911 revisited

meglome · 28-08-2009 03:21PM

moviesrme wrote: »

1) The nice clean fall of wtc7. I mean it really did fall so sweetly didn't it?

The CT sites say it did all right because most of the footage is from one side with is obscured by other buildings. However when you look at more of the available pictures it didn't fall neatly.

http://www.911research.com/talks/b7/index.html

moviesrme wrote: »

2) The lack of debris at the pentagon and the building remaining pretty intact for a while after the "plane" hit it.

Again there are lot's of pictures of plane debris. Not a massive amount but then when you ram a plane into a concrete building at 500mph what would you expect.

http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/personal_effects.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/pentagon_rings_and_the_exit_ho.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/bodies_identified.html
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html

moviesrme wrote: »

3) Looking at either of the towers actually falling. If you look it kinda looks like an afro or dreadlock on the tower where stuff appears to jump up from the centre (against gravity) and then fall.

Not sure what you mean have you got some footage of pictures that show this. If you mean that the debris is falling ahead of the collapse then this is perfectly normal since the towers are not falling at free-fall speeds. It would be impossible for the debris to fall ahead of the tower if they were actually falling at free-fall speeds.

28-08-2009 03:28PM

moviesrme wrote: »

1) The nice clean fall of wtc7. I mean it really did fall so sweetly didn't it?

Well the fall wasn't that clean. If you look and the videos the building doesn't fall straight down at all.
You have to remember that the internal structure of the build collapsed before the façade.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

moviesrme wrote: »

2) The lack of debris at the pentagon and the building remaining pretty intact for a while after the "plane" hit it.

The Pentagon was made of fairly strong concrete not steel like the WTC.
Also the damage caused by the plane didn't severely compromise the entire structure of the building like in WTC.

And there was a ton of debris.
http://www.911myths.com/html/757_wreckage.html

Conversely there's no photos or video of anyone placing any of this debris despite the area being visible from a freeway.

moviesrme wrote: »

3) Looking at either of the towers actually falling. If you look it kinda looks like an afro or dreadlock on the tower where stuff appears to jump up from the centre (against gravity) and then fall.

But the towers weren't falling straight down at all.

So I don't see how this is impossible.

Most of that cloud was smoke and ash anyway.

moviesrme wrote: »

I know these are non technical points but just as a layman when I see a car crash or whatever or if that car were to slam into that house what kind of damage would I expect etc. ie from world experience.
I find it very difficult to not think there is "something rotten in Denmark"

But the situation isn't something most layman have seen before.
There are scales and speeds that we are just unfamiliar with.
So world experience isn't going to do you much good.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 03:29PM

King Mob wrote: »

But the towers weren't falling straight down at all.

So world experience isn't going to do you much good.

So if the towers didn't fall straight down 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

28-08-2009 03:33PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

So if the towers didn't fall straight down 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

What?
That's not my point at all.
The claim is that the towers fell down straight like in a demolition.
I'm pointing out this isn't the case.

meglome · 28-08-2009 03:44PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4q35xHzjxB0

A video made by the Us government in the 60's I believe to show what might happen if a plane ran into an nuclear power station.

This plane just burned for maybe 10 minutes after sliding down an embankment at Toronto airport.
AirFranceCrash_wideweb__470x298,0.jpg

The majority of this plane is simply gone.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 03:50PM

King Mob wrote: »

What?
That's not my point at all.
The claim is that the towers fell down straight like in a demolition.
I'm pointing out this isn't the case.

Define straight down?

bonkey · 28-08-2009 03:56PM

uprising wrote: »

In the year prior to Sept 11, military aircraft were scrambled 67 times for aircraft going as little as 2 miles off course.

Interesting...I hadn't heard that before. What sort of response times did these 67 cases have? Is there information as to why a 2-mile deviation led to a scramble?

Ok suppose the first was a mistake, as soon as that plane hit the tower planes should have been scrambled, they were not,

This is inaccurate.

Planes were given the launch order regarding flight 11 at 08:45. They were, of course, too late to do anything, but these were the planes which continued to NY.

For reference - flight 11 was the first impact, and occurred at 08:46.

another plane already known to be hijacked makes it's merry way to NY, still no scramble,

This is inaccurate.

The second flight which headed to NY was flight 175. It was hijacked at approx 08:41. The first signs which could have let someone know that it was hijacked occurred almost exactly when flight 11 impacted with the first tower.

It was not "already known" to be hijacked.

Also, even if it had been known to be hijacked, and everyone reacted perfectly, the planes already scrambled couldn't have reached it in time, if they even had sufficient fuel to reach it at higher speeds at all.

and washington dc, another plane long known to be hijacked makes it's merry way, planes scrambled from so far away,
flew at half speed to intercept that.

The planes scrambled at DC came from Langley. This was because Andrews (which was nearby) had been already contacted, had no aircraft armed and ready, and was in the process of arming them. Langley was able to get planes there faster than Andrews was able to get them up in the air.

The reasons they flew the path they did and the speed they did are well known. It is easy, with hindsight, to say that someone should have known to break the rules...but without hindsight, and with the chaos of information on the day, what happened is that people did their job and that turned out to be a fatal flaw.

911 is a farce, anybody still buying the official account needs to do a reality check.

Yet again, you make a post with factual inaccuracies, complaining about how something else isn't accurate.

The official account includes the (accurate) details of delays and elapsed times. It includes perspectives from different people, even when they disagree with each other. It makes clear what weaknesses were (and still are, in some cases) in the system, which contributed to the events of the day.

If it falls short, it falls short in not setting out what is required to fix things.

28-08-2009 04:37PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

Define straight down?

Straight down.
As is not moving to the sides but straight in a downwardly direction.

I.e. falling on it's own footprint like in a demolition.

WTC didn't fall straight down or into it's own footprint.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 05:07PM

King Mob wrote: »

Straight down.
As is not moving to the sides but straight in a downwardly direction.

I.e. falling on it's own footprint like in a demolition.

WTC didn't fall straight down or into it's own footprint.

So if it didn't fall straight down what way did it fall?And what does this prove?That uprising was incorrect in his post?And what does that accomplish?Does it mean all buildings that fall don't fall straight down are not demolished?

moviesrme · 28-08-2009 05:09PM

King mob & Captain Furball: You two are hilarious!

A Define Straight down

B Straight down.
As is not moving to the sides but straight in a downwardly direction.

A So if the towers didn't fall straight down 9/11 wasn't an inside job?

B What?

28-08-2009 05:21PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

So if it didn't fall straight down what way did it fall?And what does this prove?That uprising was incorrect in his post?And what does that accomplish?Does it mean all buildings that fall don't fall straight down are not demolished?

It fell and buckled and sent debris and stuff flying in all directions.
Which was the point I was addressing.

Some people claim that the towers fell neatly into their own footprints and this is evidence of a controlled demolition as demolished building fall into their own footprints.

The towers didn't fall neatly into their footprints and so is not evidence that there where brought down by a controlled demolition.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 05:43PM

King Mob wrote: »

It fell and buckled and sent debris and stuff flying in all directions.
Which was the point I was addressing.

Some people claim that the towers fell neatly into their own footprints and this is evidence of a controlled demolition as demolished building fall into their own footprints.

The towers didn't fall neatly into their footprints and so is not evidence that there where brought down by a controlled demolition.

So in all controlled demolitions the buildings that don't fall down straight have not been demolished by a demolition?

meglome · 28-08-2009 05:51PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

So in all controlled demolitions the buildings that don't fall down straight have not been demolished by a demolition?

The important word here is 'controlled'. The charges are placed to make the building collapse in a set pattern and when you look at the pictures of 911 the rubble is just piled up all over the place.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 05:58PM

meglome wrote: »

The important word here is 'controlled'. The charges are placed to make the building collapse in a set pattern and when you look at the pictures of 911 the rubble is just piled up all over the place.

But when something collapses ruble doesn't stack itself back up in the shape of a building does it?

28-08-2009 06:00PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

So in all controlled demolitions the buildings that don't fall down straight have not been demolished by a demolition?

What the hell are you on about?

Explosive demolitions usually drop the building onto it's own footprint to avoid damaging surrounding properties.

This didn't happen at the WTC.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 06:09PM

King Mob wrote: »

What the hell are you on about?

Explosive demolitions usually drop the building onto it's own footprint to avoid damaging surrounding properties.

This didn't happen at the WTC.

So if it didn't happen with wtc does that mean it wasn't a demolition?After all all demolitions make the building fall in their own foot print am i right?

moviesrme · 28-08-2009 06:14PM

To meglome:

1) The clean fall of Wtc7. The link you gave seems to corroborate this. This really is the single most prized evidence of conspiracy. I know officially this girder dislodged that one and this girder was exposed and was key to the whole building and whatever. But, you know what, i'm not buying it. My gut and my eyes tell me "too perfect" (a fall).

2) I hadn't seen the photographs of the pentagon debris. Yeah, there seems to be some doubt here alright. You've moved me somewhat on this one. I'm still a bit suspicious though. In support of your position is the "melting" of the 2nd plane into the wtc tower. I know we're talking of the pentagon but it shows how a plane can appear to just completely "melt" into a vertical surface with little debris at that surface. You or someone else posted another video of just this phenomenon I think. It's non intuitive but you cant deny the eyeball.

3) I tried to find this video and couldn't. Any I saw that seemed to corroborate what I was talking about actually did not when I re ran them again and again. My key thing was up and out of the centre defying gravity and then falling which is not really seen in the videos. The still photos show the "dreadlock" appearance alright and seem to support my view but the videos tell all and don't so I retract this.

On 3 though I find the amount of dust (& pyroclastic flow) during collapse and the complete non existence of substantial floor concrete slabs very suspicious.

Edit: I see Furball & mob are at it again with the double negatives (giving me a pretzel in my head trying to figure it out)

28-08-2009 06:18PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

So if it didn't happen with wtc does that mean it wasn't a demolition?After all all demolitions make the building fall in their own foot print am i right?

No I'm saying that despite what some people claim WTC didn't fall into it's own footprint.
And I will add that there is nothing about the way the WTC fell that would indicate a controlled demolition.

But are you ham handedly trying to get me to say something I didn't say or mean or imply?
Like "All demolitions make the building fall in their own foot print" so then you can show an example of demolition that shows the opposite?

28-08-2009 06:25PM

moviesrme wrote: »

To meglome:

1) The clean fall of Wtc7. The link you gave seems to corroborate this. This really is the single most prized evidence of conspiracy. I know officially this girder dislodged that one and this girder was exposed and was key to the whole building and whatever. But, you know what, i'm not buying it. My gut and my eyes tell me "too perfect" (a fall).

Well if you look at the official reason the building fell, the internal structure fell first dragging the façade down with it.
So it's not that strange that it looks a bit similar to a demolition.
However it lacks a lot of the features of a demolition for example, explosive squibs on every level going off in rapid succession followed immediately by the buildings collapse.

moviesrme wrote: »

On 3 though I find the amount of dust (& pyroclastic flow) during collapse and the complete non existence of substantial floor concrete slabs very suspicious.

Well why would substantial floor concrete slabs fly out of the building at all?

Or did you mean in the wreckage after the collapse.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 06:27PM

King Mob wrote: »

No I'm saying that despite what some people claim WTC didn't fall into it's own footprint.
And I will add that there is nothing about the way the WTC fell that would indicate a controlled demolition.

But are you ham handedly trying to get me to say something I didn't say or mean or imply?
Like "All demolitions make the building fall in their own foot print" so then you can show an example of demolition that shows the opposite?

How big of an area would you say a footprint is compared to what happens when a building falls that's not demolished on purpose?And at what degreees does the falling building have to be at for it to be ruled out as a non demolition?

All valid questions.

moviesrme · 28-08-2009 06:30PM

You nailed it. I meant after the collapse. (with the concrete slabs)

On the former I will just have to read a bit more I suppose to convince myself but as of now not at all accepting on that one.

meglome · 28-08-2009 06:34PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

But when something collapses ruble doesn't stack itself back up in the shape of a building does it?

Okay let's try this then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vaysznxCBzA

This shows that a huge chuck of the building is left standing after the main collapse is finished. Nothing like controlled demolition whatsoever.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/18358
And take a look at these, the first one shows that chuck from a different angle. And the second ones shows the the WTC7 initially falls fairly straight and then collapses over. Nothing like a controlled demolition.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 06:36PM

So now you want me to post a demolition that went wrong?
Do you play chess?

28-08-2009 06:38PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

How big of an area would you say a footprint is compared to what happens when a building falls that's not demolished on purpose?And at what degreees does the falling building have to be at for it to be ruled out as a non demolition?

All valid questions.

A footprint is defined and the area of the base of the building.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_a_building_footprint

The Twin towers did not fall into there own footprint.

http://www.debunking911.com/fig-1-7.jpg

And I'd say the complete lack of any evidence of any demolition explosives would rule it out as a demolition.

28-08-2009 06:41PM

moviesrme wrote: »

You nailed it. I meant after the collapse. (with the concrete slabs)

On the former I will just have to read a bit more I suppose to convince myself but as of now not at all accepting on that one.

I'd imagine that the concrete slabs would have been fairly broken up after falling.
So to me it's not suspicious that there aren't huge slabs left.

28-08-2009 06:42PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

So now you want me to post a demolition that went wrong?
Do you play chess?

Yes please do and explain how it relates to WTC.

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 06:47PM

King Mob wrote: »

A footprint is defined and the area of the base of the building.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_definition_of_a_building_footprint

The Twin towers did not fall into there own footprint.

And I'd say the complete lack of any evidence of any demolition explosives would rule it out as a demolition.

The twin towers are taller than most building yes or no?
All demolitions don't fall into their own footprint yes or no?
As i asked already and you ignored it.
"And at what degreees does the falling building have to be at for it to be ruled out as a non demolition?"

Captain Furball · 28-08-2009 06:48PM

King Mob wrote: »

Yes please do and explain how it relates to WTC.

Why would i do that?

28-08-2009 06:54PM

Captain Furball wrote: »

The twin towers are taller than most building yes or no?

Yes and? They still didn't fall their own footprints. In fact the debris damaged alot of buildings around them.

Captain Furball wrote: »

All demolitions don't fall into their own footprint yes or no?

Most controlled explosive demolitions do cause it to fall neatly into it's own footprint.
What kind of demolition do you think it was?

Captain Furball wrote: »

As i asked already and you ignored it.
"And at what degreees does the falling building have to be at for it to be ruled out as a non demolition?"

In a manner that can't be explained by structural collapse.
What part of the WTC collapse isn't explainable?

Captain Furball wrote: »

Why would i do that?

Because you brought it up?
And that's how a discussion works?

What leads you to believe that the WTC collapse is a botched demolition?

moviesrme · 28-08-2009 06:56PM

Does this remind you any two people in the world!:)

http://www.clipser.com/watch_video/797336

911 revisited

Comments