911 Eyewitness

has anyone seen this?! :O

Quote:

---

SEVEN LAWS of SCIENCE prove
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION at the WTC.
The OFFICIAL "PANCAKE COLLAPSE"
THEORY is an UNREALISTIC FRAUD!

---

it's some pretty unnerving stuff. the entire movie goes through scientific proof that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. i'd have to say after watching it, there are some serious questions that could be raised from this video footage.



official website: 911eyewitness.com

watch it on google video: 911 Eyewitness


edit: i forgot this also has the top story on shoutwire. the wikipedia article relating to this movie was ordered to be taken down. :ph34r:

Old news.

There was a thread about it some time ago.

damnit, searched and didn't find anything. anyways, why would the wiki article be removed?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lee551

damnit, searched and didn't find anything. anyways, why would the wiki article be removed?

---

Well, if it's in wikipedia, someone might just believe it. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lee551

has anyone seen this?! :O

Quote:

---

SEVEN LAWS of SCIENCE prove
CONTROLLED DEMOLITION at the WTC.
The OFFICIAL "PANCAKE COLLAPSE"
THEORY is an UNREALISTIC FRAUD!

---

it's some pretty unnerving stuff. the entire movie goes through scientific proof that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. i'd have to say after watching it, there are some serious questions that could be raised from this video footage.



official website: 911eyewitness.com

watch it on google video: 911 Eyewitness


edit: i forgot this also has the top story on shoutwire. the wikipedia article relating to this movie was ordered to be taken down. :ph34r:

---

I can't do this again. :frusty:

I didn't even want to post, but I'd never used that smilie and wanted to try it on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lee551

has anyone seen this?! :O



it's some pretty unnerving stuff. the entire movie goes through scientific proof that the twin towers were brought down by controlled demolition. i'd have to say after watching it, there are some serious questions that could be raised from this video footage.



official website: 911eyewitness.com

watch it on google video: 911 Eyewitness


edit: i forgot this also has the top story on shoutwire. the wikipedia article relating to this movie was ordered to be taken down. :ph34r:

---

I can't do this again. :frusty:

I didn't even want to post, but I'd never used that smilie and wanted to try it on.

---

Yeah I never believed the story impossible but believed it highly unlikely.:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I can't do this again. :frusty:

I didn't even want to post, but I'd never used that smilie and wanted to try it on.

---

Yeah I never believed the story impossible but believed it highly unlikely.:ermm:

---

The entire theory is easily destroyed.

:lol: i'm sorry i missed this fun discussion earlier. any caring soul wanna just shoot right to the debunking part of the argument?

making a lot out of very little-
Amazing that there would be tons of helicopters flying around after such an event- last time I was there, there were 5 or 6 helicopters in the air all the time and that was with out such an event.

I have witnessed a controlled demolition from a block away- there would be a series of explosive charges as the individual charges distroy indivdual columes- you would hear one after another big powerfull booms. on the four story hospital that I saw get dropped, there were perhaps 100 loud explosions in a matter of fifteen seconds- nothing like this.

the point about black smoke meaning the fire is going out- anyone that has ever started a slash pile with gasoline or diesel knows that it burns black until l the gas burns off- what was burning was several thousand gallons of JP-5

he claims that the helicoptor lowered a line, but when he flys out of the smoke, it is quite clear that there is no line hanging down, with not enough time to allow them to real in the line.

we have a guy with no engineering or construction training that doesn't really know what is going on, making assumptions.

having worked construction for seven years, studing engineering, and having discussed imploding buildings with Doug Loizeaux, one of the heads of Controlled Demolition Inc. http://www.controlled-demolition.com/
I know that imploding a building involves weakening a building untill it is not strong enough to hold it's self up- that can be done with explosives by distroying the pillers, which is how CDI does it. however, if the steel columes were weakened by the heat from the burning jet fuel distroying the temper of the steel, that would do the same thing. a standard house fire can bring down a steel stud built house just because of the heat weakening the steel. with all that weight sitting up that high, and the fire supplemented by all the jet fuel, it is the perfect recipe for an implosion.

as for the helicoptors ordered not to save people, it was a very confusing time for police, crossed orders and such, plus the fact that there is all the smoke and dust clouds making it hazardious to fly, and unlikely to find anyone, it doesn't suprise me that they couldn't fly.

as for the explosions before the fall of the north tower, in all likelyhood, something started moving before there would be any visable movement- most likely the material inside the tower- floors and such. this is how implosions work- get the top floors moving to crush the rest of the building down. as this stuff gives way, it would create a very large sound and air pressure wave. this is the explosion that you hear before it falls.

in short, everything happened like a poorly planned implosion- except that you don't hear the 600+ explosions that would be required to bring down each of the buildings.
nothing says that there wasn't anything fishy about the event, but there is nothing in this video that says that there was anything fishy.

also, has anyone been in a building that is ready to drop? there is no way that a building could be prepped for demolition with out anyone that was working on september ten realizing that something was up. prima cord everywhere, all the pillers with inch diamiter holes in them, dinamite packed in every hole, or are we supposed to beleve that some kind of black ops team snuck in and wired the building (a task that takes several weeks for a small building when nothing has to be hid) to drop with no one realizing? then, the thousands skilled iron workers that worked to disasemble and remove the bits of the building didn't realize that something was fishy. this whole video is someone with no experence on anything he is talking about trying to make sense of the whole event.

sorry, I don't belive that the WTC buildings were packed with at least 100000 charges (my first estimate was with out question low) with out anyone hearing drilling sounds, wonder about the massive amounts of explosives that would be required, wonder about the influx of people that would be required to wire a bulding like that, maintiance people that would have had to have seen some of the demolion rig as it is quite visable when ready to blow. afterwords, workers would have found the reminants of the vaious explosive bits in the wreckage.

I wouldn't put it past the goverment to have flown those planes into the towers, but the theory that those buildings were brought down by explosive like the sands is rubbish.

I remember the thread. I think originally the fantastic claim was that the buildings were wired with explosives during construction, because they knew they'd have a devil of a job bringing them down any other way. :lol:

I have also heard the claim that all 757's and 767's were wired to be flown by remote control that could not be overriden by the pilot in order to stop hyjackings, and the fact that it was these two types of aircraft that were involved meant that there were never suicide hyjackers on the airplane- either terrorists hacked the system and flew the planes into the buildings, and the goverment created the idea of the hyjackers so that they didn't have to say that all 757's and 767's could be electronicly hyjacked, or that the goverment themselves did it, and created the hyjacker claim for obvious reasons.

BTW, if what Barbarossa said was true, then all the stuff they were going on about in the film about helicoptors goes out the window- they wouldn't need them. the claim could be checked by looking at the cost to build the buildings- all those blasting charges would cost a shitload of money

Herewith, quoted with permission obtained from the original author-me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Originally Posted by GepperRankins
i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

---

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately...because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Herewith, quoted with permission obtained from the original author-me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GepperRankins

Originally Posted by GepperRankins
i believe the towers were destroyed by explosives...

i'd like to see someone dispute this though

---

Alright.

I have been more-or-less absent from the board lately...because of my disgust at the direction of this thread and the defective thought-processes which allow people to entertain wild, conspiratorial and stupid speculations such the one evinced above.

That anyone would prefer to believe such easily-debunked drivel is beyond me, but there it is.

My own favorite and resident conspiracy theorist (quoted^) says, without any qualifying evidence, that metal buildings cannot be significantly damaged by fire, and for such a building to collapse would absolutely require carefully placed explosive charges throughout.

Well, here's the stupid-simple explanation for that which has so profoundly baffled you all and leads you so wildly astray:

The inner girders which spanned and tied together the outer skeleton of the WTC were sprayed (during construction) with a fire and heat resistant retardant which should have been sufficient to withstand any normally anticipated fire event, however not one which also involved a 500+ MPH impact, courtesy of a terrorist piloting several hundred tons of airliner and carrying many thousands of gallons of jet fuel.

What actually resulted is so simple even you should be able to understand it, Dave.

The impact literally blasted the insulation from the beams, exposing them to the heat of the fires, depleting their temper and causing them to sag under the weight of the intact structure above the impact area.

The beams eventually gave way at the points they fastened to the outer skeleton, allowing the upper floors to fall through the impact area relatively unfettered and continue downward with the resultant "pancake" effect causing the outward trajectory of glass and concrete, etc., that you inanely ascribe to explosive charges.

In any case I'd think you and all the other conspiracy-mongers here would have tumbled to the rather obvious fact that, for your idiotic scenario to be feasible, the points at which the two collapses were to begin would have had to be known beforehand by the pilots of the hijacked planes (for aiming purposes, you see), and, if that were the case, both pilots would most likely have hit each tower at precisely the same altitude and attitude.

The second impact is the best refutation of your cockeyed "theory", as the plane's trajectory, relative to the first impact, must be considered as wildly imprecise.

Lastly, the correct deduction is cemented firmly by the fact that the south tower collapsed first, due to no other reason than that the impact area was significantly lower than the first, causing the greater weight above the impact point to be brought to bear sooner.

I believe your argument is in shambles, unless you would now care to posit that your "explosive charges" were placed and energized post-impact...

And just think-I didn't have to google a thing.

---

very true

weakening a section and causing the weight above it to crush the rest of the building is exactly how professional demolition crews implode buildings such as this. that is why the buildings fell so perfectly, they literally were imploded the same as St pats hospital that I saw go down and walked around in before they knocked it down. the only difference is that in the WTC, the weakening came from the hot fire and damage from the impact, not hundreds or thousands of sticks of dinamite.

Yes; it is actually quite simple and easily understood-perhaps that is it's weakness, eh?

It isn't complicated enough to suit even your garden-variety conspiracy theorist...:dry:

I think that one thing which fuels the conspiracy idea is that although the area around the impact site may have been weakened by fire (even though theoretically jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough), there is no way that the floors below the impact site could have been significantly affected.

Consequently people would expect each floor to provide some resistance to the movement of the debris collapsing on them from above, but this does not appear to have happened. I think there are 2 obvious questions raised by this.

• Are the expectations reasonable?
• If they are, would the amount of resistance be sufficient to be detectable?

I'm not a structural engineer so I don't have the answers to those questions, but others obviously do. If the answer to either question is no, one would think that someone would have come forward and said so. The fact that no-one appears to have done so only adds to the suspicion that there has been a conspiracy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

(even though theoretically jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough),

---

it is true that burning kerosine can't get steel hot enough to melt, however the heat can weaken it untill it no longer will hold up the weight above it. I have seen video where they built a building so that one half was steel framing and the other half was wood framing and furnished it like a house, then lit it on fire. the steel side collapsed very quickly, while the wood side charred over, but did not collapse. the heat was nowhere near what kerosene burns at, so it was cooler than the fires at WTC, but the heat was enough to compromise the steel and it fell.

I once attacked this theory on a conspericy forum, right after my post, the mods closed the thread. I guess when you tear apart their ideas, it gets them mad.

Weren't there also reports of molten steel found at the site, even after a few days?

I'm sure that helped to fuel the conspiracy theories.

Anybody ever read this thread in alt.prophecies.nostradamus on usenet.

Now that is an interesting read.

I never remember this making the news here but does anyone here know what happened witth this?

:frusty: That was kind of fun.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filliz

Anybody ever read this thread in alt.prophecies.nostradamus on usenet.

Now that is an interesting read.

I never remember this making the news here but does anyone here know what happened witth this?

---

that's somewhat scary. :ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lee551

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filliz

Anybody ever read this thread in alt.prophecies.nostradamus on usenet.

Now that is an interesting read.

I never remember this making the news here but does anyone here know what happened witth this?

---

that's somewhat scary. :ermm:

---

It is. First time I read this was on speptember 11, last year.
And I read all 937 comments :stars:
That's got to be the longest thread ever on usenet too.

Oh, and about that video.
I find it very unlikely that it was brought down with explosives, seeing that taking down a regular building needs a couple of days of preparation at least.
And it would've been a much louder bang than you hear onthe tape too.

i'd like to know what that flashing helicopter was doing up there tho. maybe no controlled demolition, but maybe something tricky?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lee551

i'd like to know what that flashing helicopter was doing up there tho. maybe no controlled demolition, but maybe something tricky?

---

Aren't there always helicopters in the air around cities?
Monitoring traffic and such.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Filliz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lee551

i'd like to know what that flashing helicopter was doing up there tho. maybe no controlled demolition, but maybe something tricky?

---

Aren't there always helicopters in the air around cities?
Monitoring traffic and such.

---

The flash from the helicoptor confuses me too, could just be that the sun hit it right or something, or maybe they were trying to signal surviviors so that they could pick them up.
@filliz- when I was there, you could look up in the air at any givin time and count at least five. don't know how it is all the time, but I imagion what I saw was pretty typical. with the disaster, it doesn't suprise me at all that the police helicoptors were out in force. my guess is that those helicopters are there attempting to rescue people. the fact that they couldn't is hardly supprising, considering how thick the smoke was, I give them props for even going near that thing in a chopper.

Interesting point from a "conspiracy" program on tv yesterday.

Apparently a majority of airline and military pilots say they doubt whether they could have managed to hit either of the towers. Without guidance they simply wouldn't have been sure where they were supposed to be going. Makes you wonder how semi-trained hijackers managed that feat.

Flight 77 apparently turned through 70 degrees and at the same time dropped from 5000 ft to just above ground level, then flew perfectly flat until it struck the Pentagon. Every pilot asked (civilian and military) has said they could not perform that manoeuvre.

I don't know whether it's who performed the original acts or the explanations we are supposed to believe, but somewhere along the line something stinks to high heaven.

Lynx, I may be wrong here, but isn't that what they do a lot of times in their landing approaches? Especially if the flight path is perpendicular to the runway?

conspire on guys! wouldn't we all like to know what the gov't has done.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Lynx, I may be wrong here, but isn't that what they do a lot of times in their landing approaches? Especially if the flight path is perpendicular to the runway?

---

Good point.

I wouldn't have thought it so difficult to make an airplane go where you intended.

I guess that's how luggage gets lost so easily...:huh:

Hmmm.

It occurs to me that the superior visibility on 9/11 ("severe clear", in pilot parlance) might have aided the terrorists's efforts; I mean, once you're in the air, you can just about see New York from Boston-just keep the sun on your left until you can pick out the towers. :dry:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Lynx, I may be wrong here, but isn't that what they do a lot of times in their landing approaches? Especially if the flight path is perpendicular to the runway?

---

But they don't land at 500mph, and they also have guidance systems to tell them where they are.

They don't have guidance systems that help them to target buildings. At least, not in commercial aircraft. :dry:

Edit: sorry I misunderstood your post the first time. I assume you mean the Flight 77 thing. Yes, they often do that every day, but not all in the space of 2 miles, nor at a 300 mph above normal landing speed.

Btw, you must have some real fast police cars over there. At least 2 police officers claim they thought something was odd so they chased the plane down the freeway. One of them claimed he saw a woman stopped on the freeway. When he investigated he saw part of the landing gear embedded in the front of her car. That piece seems to have mysteriously disappeared - I bet the woman took it home as a souvenir.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lynx

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Everose

Lynx, I may be wrong here, but isn't that what they do a lot of times in their landing approaches? Especially if the flight path is perpendicular to the runway?

---

But they don't land at 500mph, and they also have guidance systems to tell them where they are.

They don't have guidance systems that help them to target buildings. At least, not in commercial aircraft. :dry:

On a clear day you can see a lot from five thousand feet, Lynx. You can fly VFR, point the nose of your plane to what you want to hit, and hit it, no problem. I have heard they had been doing this over a year on Microsoft Flight Simulator,..........by following the Hudson river in. Maybe the pilots that said they couldn't do it didn't have the motivation of all those virgins waiting for them when they hit their target. :dry: Most pilots are trained to avoid having things like this happen, and would not dream of taking the steps these hijackers did.

Edit: sorry I misunderstood your post the first time. I assume you mean the Flight 77 thing. Yes, they often do that every day, but not all in the space of 2 miles, nor at a 300 mph above normal landing speed.

They weren't intending to land........would that not make a difference in what they did?

Btw, you must have some real fast police cars over there. At least 2 police officers claim they thought something was odd so they chased the plane down the freeway. One of them claimed he saw a woman stopped on the freeway. When he investigated he saw part of the landing gear embedded in the front of her car. That piece seems to have mysteriously disappeared - I bet the woman took it home as a souvenir.

---

It seems to me that if the plane was going 500 MPH even if a part of the landing gear fell off of the plane, (highly unlikely imo) and it hit this woman's car, there wouldn't be much car left, nor a woman to tell about it, let alone her being able to park along the side of the road after it hit.

Granted, I have not seen this program you saw, Lynx, but I would like to.

My intention was not to support the conspiracy theories, but to show how misinformation can spread.

Take my example of the two police officers. If the info about dropping from 5000ft and turning through 70 degrees in 2 miles is corrent, then the flight above the freeway must have been less than a mile. At speeds approaching 500mph that would take about 7 seconds. By the time those officers have shut their gaping mouths All they can see is the dwindling tail of a plane half a mile ahead of them, and by the time they've started rolling it's already hit the Pentagon. They probably felt they should have done more so they embelished their stories.

What happens next is that someone says these are trusted officers. Their word is not in question, so something else must be wrong. The only thing that can be wrong is the speed of the plane. That has the added benefit of making the descent and turn much easier for the semi-trained terrorist. Except there's a snag. The explanation for the small impact hole in the wall of the Pentagon requires that the speed is approaching 500mph.

Then there's the bit about the landing gear. If you tried to lower the gear at 500mph it would probably get torn off. As you point out, getting hit by the landing gear at 500mph would obliterate any vehicle, there wouldn't be much left even at normal approach speeds. But in any case, the terrorists weren't trying to land the plane, so why would they lower the landing gear?

Now there is an apparent conflict between presented evidence.

Conclusion - there must be a conspiracy! ;)

Edit: I haven't find out who made the conspiracy program yet, but it should be in one of the tv listings so I'll keep looking. It ends by debunking most of the theories anyway.

Penn and Teller interview some conspericy therorists that are more clueless than the guy in the first video-
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...158523&pl=true