselves before posting?

Ironically, the next page elaborates on the point I make above, highlighting the uncertainties of the simulation and also the obscene amount of time used to create those simulations.

But what you said in your previous post Houdini, was that the temperature difference between the upper and the thermally heated lower floors exacerbated the situation. I don't see that anywhere on page 54 You also exaggerated by saying the lower floors were 'extremely hot' (duh, they were on fire ) when, in fact, the whole point of the study is that the temperatures were not hot enough to reach critical weakening of the steel structure. And that leads back to the more violent and persistent fires in the other high-rise cases I and others have pointed out, that obviously did not lead to global failure of the structure, despite being comparable on a lot of points to the case of WTC 7.

Edit: Oh and I agree that more contributors in this thread need to read these before claiming something that makes them look rather silly, 'truthists' as well as 'debunkers'.

[Houdini Logic]

Ironically, the next page elaborates on the point I make above, highlighting the uncertainties of the simulation and also the obscene amount of time used to create those simulations.

But what you said in your previous post Houdini, was that the temperature difference between the upper and the thermally heated lower floors exacerbated the situation. I don't see that anywhere on page 54 You also exaggerated by saying the lower floors were 'extremely hot' (duh, they were on fire ) when, in fact, the whole point of the study is that the temperatures were not hot enough to reach critical weakening of the steel structure. And that leads back to the more violent and persistent fires in the other high-rise cases I and others have pointed out, that obviously did not lead to global failure of the structure, despite being comparable on a lot of points to the case of WTC 7.

Edit: Oh and I agree that more contributors in this thread need to read these before claiming something that makes them look rather silly, 'truthists' as well as 'debunkers'.

I can't deal with this.... I'm out

[shen]

I can't deal with this.... I'm out

Well what do you think the fires in the other high-rises were? Of course it was hot, but it wasn't anywhere near hot enough for the weakening of steel. You presented it as if the fires in WTC 7 were hotter than what you'd expect. Their conclusion is that even a few hundred degrees can compromise a steel structure through thermal expansion. Quite extraordinary given that no other high-rise steel structure has suffered that fate in over a hundred years

[Zingari]

Possibly the internal walls are, but according to the link I posted earlier in the thread the outer wall is 1 inch reinforced concrete > 8 inch Brick > 1 inch reinforced concrete > 6 inch limestone facia.

The actual bowels of the building would put up less of a resistance than the walls, as they would mostly be hollowed out rooms. Even if we take your suggestion of 6 walls of 18 inch thick reinforced concrete, we're still looking at over 67500 newtons of force to break through.

The plane itself would generate approximately 4,527,967,500 newtons of force, so would the steel reinforcements and building interiors stand up to 4,527,900,000N of force, plus the impact of any debris from the first wall?

Steel has an UTS of 440 MN/m² so so each square metre would resist 440,000,000N of force.

4,527,900,000 / 440,000,000 = 10.2906... so you'd theoretically need about 10 square metres of steel to resist the extra force - is there going to be that in 1 wall over the area of impact? unlikely - in the 6 walls penetrated? possible.

I’ve absolutely no fookin idea what you are talking about so I’ll take your word for it.

It still looks very odd that an airliner with a crap pilot can come powerdiving out of the sky at speed of around 500 mph and level the aircraft just a foot or so above the ground for the last few seconds prior to impact .

it just seems too perfect a hit .

anyway

this is an interview with April Gallop who was working in the pentagon and escaped through the impact hole , she says she saw no evidence of an airliner

[Rincewind]

I can't deal with this.... I'm out

Me too

[OzFox]

It still looks very odd that an airliner with a crap pilot can come powerdiving out of the sky at speed of around 500 mph and level the aircraft just a foot or so above the ground for the last few seconds prior to impact .

it just seems too perfect a hit .

maybe he was a better pilot than he's been given credit for? Maybe he just got lucky? Maybe he was aiming for the White House and stuffed up?

anyway

this is an interview with April Gallop who was working in the pentagon and escaped through the impact hole , she says she saw no evidence of an airliner

She spoke very well. Those frames of black at 3'10", 3'16" etc etc are highly suspicious though. What did they cut out hmmm??

And going through an experience like that, I'm guessing you'd be in a fair amount of shock and not necessarily looking for bits of airplane or jet fuel

[Zingari]

maybe he was a better pilot than he's been given credit for? Maybe he just got lucky? Maybe he was aiming for the White House and stuffed up?

She spoke very well. Those frames of black at 3'10", 3'16" etc etc are highly suspicious though. What did they cut out hmmm??

And going through an experience like that, I'm guessing you'd be in a fair amount of shock and not necessarily looking for bits of airplane or jet fuel

Maybe all the pilots had incredible runs of luck to achieve what they are supposed to, or maybe even their god himself lent them a helping hand.

They sure did defy a lot of odds on that day

I chose that April Gallop video because it was relatively short and I am aware that longer ones probably won’t be watched for obvious reasons. I just chose it because it covered the most salient points.

There are plenty more interviews on youtube about April Gallop.

Talking of luck , I believe she was serving some sort of lawsuit against the government and guess what ?

They only made George Bush’s cousin the judge of the case . How unlucky for her is that ?

Their skulduggery knows no bounds

http://www.welcomethelight.com/2011/04/april-gallop-military-officer-pentagon-911-victim-sued-cheney-was-in-court-todaynews-blackout/

[Babylon]

It still looks very odd that an airliner with a crap pilot can come powerdiving out of the sky at speed of around 500 mph and level the aircraft just a foot or so above the ground for the last few seconds prior to impact .

it just seems too perfect a hit .

Have you flown a plane? I have because I work with a pilot (can provide proof if needed) you would be surprised at how easy it is to just turn and aim. The guy aint taking off or landing is he!

[Zingari]

Have you flown a plane? I have because I work with a pilot (can provide proof if needed) you would be surprised at how easy it is to just turn and aim. The guy aint taking off or landing is he!

Yes a Cessna 152 and that is all Hani Hanjour is supposed to have done( very badly) prior to 911, and he did a lot more than just crash the aircraft . surely you don't believe it was that simple .

Further suspension in logic exists in the 'official story's' narrative as to who flew Flight 77 so expertly into the Pentagon's west wing. Hani Hanjour is credited with being the airplane's pilot. This is a man who, three weeks before September 11, attempted to rent a Cessna at an airfield in Maryland. Suspicious of his dubious 'pilot's license', officials at the airfield insisted he take a chaperoned test-flight before rental would be approved. He failed his test flight miserably. He could neither control, nor properly land the Cessna. In fact, the instructors at the airfield in Maryland said, "It was like he had hardly even ever driven a car. He could not fly at all." Other source. And yet, the official narrative of 9/11 asks us to believe that Hanjour pulled off a stunt that would press the limits of even the most experienced aviation test pilot.

The official story unfolds something like this. The rather diminutive Hanjour, sometime after take-off, fought his way into the cockpit, and wrestled control of Flight 77 from a 6'4" former Marine combat fighter pilot named Charles Burlingame, a man family members and colleagues say would never have given up his aircraft or the safety of his passengers. After dispatching with the co-pilot as well, Hanjour settled in and turned his attention to the bewildering array of gadgets and devices of a Boeing 757 instrument panel - a panel he was wholly unfamiliar with - in an airplane traveling 500 mph, 7 miles in the air, under the stress of a recently executed hijacking plot. Then, without the help of any ground control or air-traffic controllers providing him information and/or settings, this pilot who could not control a tiny Cessna 3 weeks earlier "would have to very quickly interpret his heading, ground track, altitude, and airspeed information on the displays before he could even figure out where in the world he was, much less where the Pentagon was located in relation to his position." (From the essay 'The Impossibility of Flying Heavy Aircraft Without Training', by Nila Sagadevan, an aeronautical engineer and pilot.)

From the Ohio/Kentucky border, Hanjour then supposedly turned the plane around, set course for Washigton D.C. hundreds of miles away, and successfully entered the most restricted airspace in the world without eliciting a single military intercept - despite the crash of two other known hijacked aircraft into the WTC, and a missing third, being covered on every radio and television station in the country. "In order to perform this bit of electronic navigation, he would have to be very familiar with (Instrument Flight Rules) procedures. None of these fellows (the alleged hijackers) even knew what a navigational chart looked like, or even how to plug frequencies into NAV/COM radios, much less input information into flight management computers (FMC) and engage LNAV (lateral navigation automated mode). If one is to believe the official story, all of this was supposedly accomplished by raw student pilots while flying blind at 500 MPH over unfamiliar (and practically invisible) terrain, using complex methodologies and employing sophisticated instruments."

According to the official account, an unidentified aircraft that somebody randomly decided was 'Flight 77' (remember, the transponder needed to identify the aircraft had been turned off) then suddenly pops up over Washington DC out of nowhere and executes an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min, at the end of which "Hanjour" allegedly levels out at ground level. The maneuver was in fact so precisely executed that the air traffic controllers at Dulles refused to believe the blip on their screen was a commercial airliner. Danielle O'Brian, one of the air traffic controllers at Dulles who reported seeing the aircraft at 9:25 said, 'The speed, the maneuverability, the way that he turned, we all thought in the radar room, all of us experienced air traffic controllers, that that was a military plane.'" (ABC News, 10/24/2001, also archived at www.cooperativeresearch.org)

The official story of Hanjour's flight path continues in an even more bizarre narrative. Having successfully entered D.C. airspace, with no idea how soon fighter aircraft would show up to shoot him down, he finds himself pointed in the ideal direction toward the East wing of the Pentagon, where all the top brass in the military are known to be stationed. But then he apparently changes his mind as to his heading, and pulls off that incredible, sweeping 270-degree descending turn at 400+mph to approach the Pentagon from the opposite direction. There, he inexplicably lines up the less valued West wing, which was miraculously scheduled to receive the finishing touches of extensive bomb-blast retrofitting the next day, September 12, leaving it conveniently empty of most of its military employees. "The section known as Wedge 1 (the West Wing) had been under renovation and was scheduled for final completion on Wednesday, September 12th, 2001."

[Rincewind]

[Babylon]

Stuff

I haven't got time to pick holes in all of it, but he wouldn't really need to know where he was exactly via instruments. In theory it's quite simple to time how long he was in to the flight, from which they could have a very good idea of where they are (the plane is on a set path after all). This is of course presuming he didn't have the knowledge to work it out (as you are guessing).

From there a quick glace at a compass or even the sun could then point you roughly in the right direction. It was a very clear day when it happened (quite possibly chosen because of how good the weather was). You would be able to see a Building such as the Pentagon from quite some distance away. Not forgetting you have two rivers converging almost at the same spot where the pentagon stands, and an airport not far away... a very good navigation tool.

[Zingari]

Too right , it makes you wonder why they bother with all them instruments and shit .

All you gotta do is look at where the sun is and bingo ! you’re on your way.

Those pilots are just making it all sound difficult , anyone could do that shit

[Babylon]

Too right , it makes you wonder why they bother with all them instruments and shit .

All you gotta do is look at where the sun is and bingo ! you’re on your way.

Those pilots are just making it all sound difficult , anyone could do that shit

Mock if you want but it is completely possible to roughly navigate in the direction you want without all the instruments on a day like that, they were traveling relatively short distances for a plane not flying to Australia.

If you know roughly where you will be at X time, and where the sun will be in relation to your target at said time you can get a rough bearing on where you are going and then follow the river or other landmark.

How did boats navigate before GPS, radar etc?

[Zingari]

Mock if you want but it is completely possible to roughly navigate in the direction you want without all the instruments on a day like that, they were traveling relatively short distances for a plane not flying to Australia.

If you know roughly where you will be at X time, and where the sun will be in relation to your target at said time you can get a rough bearing on where you are going and then follow the river or other landmark.

How did boats navigate before GPS, radar etc?

Possible maybe, but extremely improbable

In the same way that you could suppose it’s possible that I could jump out of my ford mondeo and into a F1 and compete with the likes of Schumacher, it really isn’t likely.

Actually this example is a gross understatement of his achievements

And in the days before sophisticated instruments, ships were sailing very slowly and not 6 miles up in the air hitting 500 mph, so they could navigate by various means such as the sun and stars but they only were guidelines to a general course and still much depended on skilled lookouts in the crow’s nest to keep on course .

It was still a skilful but precarious method and I really doubt that these skilful navigators could have directed a modern airliner at full speed and height .

[Babylon]

Possible maybe, but extremely improbable

In the same way that you could suppose it’s possible that I could jump out of my ford mondeo and into a F1 and compete with the likes of Schumacher, it really isn’t likely.

Actually this example is a gross understatement of his achievements

And in the days before sophisticated instruments, ships were sailing very slowly and not 6 miles up in the air hitting 500 mph, so they could navigate by various means such as the sun and stars but they only were guidelines to a general course and still much depended on skilled lookouts in the crow’s nest to keep on course .

It was still a skilful but precarious method and I really doubt that these skilful navigators could have directed a modern airliner at full speed and height .

When you are on a plane on holiday and see the sun, is it whizzing bye you, or just a slow moving blob on the horizon? I'll answer, It's a blob.

When you are in the sky on a plane, do you feel like you are whizzing around at 500mph out of control? I'll answer. No, you feel like you're hardly moving.

IF they couldn't read instruments (I can read them on my old flight sims) then it would take an hour or so on the net to work out where in relation to your target the sun would roughly be at that time of day. Or even the compass direction you need to be heading.

This is pretty basic stuff and you are trying to make it sound harder than it is. Your comparison is absolutely nothing like what we are discussing. They are not taking off, landing, flying 10,000 miles. They are looking at a compass and pointing it in the right direction.

[Legend_in_blue]

Now try looking inside the building because that is where nearly all the plane went. If you are incredibly mawkish there is a map of where the body parts were found.

Until there is evidence of a plane hitting the Pentagon from actual video footage, it's difficult to believe the official story. It's also difficult to believe that something else other than a plane hit the Pentagon since we're being told that parts of an airplane were found inside the building as you have said.

The FBI should make this absolutely crystal clear and issue the video footage they have obviously kept hidden away so that closure can be had on this. It's extremely frustrating. All we have to go on is the official story, a video showing very little dated 12/09/01 and various pieces of wreckage on a lush, green lawn and inside the Pentagon itself. And not forgetting a load of theories based on holes in the official account.