Slashdot Mirror
US Releasing 9/11 Flight 77 Pentagon Crash Tape
Robotron23 writes "The BBC is reporting that the US government has decided to release the videotape depicting the crash of Flight 77 into the Pentagon building, nearly five years after the 9/11 attacks. The government had previously withheld the tape due to 'ongoing investigations' into al-Qaeda's Zacarias Moussaoui. A government representative commented that they 'hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories.'"
Odd that the idiot conspiracy theorists have yet propose a solutuion to the following:
1) where is American flight 77?
2) where are all the people that were on board flight 77?
3) why are the family members of all the people on board flight 77 not concerned that a plane is missing.
Obviously it was a conspiracy moron.. The issue is was it Al-Quadas conspiracy or the US governments.. OR both..
As much as I don't trust Bushco, I just can't see all those people not being dead. You can't cover up something that big.
I mean, we clearly saw the planes hit the towers, so it's logical to assume that if planes were used in place A, why bother to not use planes in place B.
I think the thurst of the paranoia would be better suited looking at how the towers fell as if internal explosions took them down, and the planes were just for drama. That's the only part that I think I can begin to question, though that's not to say our government is more behind it than any other government in the world. If anything's wrong, it's the towers falling so quickly like they did.
Not that I really believe Bush planned it, (is he smart enough?) but if someone other than bin Laden and his crazies was in on it, I want their heads too.
"I only speak the truth"
Karma: null(Mostly affected by an unassigned variable)
Yes, but the point is, plane or missile, something *did* hit the Pentagon, and the government was involved if only by accident by not shooting down planes that failed to transmit transponder codes or follow orders.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
The heart of the US military apparently isn't watched any harder than me when I drive around town. Really.... are those two time lapse cameras really the best they had?
What happened to the Flight 93 that left the airport with all the passengers and crew on board ?
Wow, I just noticed this (don't know why I never noticed before) but this plane has the same freakin' flight number as an airplane in The Twilight Zone that never returned- got lost in time.
SJW: a person who perceives an injustice, and while correcting it, commits a greater injustice.
I hope you realize that the story about 20 or so Arab men conspiring to hijack planes and fly them into various landmarks is a conspiracy theory, as well.
Many people who rant on and on about 'conspiracy theorists' follow beliefs that are just as questionable. Their position may be supported by certain governments or the mass media in various nations. But on the basis of evidence alone, their stance is often far weaker than that of even the so-called 'conspiracy theorists'.
Talk negatively about conspiracy theories all you want. Just realize that the story you hold dear is just that: a conspiracy theory.
Further to my article posting...it appears the "new" video is no more than a slightly higher quality and lenghtier version of the Pentagon's CCTV camera tape - released less than six months after 9/11 itself. I won't go in to the inconsistancies here - spot them for yourself at http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4987716. stm> the BBC's page.
Will it put the conspiracy theories to rest? No. Did the US government want this footage retained as it simply fuels speculations of foul play; what with a higher quality image of a false looking 747 revealed?
If anything, this new higher definition tape just fans the flames of speculation. What about the CCTV confiscated from nearby establishments such as a high rise hotel? These too are in possession of the US government - yet haven't been released. If they give (as they will, given their position overlooking the Pentagon) clearer pictures, then why haven't these been released as well, to utterly cement US claims of Flight 77's actual crash?
Who knows...maybe I'm just a paranoid android.
I agree ... but still I'm curious what did hit Pentagon :(
Pixel image editor - http://www.kanzelsberger.com
1. Not that I doubt the Pentagon was hit by an aircraft, but it is documented fact that several security camera tapes were confiscated after the crash. Release them in their entirety.
2. Explain to me why standard operating procedures for NORAD that would normally require specific orders to disregard, were disregarded that day.
3. Explain to me how WTC-7 came to be the only steel-framed structure in recorded history to suffer a complete collapse as a result of fire alone. (FEMA's own report offers an elaborate theory which they say has a "low probability of occurance")
4. In light of the signifigance (particularly to insurers, architechts, engineers) of WTC-7's collapse-due-to-fire, why were the building remains sold to China for scrap before they could be fully analyzed? The building had been evacuated hours before the collapse, it was not necessary for rescue crews. This is a major event in the building industry: if steel structures can collapse from fire alone, insurance rates would have to be adjusted, architects would have to reconsider the design of thousands of structures.
5. If Flight 93 was destroyed by being crashed (intentionally or accidentally) into a field in Shanksville, PA, why did it leave a debris field over 8+ miles?
Answer those questions and I'll change my mind on the subject. And no, "I don't know", "It's not important" and "Maybe you need to adjust your tinfoil hat you crazy moonbat!" aren't valid responses. This isn't some wacky UFO and alien abduction silliness. The known laws of physics and US military standard operation procedure were both apparently out to lunch on 9/11, and we want to know why.
For those interested, here is an extremely cogent flash clip analyzing the suspicious events revolving around the supposed crash of Flight 77 at the Pentagon. At one point it closely analyzes the Pentagon's camera video. The plane in the first frame of the video looks nothing like an 80 ton 757.
This site: http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/e rreurs_en.htm
Contrary to popular belief, life is not a bitch. It is far far worse.
IAAME/FD* My brother pilots 747s. He says an amateur pilot would be capable of pulling the flight manoeuvres that took down the towers. However, the manoeuvre that supposedly took out the Pentagon is another matter altogether. If you believe the gov, the pilot managed to pancake the jet onto the ground about 50-100 yards from the edge of the Pentagon and then "skip" the plane into the side of the pentagon, a bit like skipping a stone off a pond. He says an amateur would NEVER be able to pull off a manoeuvre like that. -Too steep a flight angle and you crater. -Too shallow a flight angle and you miss the rooftop. The government's version would require SUPREME, almost autopilot like, control and accuracy at the speed the aircraft was flying. The chances of an amateur pilot landing a 737(?) on its belly at near full cruising speed without it breaking up on impact is EXTREMELY small. Notice that the nose cone in the first frame is 100% INTACT. Landing a 737 on its belly, at near full cruising speed WITHOUT damaging the nose cone? Aircraft are often pancaked during crash landings but these jets CRUISE at about mach 0.8. Crash landing at (0.66/0.8)= ~90% of cruising speed without damaging the nose cone seems very unlikely? It would be worth looking at a local high-resolution elevation map of the area. If it is ANYTHING other than billiard-table flat, the government's version of the landing sequence is suspicious. Some have said the nose cone looks like a missile, unlikely: http://www.imagedump.com/index.cgi?pick=setandget& tp=414794&poll_id=0&category_id=20&warned=y
Proof #1:
-Security video frame rate ~0.5s
-Nose cone to explosion: One frame
-Nose cone to building distance from nose cone frame ~100m
=> Impact velocity ~ 200 m/s ~ mach 0.66
That's too slow for a missile ... a missile travelling at mach 0.66 would have been seen by many people.
If you knew the model of the security camera you could get another estimate of the jet's pre-impact velocity by back calculating from the apparent pixel blur of the nose cone image.
Proof #2:
Calculate vertical height of nose cone using simple trigonometry, i.e. compare height of Pentagon (known height) in pixels to height of nose cone in pixels as security camera is nearly normal to the flight path.
=> Check this height against the actual nose cone dimensions of the jet-type that is claimed to have hit.
Without actually doing the calcs, it looks about the right size for a 737(?) nose cone...
A ~3m diameter missile flying at mach 0.66 would be VERY conspicuous. There is no such missile in the current US military arsenal... http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/missile/index.h tml
The nose cone does look distorted/elongated into a "needle-like" shape but remember that at 200 m/s the nose cone would blur in a 0.5 s exposure.
Proof #3:
Missiles don't fly stably in contact with the ground :)
There are many other opportunities to use the available physical/visual evidence to check whether mass, momentum and energy are conserved for the Pentagon crash... e.g. the fire plume, damage to Pentagons structure (~equivalent to car safety "crash testing").
I'm normally the first to laugh at conspiracy theories but the pentagon hit looks dodgy as hell...
IAAME/FD*: I am a mechanical engineer / fluid dynamicist ...
The insurance changing hands mere hours before the attack on the WTC was enough to convince me BEFORE I saw loose change. Let's not forget the "security drills" where regular employees were kept out, etc. There is too much evidence to asuage as a nutty conspiracy theory, no matter how unflattering some random pdf propaganda is to a particular documentary.
I hold very few opinions. I hold information based on observation and fact. If you wish to disagree, please use facts.
I work in DC, and lived -- at the time -- in Old Town Alexandria. On Sept 11, given the general state of confusion, I opted not to take the metro home that day, and instead walked home along the GW parkway ( it was such a beautiful day, actually -- and the ten mile walk allowed me to really think about the situation, and how this was pretty much the end of freedom in the US for a while at least, but that's another story ).
Anyway -- here's the thing. I was upwind of the pentagon, maybe a mile away, and I smelled ( what smelled to me like ) burning kerosene. LOTS of burning kerosene. As in, I personally stank of kerosene smoke after walking past.
Frankly, that's enough for me. I understand that jet fuel is more or less like kerosene, and I would expect a crashed airplane to burn up whatever's in its tanks. Hence, the stench of lots of burning kerosene.
Now, regarding the "another story"... as I was approaching National airport ( I will never call it "Reagan National" ), I came across a bunch of toddlers and little kids, surrounded by military personnel. There was another civilian ( like me ) walking past, she had a camera, and took a photo of the pentagon smoke, and another of the military types and the children. The officials immediately stormed her, confiscated her camera and tore out the film. Very rudely, I might add. I saw all this, and after the lady left, I walked up and said to one of the friendlier looking guards "What was that all about?". She said the kids were pentagon employee children from the daycare facilities and they wanted to respect their privacy -- which is commendable, so in principle I understand. But the way they went about it was unnacceptable.
I saw one of the opening acts of our descent into a police state, right there.
lorem ipsum, dolor sit amet
An airplane hit the Pentagon on 9/11, not a missile.
The alternate conspiracy theory I heard on the Pentagon crash was centered around who flew the airliner into the Pentagon, not whether or not an airliner flew into the Pentagon.
It's not all that hard to believe that an airliner flew into WTC2, since just about everyone on the planet has seen footage from a dozen cameras which show a 767/757 hitting the tower. Four planes didn't reach their destinations, four impacts are noted.
As for the alternate conspiracy theory, there are only a few remotely relevant facts. They are centered around the lack of credible identification for the 19 passengers labelled as the terrorists.
Personally, I find these facts insufficient to dispute the government's conclusions
As for how the WTC buildings collapsed: I agree, it sounds strange that 1) all three of the collapsed buildings would fall mostly down into their foundations 2) at rates consistent with an unimpeded collapse and 3) the heavily reinforced WTC7 fell while WTC6 remained standing (WTC6 was between WTC7 and WTC1/2).
I don't have an explanation for what happened, but then, I'm not a structural engineer. According to the engineers I've read, however, there simply isn't enough information about the collapse of well-engineered steel structures to accurately predict how they should behave during collapse. I do recall, however, that during the collapse, the bottom of each tower looked normal (windows intact, etc.) until engulfed in the debris cloud. The bottom of the tower did not look anything like the "simultaneous collapse" that deliberate building demolition almost always resembles.
Further, I do know that a puddle of kerosene burning will burn at a much lower temperature than a properly aerated and driven kerosene torch (as in, I know from personal experience that you can run a steel forge on kerosene with a correctly sized blower to supply air to the flame) and so I find it highly credible that a kerosene fire could reach well past steel annealing temperatures and get to steel melting temperatures, depending on the specifics of fuel and air flow in the fire.
Ultimately, though, there's no reason to waste your time wondering if the government actually did the atrocities of 9/11 or if several decades of destructive US foreign po
Actually I've looked again and again and I can only see a hole which would fit the entry-point of an ICBM. Nowhere in any of the released footage have I seen an actual plane. These people who saw it, I presume you know them or you were there?
>>The claims in the video are well-argued but absolutely silly.
I agree with this statement, except the claims are not well-argued.
Their arguments could be picked apart by a three year old.
"In 1997, the CIA released a brochure on terrorism with a picture of the WTC in the crosshairs. The only explanation for this is that the CIA was planning 9/11."
No... the WTC was bombed by terrorists in 1993.
Conclusion: The movie was made by retards.
I love conspiracy theories as much as the next guy, but they don't have a single argument in the whole film that stands on two legs.
check this out:
http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/index.html
It pretty much demonstrate that the witholding of information regarding the Pentagon was done on purpose in order to take your attention away from more compelling evidence. It probably was a plane. They won't tell you so you can keep thinking it's fake and not ask questions about WTC7 or the explosive complete collapse of the other 2 towers.
The timing of the tape release couldn't be more perfect, as a reminder to the populace for the reason why their civil liberties are being curtailed.
:)
You say the timing is "perfect", and yet, there are so many other times that it could have been released since 9/11 that would have been just as perfect. In fact, can you name a time in the past few years when there wasn't a borderline catastrophe bubbling away in DC? Perfect timing? I think not - our bold DC leaders are truly dedicated to ensuring that every moment is equally perfect for a distracting press release. The rules changed on 9/11 - we can no longer afford to leave months or even weeks unfilled by scandal at the highest levels of government.
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
obviously after watching these clips there are missing frames, not to mention that the clip itself only plays at 1-2 frames a second, you can easily tell this when a police/security car drives by the gate - besides most cameras, especially a surveillance camera I would hope, would film at nearly 60-80 fps.
anyways, a plane which is travelling at a descending speed of nearly 400mph should be able to be captured by a camera filming at 60 fps. It just makes no sense to me why a surveillance camera would film at such a shitty rate especially at the PENTAGON for christs sake - if I wanted to I could simply run real fast by the damn thing and no one could ever put an id on me......whats the point of the camera. So this means one of two things in my mind
So when they decide to release the full clip or clips from other cameras that captured the event, I'm still not convinced. I want to see the full body of that 757 slamming into the building
on another interesting note heres a weird web site with someone trying to work out the geometry of the crash site in relation to that very same camera
And here's (video, wmv) a video of me kicking over a box right before another copy of me walks in front of the first and picks the box up.
I made it in about 20 minutes. They've had five years. I'm definitely not saying that the video is faked. I'm just saying that the conspiracy theorists will just look at this as a feeble attempt to fight back a tide of question-worthy evidence.
They might be right, or they might not. I'll be surprised if we ever get solid evidence one way or another. If I had the really good tape of the hit locked up in the Pentagon, I'd just hang on to it to mess with people.
I agree with most of your post, but let me state once and for all: the fire did not have to melt steel. It only had to weaken it.
I never meant to imply that the steel had to be melted for the building to collapse, only that I have observed a kerosene fueled furnace fully melt steel.
What I frequently hear by 9/11 conspiracy theorists is that kerosene burns at too low a temperature to weaken steel. Since steel becomes essentially plastic above the annealing temperature and I've observed a kerosene-air fire go well beyond softening steel to melting steel (white hot liquid), the assertion of the conspiracy theorists is wrong.
Regards,
ross
There are lots of theories as to who assinated Masood and why. Massood was an immensely popular figure and would have been the natural leader of the post taliban Afghan govt. More then likely he would not be a patsy for anyone.
The fact that he died so suddenly just before the US invasion certaintly turned out to be very convenient for both the US and Pakistani governments.
evil is as evil does
debris clearly visible. Some are dupes of each other, but scroll through, there was a lot of debris scattered about.
Debris.
I always see the same, easy-to-carry, lonely piece of fuselage, from many angles, but the rest of the debris looks like it came from the construction site that was where the explosion took place.
If you look at the earliest pictures of the site, you can clearly see a half destroyed truck and some big spoils of something, a broken fence... All good sources of debris.
Especially the half destroyed truck.
You can't take the sky from me...
Bottom line, they reacted fairly quickly given the circumstances. Air Force jets were over NYC roughly 15 minutes after the second plane hit. Had it been a conventional attack, they could have engaged the enemy plane(s) and done fairly well. There were only like 2 military jets in the air in the entire eastern part of the US on the morning of 9/11,
Yeah -- that makes a lot of sense. A government that sends everyone away and leaves us defenseless to run a drill on how to defend us.
Isn't it ironic that Dick Cheney was there and they were doing drills on planes attacking buildings -- how convenient for the terrorists.
And July of 2001, Bush changed the policy so that only 3 people in the united states could allow a plane to be shot down. Bush. Cheney. Rumsfeld. Before that time, field commanders could.
Weather radar would not be as ideally suited to track these planes as Air Traffic Control radar -- that's kind of what IT is designed to do.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
[It has always claimed that 'no-707' theory is false and is a booby-trap for conspiracy theorists, and a disinformation that may have been intentionally flamed up by the government to cover-up other evidence (thus when they finally prove that a 707 indeed crashed Pentagon, they would have practically discredited all the other theories by the nature of human psychology.]
Video of the Pentagon Attack: What is the Government Hiding?
by Jim Hoffman
Version 0.9, May 16, 2006
Today, the DOD released two videos from Pentagon security cameras, through JudicialWatch.org. One of the videos includes the five frames leaked in 2002. The new frames, including several from a different camera, add almost nothing to the body of public evidence about the Pentagon attack on 9/11/01. Since the new videos don't show an airplane, they promise to fuel debates about what hit the Pentagon, rather than put them to rest.
The US government has for years refused to release video evidence that might undermine the popularity of no-Boeing theories. Today's release did not include video recordings from nearby businesses seized by the FBI within minutes of the attack.
Judicial Watch's Freedom of Information Act Request, filed on December 14, 2004, is similar to another request by different plaintifs, documented at Flight77.info. Both sought to obtain all of the camera recordings of the attack, including those from other Pentagon security cameras, ones seized from the Sheraton National Hotel and Nexcomm/Citgo gas station, and those managed by the Virginia Department of Transportation. The Pentagon had refused to release its recordings before today, claiming they were "part of an ongoing investigation involving Zacarias Moussaoui."
Most people who have heard of challenges to the official account (that cells of al Qaeda operatives were solely responsible for the attack) have heard of the theory that the Pentagon was not hit by a jetliner. The theory has been in circulation since early 2002, with the Hunt the Boeing website and Thierry Meyssan's Big Lie and Le Pentagate. The "no-Boeing" theories, which come in small-plane, missile, and truck bomb, variants, have flourished in the vacuum of video evidence, and served as a straw man with which to smear all challenges to the official account of the attack.
The refusal of authorities to release video evidence has been cited by supporters of Pentagon no-jetliner theories as evidence that Flight 77 wasn't there. If the government has proof that Flight 77 hit the Pentagon, why doesn't it make it public? Perhaps because it serves the cover-up to keep the sideshow debate about what hit the Pentagon going. In 2004, I suggested that the question of what hit the Pentagon was a huge distraction. Analysis of physical evidence of the crash shows that what's known of the damage and debris fits the crash of Flight 77.
Today Mike Berger was interviewed on ABCNews.com for the story New Tape Stirs Up 9/11 Conspiracy Theories. Rather than take the opportunity point out that the no-Boeing theory is a distraction, Berger stated:
Four-and-a-half years later, we still don't have definitive proof that a plane hit that building.
Mike Berger may not have grasped the implications of saying there is not proof that a plane hit the Pentagon, but it necessarily implies the following:
1. That the scores of accounts of a large plane are either faked or coerced.
2. That the damage to the Pentagon, including an approximately 100-foot-wide expanse of punctured facade walls on the first floor, were somehow produced by a means other than a plane.
3. That fires that smelled like burning jet fuel, running about 200 feet across the facade of the Pentagon, were prod
"Beauty is the ultimate defense against complexity" - Machine Beauty
I'm having a hard time picturing this screnario. Diesel isn't the most combustible of fuels, and a no-doubt strengthened and shielded tank designed to provide emergency coverage shouldn't just burst into flame because of a fire several hundred metres distant horizontally and even more metres vertically. This assumption seems to depend on a Heath-Robinson style series of events that would be unlikely at best. The collapse of WTC7 remains one of the less sensational unexplained events of that day
His visit to the school, not 10 minutes from the Sarasota airport, was indeed scheduled and announced. This makes not his inaction, but the inaction of his Secret Service detail very surprising. Contrary to your later assertion, very many people had thought about flying planes into buildings - Tom Clancy for one (had Flight 93 made it to DC it would have flown into the very building that Clancy hit with a commercial airliner, the Capitol building).
At the very least the USSS should have been bundling Bush out of there as soon as it was apparent an airliner had hit the building. Any other building and I'd waver to make this prediction, but the WTC was THE building that UBL was likely to hit, and the August 6th PDB made it clear that he was determined to strike inside the US.
As with that other seminal US event on November 22nd 1963 this controversy is likely to run and run, and thanks to the amazingly inept way in which the 9/11 commission did its job we're unlikely to see the end of this anytime soon.
By the way, "conspiracy theory" is a fantastically Orwellian phrase designed to trigger certain doubt and feelings of probable kookiness in those it is used on. A cynic might wonder just how many of the 9/11 theories are disinformation put about by those with soemthing to gain.
The Slashdot Paradox: "100% Overrated"
Because anyone who questions the government drafted version of the story is immediately branded as a "conspiracy theorist" which brings with it a very negative conotation of a complete whack-job.
Unfortunately, people in this country (and others) are sheep and are immediately willing to believe what they are told, despite hundreds of years of history of the US government covering things up (domestic spying in the 70s? empty Warren Commission reports on the JFK assassination?, confiscated video from the gas station, hotel, and other installation across the street from the pentagon?)
So yes, brand me a conspiracy theorist if you like, but I found loose change to be eye opening. Please don't tell me that we couldn't scramble jets fast enough. We have planes that fly sorties across the world in one evening, but we can't scramble jets to intercept hijacked planes in the air for hours?
Stop blatantly accepting anything you hear. Listen to the true experts - the air-force pilots who say that the manuvers required to hit the pentagon were impossible, the firemen on the ground who have said time and again that the building was brought down by explosives. These are the boots on the ground with actual expertise, and you're believing Rumsfeld.
Sheep...
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I'm not sure where I fall with the stress/temperature curves -- the Loose Change video references several steel buildings that burned for days without falling. That doesn't meant that it couldn't have fallen due to fire, but it's far from clear-cut.
What I really want to know is, where are the planes reconstructed from the debris? Here is an image of a section of fuselage in the WTC descrution. Where is the fuselage now? Where are all the parts they pulled from the pentagon? By contrast, here is an image of the reconstruction of flight 800. Why don't we have such reconstructions of the 9/11 planes?
Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
-- Pablo Picasso
Just to note, the external walls of the WTC were, in fact, load bearing. It was a revolutionary structure designed to maximize open space. Unlike most skyscrapers, which have curtain walls, the WTC's outer walls carried a significant portion of the buildings load. The floors were carried by beams that spanned the gap from the central column to the walls. As those beams were softened by the heat they pulled on the outer walls and the core.
The design of the building was DIRECTLY related to the collapse. One of the main reason the WTC collapsed while other buildings have not is the way the structure distributed load and how it reacted to this failure mode. The fire alone wouldn't have been enough to bring it down, most likely. And if the aircraft hadn't hit then the spray-on fire insulation wouldn't have been blown off the beams. And the sprinklers would've still worked. Etc. The combination of the fire AND the weakened structure is what did it.
Many of your arguments are bogus. These are not the only buildings to collapse into their own footprint. There was a shopping mall collapse a few years back in Taiwan, IIRC, a multi-story structure that suffered a progressive, pancake collapse exactly like the WTC. That was do to poor construction, and once the collapse started it went right into its own footprint. The two ends of the building were left standing.
There was the tragic Cold Storage Building fire in Worcester, MA a few years back that killed a number of firemen when the building collapsed on them. It was only a few stories tall, but it fell right into its own footprint due to the fire. Didn't even touch the buildings around it. (I live in Worcester.)
As the the B-25 hitting the Empire State Building. So what? Have you seen a B-25 in person? I have, I've been in one. How about a Boeing 767? You can't begin to compare the two. A B-25 is smaller than most commuter turboprops let along an intercontinental widebody airliner. The B-25 was also at the end of its flight and nearly out of fuel, the 767s were almost full. The B-25 had a Maximum Take-Off Weight of 41,800, the B767-200 has a MTOW of 395,000 - nearly ten times as high. And the 767 was much closer to its MTOW than the B-25, especially since a large part of the MTOW of the B-25 was devoted to bombs, which it wasn't carrying. On top of that the B767 travels a hell of a lot faster than the B-25 - vastly increasing the energy of the impact (mass times velocity).
You know a little while after 9/11 a kid flew a Cesna into a high rise in Florida in some bizarre suicide attempt. That building didn't fall either. That applies to the WTC almost as much as the B-25.
Of course, the other factor is the buildings structure. The Empire State Building was in the early school. Heavy steel framework with lots of crossmembers. Stone exterior. Massive, heavy, not much open space. Most of the impact energy was expended in simply penetrating the outer wall. And that outer wall was NOT the primary load bearing structure. On the WTC, as I said above, the outer wall was. It was a bit like a old balloon framed house - put a big enough hole in the outer wall and it will probably come down.
As for the seismic readings - that's been debunked repeatedly. Experts agree that the readings are NOT indicative of an explosion. They give distinct readings. And the energy needed to produce the readings would've required a very large explosion, which would've been impossible to hide. The collapse very easily explains the readings obtained. As for the 'ABSOLUTELY MASSIVE' explosions - bullshit. I don't agree at all. I just don't think that's what it sounds like. And, if it were, why are they not audible or visible on any of the footage shot right at the scene? There is a LOT of continuous footage leading up to the collapse, which you can sync exactly with the across-the-bay shot, and there are no explosions. Period.
Even if pockets of fire got hot enough to melt some steel, that doesn't mean the fires i
Next we have a witness who saw a millitary helicopter, from the far side of the building, and it went towards the helipad near the crash site just before the fireball. Only one witness (as far as I know) but its not like you could confuse a plane with a helicopter all that easily and it was coming from the far (hidden from freeway) side. Relevance? unsure. possibility given later
Next we have millitary trained personal claiming to have smelled cordite (explosives), witnesses who claimed the airoplane blew up before impact, witnesses who saw a missile, and a damage pattern more consistant with a combination missile/explosives strike than a plane crash. We also have a video showing:
- no recognizable airplane: the one frame that shows a small white thing doesnt look like a jumbo jet to me (but could be...maybe): wrong size/shape/thickness but its hard to tell. It looks like a missile to me though.
- Fireball is COMPLETELY wrong for a jet crash... isn't it? am I the only one noticing this? a jet traveling at 500 miles per hour flies smack into a building and the resulting fireball looks perfectly symetrical around a vertical center line? not splayed out as I would expect? can someone explain this cos I cant see it
- some people have raised doubts about its authenticity: to do with shadows, lighting, what looks like editing of the colours in one frame (talking about older release here). Me- I think its probably mostly real, but question what it shows, and REALLY would like to know if there is no conspiracy, then why has the other footage not been released, and why did this take so long?
My theory? there was a plane (remote controlled, maybe the original, maybe not) and it was somehow exploded before impact (perhaps the helicopter shot missiles at it? I doubt they would be powerful enough but dont know, or it already had explosives on board, or the anti arcraft missile battery actuallly worked but they havent told us). or maybe overflew the building and kept out of view (Im doubtful of this one, but otheriwse where is all the wreckage?) I think there was a missile involved (either in blowing up the plane before impact or causing some of the damage- wintesses saw it) I'm a bit thrown off by the fireball. It doesnt fit with what I imagine should have happened in a pure plane crash (why symmetrical?) but also cordite is almost smokeless and flashless and so couldnt have caused it. there is the strangely almost perfect edge of the hole supposedly knocked out by part of the airplane (it seems looking at that website that that may have just been a mistake and it was really an access hole made for emergency workers: makes more sense)
ok so what are we left with? confusion. And I think thats likely one of the main purposes of the attack at the pentagon: confusion and misdirection. Get conspiracy theorists confused and making up wild speculation, including the speculation that there wasn't a plane, and most people will just assume they are nuts, cos 40 people saw the plane. maybe the people involved werent sure they could count on the plane not getting shot down at the last minute (eg by the aa missiles), so set up explosives just in case? this particular conspiracy is generally thought NOT to have deeply involved the military in the planning and execution, with the bush administration, CIA and others involved probably relying on confusion due to the wargames and key personel who were in on it to dupe the millitary into letting it happen, which also explains flight 93 getting shot down (not everyone went along with it...)
watch "the money masters" on google video