Real 9-11 Research

[ChumpDumper]

I never said it was the government...you did...So what do YOU say?

Spit it out.

After six years, come out and actually say who you think was behind 9/11.

[Don Quixote]

My guess it is the oil companies. Or the Skull & Bones fraternity.

Or the worldwide military-industrial complex (to dust off an old term).

[Don Quixote]

At some point, we'll have to invoke Occam's Razor. Like I said a few pages back, the non-"Truther" model has far better explanatory power, with eyewitnesses, motive, and actual suspects.

The Truther scenario is far tougher to prove. But I imagine they'll hang onto it, always cynically wanting to know what "they" are hiding.

[Nbadan]

dan, what was in the core?

Elevators.

200 of them.

One cannot swing one's dead cat in the cores without hitting an elevator.

Who maintains elevators?

Elevator mechanics.

Now, how many mechanics do you think maintained the 200 elevators on an average work day?


errr.................the elevator shafts were sealed......

[Nbadan]

At some point, we'll have to invoke Occam's Razor. Like I said a few pages back, the non-"Truther" model has far better explanatory power, with eyewitnesses, motive, and actual suspects.

The Truther scenario is far tougher to prove. But I imagine they'll hang onto it, always cynically wanting to know what "they" are hiding.


I'm not sure what you mean by 'truther'....I like to refer to them as 'Faithers', as in, it takes a whole lot of faith to forget all the laws of physics which were broken in just one day....

[Don Quixote]

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

http://journalof911studies.com/volume/200704/Roberts_AnnotatedJones-RobertsonTranscript.pdf

http://chronicle.com/free/v52/i42/42a01001.htm

A couple of good-looking papers, and a news article on the debate.

[ChumpDumper]

errr.................the elevator shafts were sealed......errrr..........................sealed for freshness?

Hermetically sealed?

No one could ever access an elevator shaft after 1970?

[Nbadan]

My position remains the same as 2002...2003...2004...2005....etc...etc...etc....ei ther there was a conspiracy by other than, hell, I don't even know what to call them.....drug induced, strip-club attending, living-in-sin with strippers, holy warriors, or there wasn't...

[ChumpDumper]

My position remains the same as 2002...2003...2004...2005....etc...etc...etc....ei ther there was a conspiracy by other than, hell, I don't even know what to call them.....drug induced, strip-club attending, living-in-sin with strippers, holy warriors, or there wasn't...Who do you think was behind 9/11?

It's a simple question.

Answer it.

[Nbadan]

Who do you think was behind 9/11?

It's a simple question.

Answer it.

There needs to be another investigation, and hope and pray that the Neo-cons didn't destroy all the physical evidence...but that won't happen until decades from now, or, if we throw all the Neo-Cons and their supporters in jail...

[ChumpDumper]

blah blah blahJust answer the question.

[Nbadan]

Just answer the question.

...but the game is only half finished.....

[ChumpDumper]

...but the game is only half finished.....It's not a fucking game.

Why are twoofers so flippant about 9/11? Especially considering whom they think is behind 9/11 -- the twoofers with the balls to actually say whom they think is behind 9/11, that is.

[Nbadan]

It's not a fucking game.

Why are twoofers so flippant about 9/11? Especially considering whom they think is behind 9/11 -- the twoofers with the balls to actually say whom they think is behind 9/11, that is.

Blah, as with any psy-op there is a lot of mis - and disinformation that gets reported in the press, and then you get loonies like infowars.com and Alex Jones that make the whole truth movement look crazy...but you can't keep the truth down forever...or can you?......Nah..someday someone will dig up John Connelly and expose the JFK assassination too...

[ChumpDumper]

blah blah blahYou don't really give a shit about any of this.

[Nbadan]

You don't really give a shit about any of this.


Would it change anything if I did? I've lived the entirety of my life under a compromised government...

[ChumpDumper]

Would it change anything if I did? I've lived the entirety of my life under a compromised government...What a patriot.

A true American.

[Nbadan]

What a patriot.

A true American.


Actually, more of a realist who sees things in more than just black and white....

[ChumpDumper]

Actually, more of a realist who sees things in more than just black and white....Like that means anything. You can't even say what you think. That's really real.

[Nbadan]

Like that means anything. You can't even say what you think. That's really real.

I think it meant a lot when I told ya in early 2003 that Saddam had destroyed his stockpile of WMDs, or that Iraq had no connections to Al-Queda, I mean, besides the retired terra-ist....or that the then housing boom would collapse and take the economy with it...

[ChumpDumper]

I think it meant a lot when I told ya in early 2003 that Saddam had destroyed his stockpile of WMDs, or that Iraq had no connections to Al-Queda, I mean, besides the retired terra-ist....or that the then housing boom would collapse and take the economy with it...If this work of yours on the internets is so important, then why won't you say what you think about 9/11?

[Nbadan]

If this work of yours on the internets is so important, then why won't you say what you think about 9/11?

Cause we don't know all the facts yet Chumpy....it's like trying to find out all the facts about the JFK assassination in the middle of LBJ's term...not gonna happen...

[ChumpDumper]

Cause we don't know all the facts yet Chumpy....it's like trying to find out all the facts about the JFK assassination in the middle of LBJ's term...not gonna happen...Then stay out of these threads and leave the people who can actually form an opinion alone.

BTW, do you consider your completely inaccurate predictions about the draft, severe hurricane seasons and the Labor Day invasion of Iran as being equally important as the other things you have listed?

[ChumpDumper]

And Oswald acted alone. They figured that out rather quickly.

[Nbadan]

AX6cZ7k8r3w

[ChumpDumper]

:sleep

[DarrinS]

Blah, as with any psy-op there is a lot of mis - and disinformation that gets reported in the press, and then you get loonies like infowars.com and Alex Jones that make the whole truth movement look crazy...but you can't keep the truth down forever...or can you?......Nah..someday someone will dig up John Connelly and expose the JFK assassination too...


Lee Harvey Oswald shot JFK and Connelly.

[RandomGuy]

At some point, we'll have to invoke Occam's Razor. Like I said a few pages back, the non-"Truther" model has far better explanatory power, with eyewitnesses, motive, and actual suspects.

The Truther scenario is far tougher to prove. But I imagine they'll hang onto it, always cynically wanting to know what "they" are hiding.


We have become addicted to cynicism in this country.

There is a value to being skeptical, but so many have passed the point where cynicism replaces any sense of logic or critical thinking.

"Truthers" are a prime example. Hell, it is beginning to take on the trappings of an outright religion with dogma, priests, infighting and everything.

Kinda freaky.

[RandomGuy]

the witnesses near WTC 7 all described sounds typical of controlled demolition. The videos you see of WTC 7 all have the camera & mike several blocks or more away from the building.

You guys are pretty desperate.

Witnesses near WTC7 described sounds typical of buildings falling down.

Get your facts straight.

[Don Quixote]

Cause we don't know all the facts yet Chumpy....it's like trying to find out all the facts about the JFK assassination in the middle of LBJ's term...not gonna happen...

This is another fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance. To put it very simply, in this case the Truther position is right by virtue of ignorance of all the facts. Conspiracy theorists in general love this one because they can always make it -- "we don't know what else "they" are hiding, etc.

Truthers still need to explain the lack of hard physical evidence and the existence of suspects who confessed. If bin Laden wasn't behind it, then why did he claim that his group was? And why are we chasing him into the mountains?

[ChumpDumper]

Number of elevator mechanics working the day shift in the twin towers:

80

[RandomGuy]

This is another fallacy known as the appeal to ignorance. To put it very simply, in this case the Truther position is right by virtue of ignorance of all the facts. Conspiracy theorists in general love this one because they can always make it -- "we don't know what else "they" are hiding, etc.

Truthers still need to explain the lack of hard physical evidence and the existence of suspects who confessed. If bin Laden wasn't behind it, then why did he claim that his group was? And why are we chasing him into the mountains?

Bin Laden was duped or in on it, of course.

[Don Quixote]

Bin Laden was duped or in on it, of course.

To see bin Laden cooperating with any American administration or business interest is quite a leap!

It's simpler, again, to invoke Occam's Razor and say that bin Laden and his cult followers planned and blew up the Towers, like they said they did.

I have a feeling that Truthers are going to be around awhile -- decades perhaps. They may persist like the JFK-niks.

[ChumpDumper]

Muslim extremists said they did it, said they would do it and tried before. Everyone who really knew anything about Al Qaeda knew they were going to attack something American that year.

[mookie2001]

we really showed bin laden by "chasing him into the mountains"

[mookie2001]

To see bin Laden cooperating with any American administration or business interest is quite a leap!hreally

didnt we once arm, train and fund OBL?

[Nbadan]

Muslim extremists said they did it, said they would do it and tried before. Everyone who really knew anything about Al Qaeda knew they were going to attack something American that year.

Anyone who knows anything about the origins of radical Islam knows that the name, Al-Queda, is a American creation....

[Don Quixote]

didnt we once arm, train and fund OBL?

Quite right. Many years ago, before he became a sworn enemy of the U.S. around 1990.

[Don Quixote]

Anyone who knows anything about the origins of radical Islam knows that the name, Al-Queda, is a American creation....

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

As someone who knows a thing or two about Islam, I would love to know: Is radical Islam an American creation? Or the name "al-Qaeda" American?

[mookie2001]

that wasnt long ago at all, not much of a leap

[Don Quixote]

So ... what are you saying? That it is possible that Osama cooperated with the U.S.?

[mookie2001]

im saying he has done so in the past

[Don Quixote]

And ... it is possible that OBL cooperated with the U.S. in the years leading up to 9-11?

[Yonivore]

im saying he has done so in the past
Yeah, I'm thinking the relationship has become untenable and quite possibly beyond repair.

[Don Quixote]

I'd agree. Some Truthers would have us believe that OBL was in cahoots with the DoD, the State Dept., and the White House, and evidently agreed to stage a horrific attack on NYC and the Pentagon, take the blame for all of it, and in the process setting off war against his terror network, turning much of the world's opinion against him, and causing him to have to hide in a cave somewhere. You're right, it's unlikely.

It's far simpler to say that he planned the attack with the intent to destroy America. No conspiracy theory needed.

[Oscar DeLa]

I don't know what it is but the years leading up to sept 11th were the 90s right?

[ChumpDumper]

Anyone who knows anything about the origins of radical Islam knows that the name, Al-Queda, is a American creation....So? Americans like naming things. It's what we do.

Islamic terrorists have their own things they like to do. 9/11 included.

[RandomGuy]

Opposing forces...think back to physics....
PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 16th time.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[RandomGuy]

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.


The funny thing about this bit is that even if you only consider the first 3 meters instead of the first 12 meters, there is still more than enough force to collapse the building.

In response to this, Dan produced a video from a nice young man who also did some calculations, but forgot that gravity didn't stop accelerating mass once it got moving.

So the best the truther movement can come up with are obvious beginners mistakes in physics to support their "it was too strong to collapse without explosives" bit.

Take bad physics, the inability to answer a straight question when asked, taking quotes out of context, outright making shit up, and what do you think a real jury would make out of that, Dan?

[Galileo]

I ask yet again, for the 16th time.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

You won't believe it.

I just threw a pizza in the oven, and had to step out of the room for five minutes. When I returned, the entire stove had melted down into a pool of metal on my kitchen floor.

Apparently, I had set the temp on my oven to 550 degrees, instead of 450 degrees!

Now I understand why the Twin Towers fell....

[Galileo]

Witnesses near WTC7 described sounds typical of buildings falling down.

Get your facts straight.

they heard the exposions before the building fell, including a countdown.

Get your facts straight.

[DarrinS]

You won't believe it.

I just threw a pizza in the oven, and had to step out of the room for five minutes. When I returned, the entire stove had melted down into a pool of metal on my kitchen floor.

Apparently, I had set the temp on my oven to 550 degrees, instead of 450 degrees!

Now I understand why the Twin Towers fell....


Do you know why blacksmiths heat metal? Notice -- they don't MELT it, just heat it.

Why do they do that?


http://www.jeromegerull.de/fotoblog/the-blacksmith-254.jpg

[DarrinS]

I can see Galileo lurking....thinking of some more dumb shit to say.

[ChumpDumper]

Get your facts straight.How many floors?

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/thumbnails/landmark.jpg

[RandomGuy]

You won't believe it.

I just threw a pizza in the oven, and had to step out of the room for five minutes. When I returned, the entire stove had melted down into a pool of metal on my kitchen floor.

Apparently, I had set the temp on my oven to 550 degrees, instead of 450 degrees!

Now I understand why the Twin Towers fell....

I ask yet again, for the 17th time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[RandomGuy]

Do you know why blacksmiths heat metal? Notice -- they don't MELT it, just heat it.

Why do they do that?


http://www.jeromegerull.de/fotoblog/the-blacksmith-254.jpg


Steel supports must liquify at their melting point of 3000°F in order to weaken and fail, and everything that metalurgists and engineers have told us about heat of only about 700°Fweakening steel is false, and for thousands of years, metal workers like blacksmiths and armorers have just had it all wrong, because they only needed large blast furnaces, spigots, and molds to form horseshoes, swords, and plowshares from liquid metal, and they didn't need a hammer and anvil, as you see in Hollywood movies' special effects.

[Galileo]

they heard the exposions before the building fell, including a countdown.

Get your facts straight.

my bad!

The firemen who checked the scene denied there was any molten metal.

They say the hot oven WEAKENED the steel, but did not MELT the steel!

:madrun

[ChumpDumper]

Home ovens don't get that hot.

[RandomGuy]

my bad!

The firemen who checked the scene denied there was any molten metal.

They say the hot oven WEAKENED the steel, but did not MELT the steel!

:madrun
http://www.trephination.net/gallery/macros/mentalmidget.jpg

[RandomGuy]

my bad!

The firemen who checked the scene denied there was any molten metal.



and of course all molten metal is structural steel...


and it is the height of simplicity to name the type of molten metal in these pictures...

http://hornsjewelry.com/images/molten_metal_pouring.jpg

http://www.bgs.ac.uk/mineralsuk/images/molten.jpg

http://www.molli.org.uk/african_metalwork/images/copper_alloy/copper_alloy11.jpg

http://www.inl.gov/appliedgeosciences/i/mercury2.jpg

http://www.backyardmetalcasting.com/mymachines01/chopsaw03_molten.JPG

[GoGatos.]

What a patriot.

A true American.


If you was 1/2 an American you would agree with Nbadan when he is right.

[Nbadan]

Not sure what you're trying to say here.

As someone who knows a thing or two about Islam, I would love to know: Is radical Islam an American creation? Or the name "al-Qaeda" American?

see for yourself....


IAUDcmaJNWQ


The power of Nightmares Part 2

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Ny0RPMmDmZ8&feature=related

The power of Nightmares Part 3

http://youtube.com/watch?v=L_VDh6xUJWc&feature=related

The power of Nightmares Part 4

http://youtube.com/watch?v=I8ztzg-zCZQ&feature=related

The Power of Nightmares Part 5

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Z3uE_whPDUY&feature=related

The Power of Nightmares Part 6

http://youtube.com/watch?v=8C8QHRUauzE&feature=related

[Don Quixote]

Sorry. My computer can't view the YouTube clips.

I want to know what you are saying: is radical Islam an American creation?

[S_A_Longhorn]

I ask yet again, for the 17th time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

I'll answer your question when you provide video evidence of what actually crashed into the Pentagon.

Why have the various videos of the attack on the Pentagon been withheld from the public?

[RandomGuy]

I'll answer your question when you provide video evidence of what actually crashed into the Pentagon.

Why have the various videos of the attack on the Pentagon been withheld from the public?

They haven't been to my knowledge. The FBI has released the tapes they seized after Freedom of Information Requests.

If you could name/describe the tapes that have been withheld, I can better answer your question.

A few of them can be seen here (http://www.flight77.info/)

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 18th time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[DarrinS]

I'll answer your question when you provide video evidence of what actually crashed into the Pentagon.



Well, there were a ton of aircraft parts at the scene and they have the flight data recorder. What else do you need?

[Galileo]

Well, there were a ton of aircraft parts at the scene and they have the flight data recorder. What else do you need?

Taxpayers pay for those Pentagon video cameras and videos. WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY???

:madrun

Why is the Pentagon promoting conspiracy theories!!!

:madrun

[RandomGuy]

Taxpayers pay for those Pentagon video cameras and videos. WHERE THE FUCK ARE THEY???

:madrun

Why is the Pentagon promoting conspiracy theories!!!

:madrun

A few of them can be seen here (http://www.flight77.info/)

But hey, you aren't really interested in silly things like telling the truth, so...


85 videos
The videos taken from the Pentagon area after the 9/11 attacks were mentioned in the Maguire declaration, where FBI Special Agent, Jacqueline Maguire responded (see below) to a request from Scott Bingham.

In Summary:
She determined that the FBI had 85 videotaptes that might be relevant. Of those, 56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the 29 remaining videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes which showed the Pentagon crash site, 12 "only showed after the impact of Flight 77."
The videotape taken from the Citgo gas station did not show the impact.
No videotapes were located from the Sheraton Hotel, though she located a videotape from the Doubletree Hotel.


85 videos
A list of all the videotapes is available, which shows many of these videotapes do not have footage of the Pentagon at all. Instead, many have footage of the WTC, some are security video tapes taken from a Kinko's in Florida, etc. Some that show the Pentagon were taken days after the attacks, and some in the evening of 9/11/2001.

The security camera footage taken from around the Pentagon included the Citgo, the Doubletree, and the Pentagon parking lot. There was also video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Another video came from a DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. The camera was repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon.

Footage taken after the attack included home video filmed by a tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera, and video taken by a NBC4 Washington reporter.

A complete list of the videos and original documents are below.



The list of 85 videos
Five videotapes were recovered from the post-attack Pentagon crime scene and submitted to the FBI Laboratory in Quantico.

13 videos were obtained by the Defense Protective Services (DPS) - Pentagon Police - on 9/25/2001 from individual filming Pentagon site from Boundary Channel Drive. These included footage from the WTC site in the days after the attcks.

One (1) Beta video tape - interviews in NYC
One (1) DVCAM tape labeled "Twin Towers, World Trade Center" - NYC/WTC
One (1) DVCAM tape - suburban setting, unknown individuals, dated 9/12-13
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/21-22
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC/WTC, 9/22-23
One (1) DVCAM tape - NYC 9/23
One (1) DVCAM tape - interviews in NYC; 10 seconds of Pentagon footage, but not crash site
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
One (1) DVCAM tape - no recorded video or audio information
8 videos were received on 10/11/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected during consent search of residence in Avanel, New Jersey. Pending case on subject.

One (1) damaged Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
One (1) Sony MP-120 8mm video tape
Videos received on 10/15/2001 at Quantico. These videos were collected from surveillance cameras at multiple Kinko's in South Florida.

One (1) TDK 1-160 VHS video tape
One (1) VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
One (1) SONY T-160 VHS video tape
Video received on 10/22/2001 at Quantico. This video was recovered from garbage at residenced in Neenah, Wisconsin by the Neenah Police Department. Investigation on suspect has been closed.

One (1) damaged VHS video tape and housing
Received at Washington Field Office Command Post

These two video tapes included footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene taken by DOD media pool photographers, and were obtained from Navy Rear Admiral Craig Quigley.

One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "1 of 2" & "early 6pm 9/11/01"
One (1) Betacam BCT-30G video cassette, labeled "2 of 2" & "early pm 9/11/01"
Also received at the Washington Field Office Command Post:

One (1) VHS video cassette - witness interviews near Pentagon after the attack
One (1) VHS video cassette, labeled "9/11/2001" - footage of post Pentagon crime scene, obtained from Chief Mastin, Prince William County
One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video casette, wrapped in Pentagon map and labeled on back "1/29/1952 Mohan Shresesa 8/2/2018 Todoroki Japan 9/17/01 3:00 hr Fern/So. Rotary" - Home video taken from car, dated 9/17/2001,showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene very briefly from road (~10 seconds)
One (1) FujiFilm DP121 video cassette, labeled "WJLA-TV" - miscellaneous footage from news reporter, dated 9/18/2001
One (1) Sony MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video, DC sightseeing
One (1) TDK HG Ultimate TC-30 video cassette - Home video, unknown date, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
One (1) Maxell DVM60SE mini digital video cassette - Home video, dated 9/17/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
One (1) Sony Hi8 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/11/2001 showing ~6 seconds of Pentagon footage (not crash site)
One (1) TDK Hi8 MP 120 video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing post-crash Pentagon crime scene
One (1) JVC MP120 8mm video cassette - Home video obtained by DPS on 9/21/2001, showing brief footage of Pentagon (not crash site)
Videos filmed on 9/26/2001 by FBI Forensic Audio-Visual Analysis Unit (FAVIAU) of post-crash Pentagon crime scene.

One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
One (1) original SONY 40 min. Digital Betacam video tape
Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory in Quantico, Virginia, under cover of communication dated 2/19/2002, all depicting WTC footage.

One (1) Betacam video tape
One (1) HDCAM video tape
One (1) Betacam SP video tape
One (1) Betacam SP video tape
One (1) Mini DV video tape maked in part Antonio M.
One (1) DVC PRO video tape
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5A of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1056 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1471 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1788 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1729 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1808 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1813 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B530 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B729 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1563 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1051 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1787 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B2406 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "1B1276 COPY 5 of 5"
One VHS video tape marked in part "CNN RE: BURN VICTIM..."
One VHS video tape marked in part "NIGHTLINE 2/15/2002"
Videos submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico, under communication dated 5/13/2002.


One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
One (1) Sony SDX1-25C video tape
One (1) TDK 8mm video tape
Video obtained by FBI on 9/28/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of WTC after attacks, obtained by Suffolk County, New York Police Department.

One Hi 8mm video cassette tape from Eileen McMahon
Video obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001 and submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico on 5/28/2002. Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 showing footage of second plane hitting WTC and aftermath.

One Mini DV 60 video cassette tape
Video submitted to FBI Laboratory, Quantico under cover of communication dated 9/22/2001. Obtained by FBI NK from Dime Savings Bank, Nutley, New Jersey

One TDK T-160 VHS video tape
Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by NBC4 Washington reporter, with footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) home Video of the terrorist attack on the Pentagon.
Video from DEA HQ security camera atop 700 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, VA. Camera repositioned after attack to show post-crash footage of Pentagon. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) videotape
Home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by tourist traveling past Pentagon and then by AP photographer who borrowed the camera. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) videotape
Copy of home video filmed on 9/11/2001 by AP photographer using camera borrowed from nearby motorist. Footage of post-crash Pentagon crime scene shortly after attack. Provided to FBI on 9/12/2001.

One (1) duplicate video cassette tape dated 9/11/01
Video from cameras at Reagan National Airport parking garage. Both video files show smoke in the distance coming from direction of Pentagon. Obtained by FBI on 9/13/2001.

One (1) CD containing 2 video files
Video from security camera at Citgo Gas Station, 801 S. Joyce Street, Arlington, Virginia. Submitted to FAVIAU to determine if video showed impact of plane into Pentagon. Determined not to show impact. Obtained by FBI on 9/11/2001.

One (1) JVC EHG Hi-Fi videocassette, labeled Day 11 Quarters K
Video from security camera at Doubletree Hotel, 300 Army Navy Drive, Arlington, Virginia. Security video showing rotating footage from different camera locations at hotel; no camera captures impact of plane into Pentagon.

One (1) TDK video tape marked "11C"
Images captured by two separate cameras at the entrance to the Pentagon Mall Terrace parkinng lot. Images capture the impact of the plane into the Pentagon from two different cameras. Obtained from the Pentagon Force Protection Agency via USA/EDVA.

One (1) CD-ROM

All of this can be seen, along with scans of orginal documentation here (http://www.flight77.info/)

I have now answered your question. Now will you FINALLY answer mine with a simple yes or no answer?

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 19th time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[ChumpDumper]

The no-planers have arrived!

[RandomGuy]

The no-planers have arrived!

Heh, there is a splinter group of "truthers" who believe that there was a plane, but it just flew over the pentagon and didn't crash. They are quite adamant (surprise!) about it.

The explosion and everything was stagecrafted.

They have yet to produce witnesses that can actually say "I saw it fly off", and base their whole theory on witness inconsistancies concerning the flight path to the pentagon.

[Nbadan]

:hat

[Nbadan]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

Depends on how many times and different ways would you like the same question answered...

Yes.....Si...Ja...Oui......Ναι

2CHq6JocvDM

[Nbadan]

NpZdulv66n8

[Nbadan]

REUHaOYNMWk

[Nbadan]

XUkbLaFevyg

[Nbadan]

v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Actually V^2 = u^2 + 2 a d

Where v = velocity
u = initial velocity
a = force of gravity
d = distance *(assuming that two floors completely collapsed)

so.......V^2 = 0 + 2 (9.8)(7.6m)
v^2 = 148.96
so.........v = 12.204 m/sec

...but close enough....

[Nbadan]

So since the top floors collapsing never encounter resistance the velocity should never exceed 12 m/sec....


...now lets calculate the resistance force...

..since the building always supported the top floors before the collapse the (mg) remains constant so

Resistance force = The Sum of (mg) + 123 (the number of people supported/floor x the number of floors remaining x 84 kg/person + safety factor

So the resistance force given a mass of 68,000 lbs and g = 9.8 is 669.700 newtons - any safety factor

[DarrinS]

So since the top floors collapsing never encounter resistance the velocity should never exceed 12 m/sec....


...now lets calculate the resistance force...

..since the building always supported the top floors before the collapse the (mg) remains constant so

Resistance force = The Sum of (mg) + 123 (the number of people supported/floor x the number of floors x 84 kg/person + safety factor

So the resistance force given a mass of 68,000 lbs and g = 9.8 is 669.700 newtons - any safety factor


WTF are you trying to calculate?

And what's up with the metric units. This is America, bitch!

By the way, if a falling body doesn't encounter any resistance, it will continue to accelerate, i.e. it's speed will continue to increase over time.

[Nbadan]

By the way, if a falling body doesn't encounter any resistance, it will continue to accelerate, i.e. it's speed will continue to increase over time.

Stay out of this savage, unless you've had over cal3...

[DarrinS]

Stay out of this savage, unless you've had over cal3...


Hey dumbass, I'm a licensed mechanical engineer, so take your cal3 and stick it up your ass.

[Nbadan]

If you were a engineer you would know why I'm using meters...duH!

[DarrinS]

If you were a engineer you would know why I'm using meters...duH!


Well, you can use English units, i.e. feet, DUH!

[Galileo]

Hey dumbass, I'm a licensed mechanical engineer, so take your cal3 and stick it up your ass.

Can you help us design a steel framed structure that can survive earthquakes, tropical storms, blizzards, hailstorms, floods, hurricanes, space junk, tidal waves, typoons, cyclones, tornados, and stuka dive bombers, but will suffer global collapse from an office fire?

:drunk

[DarrinS]

Can you help us design a steel framed structure that can survive earthquakes, tropical storms, blizzards, hailstorms, floods, hurricanes, space junk, tidal waves, typoons, cyclones, tornados, and stuka dive bombers, but will suffer global collapse from an office fire?

:drunk


Sure, but I probably can't design one that can handle being struck by a 255,000 lb object moving at several hundred mph and carrying over 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.

[mookie2001]

Hey dumbass, I'm a licensed mechanical engineer, so take your cal3 and stick it up your ass.come on brah, give some credentials

[Galileo]

Sure, but I probably can't design one that can handle being struck by a 255,000 lb object moving at several hundred mph and carrying over 11,000 gallons of jet fuel.

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. Not sure the relevance of your fantasy.

[Yonivore]

WTC 7 wasn't hit by an airplane. Not sure the relevance of your fantasy.
It wasn't imploded either so, I'm not sure of the relevance of your fantasy...that's gone on for too fucking long now.

[Galileo]

It wasn't imploded either so, I'm not sure of the relevance of your fantasy...that's gone on for too fucking long now.

Expert scientists, engineers, demolition specialists, and architects have already determined that it was imploded.

[Yonivore]

Expert scientists, engineers, demolition specialists, and architects have already determined that it was imploded.
More experts, scientists, engineers, demolition specialists, and architects with intimate knowledge of the site have not made that determination.

Name an expert, scientist, engineer, demolition specialist, or architect connected with the World Trade Center collapse investigation that has made that determination.

Then, produce the scientific paper where they prove it out.

[ChumpDumper]

So since the top floors collapsing never encounter resistance the velocity should never exceed 12 m/sec.... Why not?

[ChumpDumper]

Expert scientists, engineers, demolition specialists, and architects have already determined that it was imploded.There was no reason at all to implode that building.

[Nbadan]

Why not?


Because after the collapsing part hits the part still standing you've got to factor in resistance force...that's the problem with RG's numbers....he confuses mass with force.....for instance, if you throw a rock from a building its mass never changes, it has equal mass at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom, so what does change?

[Nbadan]

Well, you can use English units, i.e. feet, DUH!


No, it's because Force is measured in newton-meters, but I'm sure if you're really a engineer you already knew that...

[ChumpDumper]

Because after the collapsing part hits the part still standing you've got to factor in resistance force...that's the problem with RG's numbers....he confuses mass with force.....for instance, if you throw a rock from a building its mass never changes, it has equal mass at the top, in the middle, and at the bottom, so what does change?But you were talking specifically about velocity. Are you saying if you throw a rock from a building its velocity never changes on the way down?

[ChumpDumper]

The thing I never understand is that dan admits that he doesn't know and never knew how much weight each building was designed to support and consequentially exactly how much resistance the lower floors of each building would provide during a collapse. How can anyone make an equation without knowing that?

[Nbadan]

But you were talking specifically about velocity. Are you saying if you throw a rock from a building its velocity never changes on the way down?

No...no...no....I said that the fastest Velocity the collapsing building would have was when it encountered no resistance...

[Nbadan]

The thing I never understand is that dan admits that he doesn't know and never knew how much weight each building was designed to support and consequentially exactly how much resistance the lower floors of each building would provide during a collapse. How can anyone make an equation without knowing that?

..because I'm using constants for mass and not factoring in any safety margin...

[Nbadan]

Are you saying if you throw a rock from a building its velocity never changes on the way down?

I said Mass never changes, but RG seems to think that things get more dense as they fall....

[ChumpDumper]

No...no...no....I said that the fastest Velocity the collapsing building would have was when it encountered no resistance...You said this:


So since the top floors collapsing never encounter resistance the velocity should never exceed 12 m/sec....

Why not? Once things start falling, they fall. If anything below it is made to collapse, it falls too and is added to that initial mass -- making more mass falling on less intact building.

Are you really accounting for all of that in time?

[ChumpDumper]

I said Mass never changes, but RG seems to think that things get more dense as they fall....As more floors collapse, wouldn't there be more mass falling?

[Nbadan]

Why not? Once things start falling, they fall. If anything below it is made to collapse, it falls too and is added to that initial mass -- making more mass falling on less intact building.

Are you really accounting for all of that in time?


...because the part still standing is an opposing force - it pushes upward as opposed to the part that is falling which pushes down...

[ChumpDumper]

...because the part still standing is an opposing force - it pushes upward as opposed to the part that is falling which pushes down...but it doesn't remain constant because its mass is being reduced as the falling mass increases.

[Nbadan]

As more floors collapse, wouldn't there be more mass falling?

Depends on whether you still believe in the long-debunked pancake theory, none-the-less my point is to prove that given that the force pushing upward exceeded the force pushing downward, the collapse of the towers should have taken much more than 12, hell, much more than 20 seconds...

[ChumpDumper]

Depends on whether you still believe in the long-debunked pancake theory, none-the-less my point is to prove that given that the force pushing upward exceeded the force pushing downward, the collapse of the towers should have taken much more than 12, hell, much more than 20 seconds...No, actually I believe the building falling down theory. As the building collapsed, there was through the time of collapse an increasing mass falling on an decreasing mass.

Please tell me how this is not true.

[Nbadan]

but it doesn't remain constant because its mass is being reduced as the falling mass increases.

Your assuming that all of the mass fell on the part which was still standing, and you can see for yourself that much of the mass fell off to either side....besides since I didn't factor in a safety margin, this should more than make up for any added mass you might think, but can't prove, was added to the collapsing part of the building...

[ChumpDumper]

Your assuming that all of the mass fell on the part which was still standing, and you can see for yourself that much of the mass fell off to either side.How much? If you are going to claim some kind of difinitive formula, you have to give actual numbers.
...besides since I didn't factor in a safety margin, this should more than make up for any added mass you might think, but can't prove, was added to the collapsing part of the building...There you go again with the safety margin. If you don't know that, how can you make any formula involving the upwards force of each building? You simply can't. You are just making stuff up.

[Nbadan]

As the building collapsed, there was an ever-increasing mass falling on an ever-decreasing mass.

How is the mass increasing? the part of the building that is falling is crumbling the part still standing....as would happen with opposing forces...

[Nbadan]

How much? If you are going to claim some kind of difinitive formula, you have to give actual numbers.

I have given definitive numbers, much more so than RG...

[Nbadan]

There you go again with the safety margin. If you don't know that, how can you make any formula involving the upwards force of each building? You simply can't. You are just making stuff up.

More likely you don't understand physics..

[ChumpDumper]

How is the mass increasing?How is it not? What happens to the the parts of the building that aren't attached to the standing buillding anymore? Do they disappear? Do they float away into space?
the part of the building that is falling is crumbling the part still standing....as would happen with opposing forces...Is the part that is still standing staying the same size as the building collapses? Yes or no.

[ChumpDumper]

More likely you don't understand physics..You just admitted you don't know two variables that are critical to and would greatly influence any real equation that would describe the collapse of the WTC buildings, and this is the best you can come up with?

[Nbadan]

How is it not? What happens to the the parts of the building that aren't attached to the standing buillding anymore? Do they disappear? Do they float away into space?

Is a building stronger on the top floors or on the bottom floors? As the building falls it looses acceleration because it meets resistance...but in order for the buildings to fall in 10-12 seconds the building gains acceleration which makes no sense...

[ChumpDumper]

Is a building stronger on the top floors or on the bottom floors?Hey, there's another variable you left out!
As the building falls it looses acceleration because it meets resistance.How much? It certainly didn't stop, so it's not like it had to start over from zero every time it met a floor.
..but in order for the buildings to fall in 10-12 seconds the building gains acceleration which makes no sense...Does the falling mass increase as the building collapses? Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

...in order for the building to fall 361 meters in 14 secomds it would have to fall at ~25 m/sec, but how can this be if at it's top velocity, when it encountered no resistance at all, it was only falling at ~9 m/sec.....

[ChumpDumper]

...in order for the building to fall 361 meters it would have to fall at ~25 m/sec, but how can this be if at it's top velocity, when it encountered no resistance at all, it was only falling at ~9 m/sec.....Because your equations are hopelessly simplistic. You can't account for several variables that would definitely affect the outcome.

[Nbadan]

Hey, there's another variable you left out!

A variable that works against you Chumpy...

[Nbadan]

Because your equations are hopelessly simplistic. You can't account for several variables that would definitely affect the outcome.


Well then Newton's second law of motion is over-simplistic to you too....

[ChumpDumper]

A variable that works against you Chumpy...Exactly -- you don't even know the things that would support you! Since you already have an incredible bias to see what you want to see, you ignore everything else once you think you've figured it out. You are blinded by your need to be right.

[ChumpDumper]

Well then Newton's second law of motion is over-simplistic to you too....You can try to be condescending if you please, but you refuse to answer a simple yes or no question. You are in denial.

[Nbadan]

Exactly -- you don't even know the things that would support you! Since you already have an incredible bias to see what you want to see, you ignore everything else once you think you've figured it out. You are blinded by your need to be right.

I'm using mathematics which has no bias....the way I see it, someone has a bias here, but it's not me...prove that my math is wrong....

[ChumpDumper]

I'm using mathematics which has no bias....the way I see it, someone has a bias here, but it's not me.Oh, it's you.
..prove that my math is wrong....I already did -- I've shown several factors that you have left out. Your job is to account for those now.

Good luck.

[Nbadan]

If anything I have factored in errors on the side of conservatism to deflate your argument that my numbers are wrong...so I have nothing to prove...

[ChumpDumper]

If anything I have factored in errors on the side of conservatism to deflate your argument that my numbers are wrong...so I have nothing to prove...Does the falling mass increase as the building collapses?

Yes or no.

[Nbadan]

No

[ChumpDumper]

Does the falling mass increase as the building collapses?

Yes or no.
NoThen what happens to the rest of the building as it becomes separated from the part of the building that remains standing?

[Nbadan]

It gets pulverized....that is, what doesn't collapse to the sides...see for yourself...

j2HBFHuNmWc

[ChumpDumper]

It gets pulverized....that is, what doesn't collapse to the sidesAll the steel is pulverized into something without mass? Now you are ignoring laws of physics. You are extremely biased.

[sabar]

Argument by physics is very weak IMO.

You have to factor in friction, air resistance, a variable mass, and a variable opposing force. That is one nasty looking calculus equation that I seriously doubt anyone here can calculate, let alone a professional. Even if you assume the mass and forces are constant you are left with the gargantuan task of estimating those constants. Anyone can pick arbitrary numbers that both support and oppose the falling speed. Even modeling the falling speed of a basketball opposed only by air resistance is not easy and uses rather complex drag equations.

Unless someone here has a PhD in mechanical physics, next.

[ChumpDumper]

Argument by physics is very weak IMO.

You have to factor in friction, air resistance, a variable mass, and a variable opposing force. That is one nasty looking calculus equation that I seriously doubt anyone here can calculate, let alone a professional. Even if you assume the mass and forces are constant you are left with the gargantuan task of estimating those constants. Anyone can pick arbitrary numbers that both support and oppose the falling speed. Even modeling the falling speed of a basketball opposed only by air resistance is not easy and uses rather complex drag equations.

Unless someone here has a PhD in mechanical physics, next.
:clap

[Nbadan]

Argument by physics is very weak IMO.

You have to factor in friction, air resistance, a variable mass, and a variable opposing force. That is one nasty looking calculus equation that I seriously doubt anyone here can calculate, let alone a professional. Even if you assume the mass and forces are constant you are left with the gargantuan task of estimating those constants. Anyone can pick arbitrary numbers that both support and oppose the falling speed. Even modeling the falling speed of a basketball opposed only by air resistance is not easy and uses rather complex drag equations.

Unless someone here has a PhD in mechanical physics, next.


Weak....

Don't stop short, please tell everyone what friction and air resistance would do to falling mass....would it increase or decrease the time it would take for the building to collapse?

[sabar]

$100 to the first person that can calculate a tensor field equation for the supporting force of one perimeter column of one floor of the WTC. Remember, the force will be variable depending on the mass above it and the orientation of the mass above it.

It's easier to calculate a trajectory to the moon for a homemade rocket than to figure out the retarded amount of forces in a building collapse this large.

[sabar]

Weak....

Don't stop short, please tell everyone what friction and air resistance would do to falling mass....would it increase or decrease the time it would take for the building to collapse?

It would decrease the time by a factor ranging from (0, infinity)
Hence why speculation is 100% useless.

[Nbadan]

what would a opposing force do to falling mass?

[Nbadan]

It would decrease the time by a factor ranging from (0, infinity)
Hence why speculation is 100% useless.

it would actually increase the time....

[sabar]

it would actually increase the time....

Yes, I meant decrease velocity

[sabar]

But what we don't know is the sums of these vector fields. The resistance if negligible would make the falling speed differ not greatly than the freefall. If the resistance is significant, then the speed should be much slower and hence something is amiss.

But all people can do is speculate as to the opposing force to meet their agenda.

[sabar]

No one can even solve the most simple formula, Newton's second law.

Fnet = d/dt (mv)

because mass and velocity are variable

[Nbadan]

We don't know the exact vector numbers, but we know the mass of the falling part of the building, we know what mass the building was able to support before it collapsed, we know how fast the building fell with no resistance, we know that not all the mass fell on the part which was standing, we know that the building somehow gains acceleration or it couldn't have fallen in 10-12 seconds......we know that there was a resistance force, however negligible...

[Nbadan]

...that's science, you take what you know and you form conjectures then you try and find a contradiction that disproves your hypothesis...

[ChumpDumper]

We don't know the exact vector numbers, but we know the mass of the falling part of the building, we know what mass the building was able to support before it collapsed, we know how fast the building fell with no resistance, we know that not all the mass fell on the part which was standing, we know that the building somehow gains acceleration or it couldn't have fallen in 10-12 seconds......we know that there was a resistance force...What is this "somehow gains acceleration" business? Did the government turn off the gravity?

[ChumpDumper]

...that's science, you take what you know and you form conjectures then you try and find a contradiction that disproves your hypothesis...But you don't know enough to even make an equation.

[Nbadan]

What is this "somehow gains acceleration" business? Did the government turn off the gravity?

Gravity is a constant 9.8 factor on earth....

[ChumpDumper]

Gravity is a constant 9.8 factor on earth....Another thing you casually ignored.

[sabar]

You forgot experimentation, the most important part of the scientific method.
Until then it's all theorycrafting for lack of a better term, especially when we make multiple assumptions on something with thousands of variables that can't be held constant.

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

[Nbadan]

But you don't know enough to even make an equation.

We know enough to form a hypothesis, and your job, should you chose to accept it, to find am exception, or contradiction which proves the hypothesis is wrong..in science it's called proof by contradiction...

[sabar]

Gravity is a constant 9.8 factor on earth....

Technically it varies with height and region but I imagine that 9.8 is a fair average value.

Contrary to the above comic, I am, in fact, going to bed.

[ChumpDumper]

We know enough to form a hypothesis, and your job, should you chose to accept it, to find am exception, or contradiction which proves the hypothesis is wrong..in science it's called proof by contradiction...I didn't even have to go that far. You left out so many important variables and ignored common sense to the point that a non math major could point out just how bad your equation was.

You provided your equation, I gave you proof that your equation sucks.

You're welcome.

[Nbadan]

Technically it varies with height and region but I imagine that 9.8 is a fair average value.

Contrary to the above comic, I am, in fact, going to bed.

It's the gravity constant we use in college physics....

[Nbadan]

You provided your equation, I gave you proof that your equation sucks.

:lol

Do you know what a proof is chumpy?

[ChumpDumper]

:lol

Do you know what a proof is chumpy?Sure. I also know that you said the falling mass didn't increase one gram during the collapse. That is completely ridiculous and makes it rather easy to not take anything you say seriously.

[sabar]

It's the gravity constant we use in college physics....

Which is an assumption as people wouldn't get far in a physics course with this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/6/1/7/61762a8a642e458d007f31381333a6c6.png

[Nbadan]

K.I.S.S.....you know what I would like to see is someone who knows something about physics provide a hypothesis in this forum that will stand up to proof that the buildings could have collapsed in 10-12 seconds with no bombs...

[ChumpDumper]

K.I.S.S.....you know what I would like to see is someone who knows something about physics provide a hypothesis in this forum that will stand up to proof that the buildings could have collapsed in 10-12 seconds with no bombs...Why is anyone saying they collapsed in 10-12 seconds?

http://algoxy.com/conc/images/southcorestands.gif

Why is much of the core still standing?

Wouldn't any controlled demolition have to have taken it out?

[ChumpDumper]

Oh look -- this part of the north tower stood for several seconds after the initial collapse:

http://home.comcast.net/~jeffrey.king2/wsb/media/56016/site1074.jpg

What controlled demo equation accounts for this?

[Nbadan]

What I wanna know is what made the core collapse....

[ChumpDumper]

And really, let's keep it very simple. Here's a typical floorplan of one of the upper floors of 2 WTC:

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/costar_wtc/2WorldTradeCenterTypFloorPlan.jpg

Where does one place all the charges to cut all those columns undetected?

Keep in mind all but one of the floors above 55 was fully occupied.

[Nbadan]

big fires, no collapse...

rNf0jkgwZ90

th2bnG_7UyY

ZgAhRB_-nis

small fire, collapse..

G4SEhMpbo74

[ChumpDumper]

Don't try to change the subject with YouTubes of other buildings.

Answer my question about 2 World Trade Center.

Where would you place all the charges?

[Nbadan]

Obviously on the core column and trusses on the lower floors....

I84-_hcbtyU

[ChumpDumper]

Obviously on the core column and trusses on the lower floors....1) The collapse started on the upper floors.

2) The collapse progressed from the top down.

3) At least a portion of each core was left standing for several seconds after the towers collapsed.

You just struck out.

[ChumpDumper]

Here's a lower level floorplan from 1 WTC:

http://www.intellnet.org/resources/costar_wtc/1WorldTradeCenterTypFloorPlan.jpg

As I said before, it's basically all elevators down there. Dan contends that all the elevator shafts were completely "sealed" and had been inaccessible to anyone since 1970.

Where do you put the all the charges?

[Nbadan]

Pics don't lie...

zuq0ANHxvlM

and the explosions traveled up the building

IX9gdRST6zM

[ChumpDumper]

Since you claim there were explosions on multiple floors, tell me where the charges were placed on each floorplan.


In occupied offices.

[ChumpDumper]

And please -- two tiny so-called "squibs" going off when the building was already in full collapse?

Lame video.

But please -- tell us where in each floorplan the charges were placed. They correspond roughly to the floors you claim to see squibs in.

[Al Gore]

I swear Chump must work for an insurance agency in the claims department. No matter what type of accident you have he will keep asking questions till you give up and fix your own car.

At first I thought he was really curios but even when faced with the truth he stands his ground like a stubborn old man at a VA hospital refusing to let the doctor remove his boxers.

[Al Gore]

I ask yet again, for the 16th time.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.



ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF YOUR PARENTS HAVING SEX? NO........BUT YOUR HERE AREN'T YOU?

[Yonivore]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF YOUR PARENTS HAVING SEX? NO........BUT YOUR HERE AREN'T YOU?
I saw his parents having sex...

...at the San Antonio Zoo.

[smeagol]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF YOUR PARENTS HAVING SEX? NO........BUT YOUR HERE AREN'T YOU?


Great analogy . . . :rolleyes

[Yonivore]

Great analogy . . . :rolleyes
I actually think it is...

a) His parents had sex (the building collapsed due to structural failure)

or

b) He's a product of invitro fertilization (the buildings were imploded)

Which is more likely? The resulting pregnancy, birth, and maturation are the same, no matter the initiating factor.

Of course, there's always...

c) His mother was the town whore and there's no fucking telling who is his father.

[DarrinS]

No, it's because Force is measured in newton-meters, but I'm sure if you're really a engineer you already knew that...


No, force is measured in pounds (lbs) or Newtons. Newton-meters is force * distance, which is a torque or "moment".


You and Galileo are dumbfucks.

[DarrinS]

Argument by physics is very weak IMO.

You have to factor in friction, air resistance, a variable mass, and a variable opposing force. That is one nasty looking calculus equation that I seriously doubt anyone here can calculate, let alone a professional. Even if you assume the mass and forces are constant you are left with the gargantuan task of estimating those constants. Anyone can pick arbitrary numbers that both support and oppose the falling speed. Even modeling the falling speed of a basketball opposed only by air resistance is not easy and uses rather complex drag equations.

Unless someone here has a PhD in mechanical physics, next.


These equations are not solveable analytically, i.e. in closed form. They need to be solved numerically, i.e. simulated on a computer.

[Yonivore]

You and Galileo are dumbfucks.
Captain Obvious has joined the discussion.

[DarrinS]

Besides all the physical evidence, which strongly favors the "official account", common sense suggests that this is not even REMOTELY possible.


Remember, this is the same administration that couldn't even "out" a covert CIA agent (secretary) without getting busted. What makes you think they could pull off the mother of all conspiracies?


Hell, Dick Cheney can't even go bird hunting without shooting someone in the ass.

[ChumpDumper]

I swear Chump must work for an insurance agency in the claims department. No matter what type of accident you have he will keep asking questions till you give up and fix your own car.

At first I thought he was really curios but even when faced with the truth he stands his ground like a stubborn old man at a VA hospital refusing to let the doctor remove his boxers.Where were the charges placed in the working offices?

[DarrinS]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF YOUR PARENTS HAVING SEX? NO........BUT YOUR HERE AREN'T YOU?


By the way, YOUR retarded.

[Nbadan]

No, force is measured in pounds (lbs) or Newtons. Newton-meters is force * distance, which is a torque or "moment".


You and Galileo are dumbfucks.


1.36 Newton-meter = 1 Jules....your no engineer or you would know this....


.......liar.....

[DarrinS]

1.36 Newton-meter = 1 Jules....your no engineer or you would know this....


.......liar.....


By the way, if you are trying to say "you are" it's spelled "you're".

Newton*meters, Joules, foot*lbs, BTU, etc. are units of ENERGY.


And, 1 Newton*meter = 1 Joule. Don't know where you pulled 1.36 from. Galileo's ass?

[Nbadan]

By the way, if you are trying to say "you are" it's spelled "you're".

Newton*meters, Joules, foot*lbs, BTU, etc. are units of ENERGY.


And, 1 Newton*meter = 1 Joule. Don't know where you pulled 1.36 from. Galileo's ass?

1 N = kg * meter/sec^2, thus a force of 1 N acting on a mass of 1 kg produces an acceleration of 1 m/second^2....and my bad, 1 foot/lbs is equal to about 1.36 joules but being a engineer, I'm sure you already knew that..

:rolleyes

[Galileo]

Why is anyone saying they collapsed in 10-12 seconds?

http://algoxy.com/conc/images/southcorestands.gif

Why is much of the core still standing?

Wouldn't any controlled demolition have to have taken it out?

The 9/11 Commission says the Twin Towers fell in 10 seconds and 8 seconds repectively.

[ChumpDumper]

All of it? The whole thing? Is the commission report a scientific paper?

Where do you think all the charges were placed?

As your math degree makes you a demolitions expert, I expect you to be specific.

[I am Tom]

By the way, YOUR retarded.


^ And how is this considered Real 9-11 Research? ^

Is there a topic in this forum where us adults can post?

[Yonivore]

Is there a topic in this forum where us adults can post?
Probably not.

[Big Worm]

Just got done reading all pages dis is some shit pat-na!

[ClingingMars]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

my sentiments about these 9/11 idiots.

- Mars

[DarrinS]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

my sentiments about these 9/11 idiots.

- Mars


Great site. Even that lunatic doesn't believe in this shit.


God job.

[Don Quixote]

I can't believe the Truthers are still arguing this stuff.

Okay ... I'm feeling benevolent. Truthers, you are right. I believe you. The government, with the possible cooperation of al-Qaeda, our sworn enemy, engineered 9-11 for the purposes of building an American empire, stealing oil, and furthering the military-industrial complex. I'm with you. You win.

Feel better now?

[mookie2001]

who are you talking to?

[Nbadan]

who are you talking to?

It's probably the convenient, easy-to-attack straw man that the 911 faith crowd likes to group all people who see contradiction in the official 911 fairy tale from a government which has lied to the American people no less than 4000 times about the Iraq war, but we are supposed to believe that they didn't lie at all about 911 even though they controlled every aspect of a investigation which they didn't want to fund in the first place...

[Nbadan]

...at least I'm man enough to admit that there either was a conspiracy which involved placing bombs in the WTC towers, or there wasn't, but none of the 911 faith crowd can admit that there is even the remote possibility that all these anomalies we have talked about in this thread can point to anything other than the official 911 fairy tale, even though they can't provide any scientific backing for their beliefs....that's about all you need to know about that crowd....

[ChumpDumper]

Too bad every "anomaly" completely falls apart under any kind of scrutiny. Whenever that happens, you just change the subject and add another five pages to the thread.

[Nbadan]

...the only 'scrutiny' I'm interested in are those based on sound scientific principals, anything else is just opinion and you know what those are worth...

[ChumpDumper]

Let me know when you post something based on sound scientific principles.

[Nbadan]

..let me know when you can define scientific principles...

[ChumpDumper]

Let me know when you get some common sense.

[ChumpDumper]

Or tell me where all the charges were placed.

[RandomGuy]

I said Mass never changes, but RG seems to think that things get more dense as they fall....

I said and think no such thing.

[RandomGuy]

Depends on how many times and different ways would you like the same question answered...

Yes.....Si...Ja...Oui......Ναι

2CHq6JocvDM

This news clip does not answer the question.

The question, as asked was:

Are there any eyewitness accounts of visible explosive devices at the World Trade Center?

Your "proof" video was about a truck that had explosives in it (it was later determined that the truck in question was on its way to (sur-fucking-prise) a contruction site.

NOWHERE IN THAT VIDEO DID ANY WITNESS SAY "I SAW EXPLOSIVE DEVICES WIRED TO COLUMNS AT THE WORLD TRADE CENTER, SO THE ANSWER IS NOT "YES" BUT "NO".

[RandomGuy]

I said Mass never changes, but RG seems to think that things get more dense as they fall....


What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

The more mass was from the collapsing floors.

Nowhere did I say that the debris got more dense as it fell, rather it got more voluminous, as more floors collapsed and added to the falling avalanche of debris.

Either you lack the reading comprehension to understand what I wrote, or you are deliberately trying to distort it.

Which is it Dan? Stupid or lying?

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 20th time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[RandomGuy]

Hell, I might as well skip ahead another couple of times, just because I doubt it will ever be answered by the lying sacks of shit in the "truth" movement.

I ask yet again, for the 21st time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 21st time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[RandomGuy]

I ask yet again, for the 22nd time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?

We all know the answer, but only one of us lacks the honesty to answer the question.

[DarrinS]

_jgaddguhs4

[RandomGuy]

v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second



Actually V^2 = u^2 + 2 a d

Where v = velocity
u = initial velocity
a = force of gravity
d = distance *(assuming that two floors completely collapsed)

so.......V^2 = 0 + 2 (9.8)(7.6m)
v^2 = 148.96
so.........v = 12.204 m/sec

...but close enough....

Holy shit, almost a year after I first posted this, the guy with the math degree finally gets around to actually checking my math.

Unfortunately for your argument, 12.2 m/sec is actually worse than 12 m/sec.

I was being generous.

[RandomGuy]

what would a opposing force do to falling mass?

It would tend to decelerate it to some degree.

Unfortunately for you, gravity is constantly accelerating objects towards the center of the earth.

So for each momentary deceleration offered by any given floor, you then get another 3.4 meters of acceleration by gravity.

At least you are finally trying to wrap your brain around it.

[RandomGuy]

Depends on whether you still believe in the long-debunked pancake theory, none-the-less my point is to prove that given that the force pushing upward exceeded the force pushing downward, the collapse of the towers should have taken much more than 12, hell, much more than 20 seconds...

Which is precisely about how long it took for the buildings to collapse.

qLShZOvxVe4

[RandomGuy]

Unfortunately for the "truth" movement, they don't have a monopoly on youtube videos.

As many as they can dig up to support their contradictory and illogical arguments, I can post pointing out the lies and pseudoscience.

[RandomGuy]

Argument by physics is very weak IMO.

You have to factor in friction, air resistance, a variable mass, and a variable opposing force. That is one nasty looking calculus equation that I seriously doubt anyone here can calculate, let alone a professional. Even if you assume the mass and forces are constant you are left with the gargantuan task of estimating those constants. Anyone can pick arbitrary numbers that both support and oppose the falling speed. Even modeling the falling speed of a basketball opposed only by air resistance is not easy and uses rather complex drag equations.

Unless someone here has a PhD in mechanical physics, next.

1) One doesn't have to know the mass to find the proportional forces.
2) Gravitational acceleration is a constant.
3) Distance fallen is a constant.

So you have a relational term, m=mass, known distances, and known acceleration. This is more than enough to fill in terms in the basic equations of motion and acceleration.

What you can show is the relative reasonableness of the underlying assumptions.

The truther underlying assumption:

"the buildings were too strong to have collapsed without explosives"

Can be tested with rather basic physics, as I have demonstrated.

Either the overall resistance provided by the building approaches or exceeds the amount of force of the falling mass or it doesn't.

Using GENEROUS starting assumptions the overall resistance of the underlying structure is a TINY FRACTION of the force of the falling mass.

One would have to add in a LOT of variables to change this underlying truth, and lord knows the truthers have tried.

Eventually, they always give up, because they can't distort elementary physics the way they do everything else.

Science prevails.

[RandomGuy]

Your assuming that all of the mass fell on the part which was still standing, and you can see for yourself that much of the mass fell off to either side....besides since I didn't factor in a safety margin, this should more than make up for any added mass you might think, but can't prove, was added to the collapsing part of the building...

I calculated, using generous assumptions that there was about 29 times the amount of force needed to collapse the building.

Given this, if 95% of the mass fell off to the side there would still have been enough force to collapse the buildng.

Oh great math guru, what is 1/29 in percentages?

[Don Quixote]

...at least I'm man enough to admit that there either was a conspiracy which involved placing bombs in the WTC towers, or there wasn't, but none of the 911 faith crowd can admit that there is even the remote possibility that all these anomalies we have talked about in this thread can point to anything other than the official 911 fairy tale, even though they can't provide any scientific backing for their beliefs....that's about all you need to know about that crowd....

Why are you coming after me?

I said I agree with the Truthers! You all are right.

So now what?

[RandomGuy]

I have given definitive numbers, much more so than RG...

[vitriol deleted for the sake of civility by poster] You have done no such thing.

Why are you letting this thread make you into a liar?

[RandomGuy]

PE= m *9.8*413= 4073m

Mass is, by definition, simply a measurement of how much force a given amount of material will exert AT REST on an object that is resisting gravity.

SOOOO

The top floor would hit the ground with the same force as a 4073 story building, if that fall was unimpeded.

Now let's consider the fall of the top 30 stories.

They fell through the 3-5 floors of damaged sections and impacted the building below with some amount of force.

Let's call the distance accelerated as 3 floors and be generous. This is 11 meters.

Acceration of an object for 11 meters at 70% of gravity(dan's figure), would yeild an ending velocity of:


v^2= 2ad=2*9.8*.7*11=150=v^2, find the square root of 150, and bada bing, you get 12 meters per second

Substitute this into the kinetic energy equation:
ke= 150*.5*m=ke=75m

This means the 30 floor section impacts the undamaged portion with the kinetic energy of SEVENTY FIVE TIMES ITS MASS.

Think about this for a moment.

The lower section of the building is designed to hold that 30 stories stationary plus a safety margin of 10 or 20%. So the maximum force that the underlying structure could apply to that falling section is 1.2 times its mass.

Further:
That falling section having as much kinetic energy as 75 times its mass means that it is effectively applying the same amount of force at the impact point that a 2270 story building would. if you held it stationary. (simple math: 30*75)
For the statement "the building would not have collapsed without explosives" implies that the building could have been TWENTY TWO TIMES TALLER THAN IT ACTUALLY WAS without collapsing. :rolleyes

STILL FURTHER

Your calculations seem to imply that the building structure below could absorb 30% of the falling energy.

IN JUST THE FIRST 11 METERS OF A 400 METER COLLAPSE THERE IS 62 TIMES THE AMOUNT OF FORCE REQUIRED TO COLLAPSE THE BUILDING.

Your assumption of about 1/3 the energy used to collapse the building is about 20 times what is reasonable. (1/62*20= 1/3) (more actually, if you consider the further distance and mass)

What happens, then when MORE mass is added AND accelerated?

Even if half the mass falls away or off to the side, there is still FAR more force and energy than would be needed to collapse the building WITHOUT ANY EXPLOSIVES.


The funny thing about this bit is that even if you only consider the first 3 meters instead of the first 12 meters, there is still more than enough force to collapse the building.

In response to this, Dan produced a video from a nice young man who also did some calculations, but forgot that gravity didn't stop accelerating mass once it got moving.

So the best the truther movement can come up with are obvious beginners mistakes in physics to support their "it was too strong to collapse without explosives" bit.

Take bad physics, the inability to answer a straight question when asked, taking quotes out of context, outright making shit up, and what do you think a real jury would make out of that, Dan?

[DarrinS]

Which is precisely about how long it took for the buildings to collapse.

qLShZOvxVe4


:clap

[RandomGuy]

...at least I'm man enough to admit that there either was a conspiracy which involved placing bombs in the WTC towers, or there wasn't, but none of the 911 faith crowd can admit that there is even the remote possibility that all these anomalies we have talked about in this thread can point to anything other than the official 911 fairy tale, even though they can't provide any scientific backing for their beliefs....that's about all you need to know about that crowd....


More distortions.

I have repeatedly acknowledged the possibility of bombs in the WTC towers.

It is possible.

I gave this theory an honest shot, and it did not explain the observed phenomena better than the progressive gravity collapse.

The NIST report provides thousands of pages of supporting scientific data, which you have ignored.

IT IS THE HEIGHT OF DISHONESTY TO IGNORE THAT SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE AND SAY THAT NO ONE HAS PROVIDED ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE GRAVITY COLLAPSE.

[RandomGuy]

Utimately, one has to look at evidence provided, ask honest questions, use critical thinking, and come to some sort of conclusion.

I have repeatedly asked ONE honest question of the truthers here, and elsewhere.

NOT ONCE have I EVER gotten an honest answer. For a movement dedicated to "truth" that smacks of rank hypocrisy.

[RandomGuy]

No one can even solve the most simple formula, Newton's second law.

Fnet = d/dt (mv)

because mass and velocity are variable

But each floor of the building was ultimately designed to resist support the weight of the structure above it.

This weight would be equal, by definition to ONE mass regardless of whether that mass was one gram or a million tonnes. So the underlying structure can hold ONE mass plus a safety factor of some sort.

That safety factor can be thought of in terms of the mass of the building.

If you assume that safety factor is 200%, then ultimately if the building collapse begins at the 90th floor out of 110, the lower 90 floors could support a structure weighing twice what the upper 20 floors would weigh.

This is the relative forces involved.

The simple physics here shows that the collapse about 25-30 floors down applies a dynamic force to the floor below it of about 29+ times that of the stationary mass.

Meaning that if the truthers are to be believed, the 80 floors below the collapsing section could have easily supported a safety factor of 2900% of the stationary mass.

Follow this logically and apply that to the 30 floors, 30*29, and you get a building that could have conceivedly been almost a thousand stories tall.

Since I have yet to see, even 40 years after the initial construction of the WTC towers, a building that is two miles high, I think it is a safe assumption that the safety factor was much less than 2900%.

In my calculations I ALWAYS gave favorable assumptions to the truther movement, and there was still more than enough force to ultimately collapse the buildng.

[RandomGuy]

Where does one place all the charges to cut all those columns undetected?


Obviously on the core column and trusses on the lower floors...


Please provide a video showing where any portion of the building collapsed or started moving before being impacted by debris.

[RandomGuy]

... and of course all of this happened without anyone seeing explosive devices, without glass flying in all directions because the magic explosives were strong enough to cut the massive lower floor columns, but not big enough to send glass flying in all directions at thousands of feet per second...

[Yonivore]

Which is precisely about how long it took for the buildings to collapse.

qLShZOvxVe4
Nice find RG. What say you Galileo? Nbadan?

Also of interest, is the video of the collapse of WTC 1 wherein you can clearly see the collapse begins at the level of the fires and not lower in the building.

[Yonivore]

More of his videos (http://www.youtube.com/profile_videos?user=RKOwens4&p=r)
I'm going to watch them all...how 'bout you?

[RandomGuy]

(Begin EDIT)
FOR THOSE OF YOU READING THIS FOR THE FIRST TIME, SEE PAGES 3 AND 4 for the NIST FAQ that answers the biggest "truther" questions.(end EDIT)

Since the 9-11 CTers like to copy and paste ad inifinitum, let's see if we can get some good stuff here.

It might surprise you CTers but there is a whole cottage industry built up around your bullshit.

They don't sell T-shirts, mugs, or crappy videos.

http://www.lolloosechange.co.nr/

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6243624912447824934

http://www.911mysteriesguide.com/

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf

Here is a gem: The 9-11 "truthers" in their own "like, words". Icky.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7216643725166640147&hl=en

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/

http://wtc.nist.gov/

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

http://www.911myths.com/

Best one out of all the lot so far:
http://www.debunking911.com/

Mike Walter talking about the plane hitting the pentagon, and how irritated he is with the 9-11 "truth" movement for lying about what he said.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ycPUDktZpCU

Link to a TON of debunking links:
http://www.debunking911.com/links.htm

Here ARE SOME REALLY PRECIOUS LINKS.

9-11 "truth" scholars turning on each other. You thought they were unstable and kooky when they talk about the government, wait until they start talking about each other.

http://www.911myths.com/html/911_infighting_links.html

Dan, if you are so convinced of the truth in your position, tell me which of these websites you have read through?

[RandomGuy]

A whole page of decent debunking links. (http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/home)

Let's see if the twoofers are really dedicated to "doing research"

[I am Tom]

I ask yet again, for the 22nd time a simple yes or no question.

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF VISIBLE EXPLOSIVE DEVICES?





ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF STONEHENGE BEING BUILT?

[RandomGuy]

Non sequitur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non_sequitur_%28logic%29)

[RandomGuy]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF STONEHENGE BEING BUILT?

There are no living witnesses. Easy question.

It might even be relevant if we were talking about how stonehenge was built. Perhaps you should start a thread on the subject if it interests you.

[Galileo]

ARE THERE ANY EYEWITNESS ACCOUNTS OF STONEHENGE BEING BUILT?

Is there any video from Logan, Dulles, or Newark airport showing even one of the 19 alleged hijackers boarding their plane on the morning of 9/11?

The answer is no.

[ChumpDumper]

Please provide a video showing where any portion of the building collapsed or started moving before being impacted by debris.Furthermore, please explain why 40-60 floors of each core remained standing for several seconds after the initial collapse.

[RandomGuy]

Is there any video from Logan, Dulles, or Newark airport showing even one of the 19 alleged hijackers boarding their plane on the morning of 9/11?

The answer is no.

Yay.

Here is a new question.

Are you positive that 9-11 was an inside job?

I mean really confident in this.

[ChumpDumper]

Is there any video from Logan, Dulles, or Newark airport showing even one of the 19 alleged hijackers boarding their plane on the morning of 9/11?

The answer is no.There were no cameras in jetways, so there is no video of anyone boarding their planes that day, and no video of my personally ever boarding a plane.

Yet I have flown many commercial flights.

[Galileo]

Furthermore, please explain why 40-60 floors of each core remained standing for several seconds after the initial collapse.

I've already answered this.

The charges were placed next to the core columns next to the elevator shafts. This is rows 5, 6, 9, and 10.

Rows 7 and 8 were not next to the elevator shafts, and these are the columns that remained standing for a short time.

This columns were never found intact or in 700 foot lengths. Rather, they were cut into 30 foot lengths when they fell 30 seconds later.

[Galileo]

There were no cameras in jetways, so there is no video of anyone boarding their planes that day, and no video of my personally ever boarding a plane.

Yet I have flown many commercial flights.

There's no video anywhere at those airports that day. Where is it?

[ChumpDumper]

There's no video anywhere at those airports that day. Where is it?The last thing I read about Logan was it didn't even have surveillance cameras at the time.

Nice attempt to change the subject though.

Where were the charges placed in 1 and 2 WTC?

[RandomGuy]

Zs5jWvu4tR8

Meet the creators of "Loose Change".

[DarrinS]

Zs5jWvu4tR8

Meet the creators of "Loose Change".


Wow. Those guys are mental giants. :lol

[RandomGuy]

4ikRc4ER2xY

Meet Alex "Armageddon is coming in april of 2008" Jones

[Danny Trejo]

The question:



Originally Posted by S_A_Longhorn
I'll answer your question when you provide video evidence of what actually crashed into the Pentagon.

Why have the various videos of the attack on the Pentagon been withheld from the public?


The lame answer:



They haven't been to my knowledge. The FBI has released the tapes they seized after Freedom of Information Requests.

If you could name/describe the tapes that have been withheld, I can better answer your question.


You do the math.....................

[RandomGuy]

bMZ-nkYr46w

WTC fires were fully sufficient to cause the collapse.

[DarrinS]

Popular Mechanics editors debate the "Loose Change" twoofers

stVmEmJ666M

[Danny Trejo]

Wow. Those guys are mental giants. :lol

At least they were able to make their points w/o saying fuck and fag unlike you.

[ChumpDumper]

I remember mouse or some other twoofer type making a big stink about the Citgo station tape's not being released. I did a quick Google and found it had actually been released a month before and showed very little -- and definitely wasn't the smoking gun it was claimed to be.

Please tell us what tapes you are now going on about.

[mouse]

Funny how I was harassed when I posted videos now it seems to be all you guys can do.

[RandomGuy]

The question:
Why have the various videos of the attack on the Pentagon been withheld from the public?

The lame answer:
They haven't been to my knowledge.


I provided a link where you can watch dozens of videos from the Pentagon.

Debunked claim.

Got anything else?

Here is a link where you can watch them to your heart's content. (http://www.flight77.info/)

[ChumpDumper]

Funny how I was harassed when I posted videos now it seems to be all you guys can do.It's Monday, time for mouse to get back on the cross.

[RandomGuy]

Funny how I was harassed when I posted videos now it seems to be all you guys can do.

Don't like your own weapons turned against you?

Let me know when you actually bother watching any of them. I watched yours.

[RandomGuy]

_kSq663m0G8

WTC7 collapse explained.

[DarrinS]

At least they were able to make their points w/o saying fuck and fag unlike you.


fag

[RandomGuy]

Surely "truthers" who are committed to the ultimate truth of 9-11 and who have spent hours and hours doing "serious research" aren't afraid of watching some 3-10 minute videos?