9/11

[securespark]

There are many mad theories about 9/11 that I dismiss immediately.

Like that an airport was evacuated, planes landed secretly and passengers disembarked.

Like that the planes were added to the video afterwards.

Like the planes were not passenger jets but missiles.

But some points intrigue me:


The BBC allegedly reported the destruction of WTC7 with a live shot of the undamaged building visible in the background. Did this happen?

Why did WTC7 fall if not directly struck?

Why did both WTC 1 & 2 and WTC7 appear to fall as if felled by controlled demolition - straight down? Surely buildings suffering aerial attack with the variables involved would not fall in an identical manner?

The physics of the collisions: some say there should be more plane debris outside the buildings? Like wing and tail parts.. should there?

What was the object underneath the 767?

 

[bhm1712]

Since nobody ever flew an airliner travelling at max speed into the side of a sky scraper before 9/11 I would ask on what basis do they make the claims that more aeroplane debris should have been found? The evidence that planes hit the towers was right in front of us and yet some still don't believe what they have seen because they don't understand it.

The buildings fell that way because the planes hit high up. Once the steel frame melted and gave way the weight and forces from above was enough to cause each floor below to collapse one by one. As the collapse continued more and more weight was added to the falling mass as each floor went....

 

[pred]

The physics of the collisions: some say there should be more plane debris outside the buildings? Like wing and tail parts.. should there?

In answer to your question about debris; I was stationed at RAF Wattisham from 71/74 on 111Sqd. each camp had two sqds. the other being 92, if a kite ever went down all the service records were immediatly snatched for that a/c and the powers to be went through them, also the other sdn. on the base would go to the crash sight to start recovering all the bits.

This is what happened while I was stationed there, one of 92's a/c ploughed in, so we had to do the dirty work, we were taken there in a bus and as you thought I was exspecting to see bits of mainplane and fuesalage, HA! the bigest bit was the tailplane and half of a RR Avon engine, there was a hole in the field about 15m across and about 5m deep, from the hole were tracks through the hay, we followed the tracks and came back with a small component or a piece of aluminium, and there were millions of rivets everywhere.

Re 9/11 I would expect the heat to melt 99% of the a/c, the only bits to perhaps not melt to be the blades on the drive turbine, not the compressor blades, and maybe other bits of titanium.

 

[wobs]

The BBC allegedly reported the destruction of WTC7 with a live shot of the undamaged building visible in the background. Did this happen?

Yes. The BBC (and at least one other news company) reported it. Its called a mistake, and the BBC has a reputation for them when it comes to breaking news. But then, how many of us knew which one was WTC7 on or before the day?

Why did WTC7 fall if not directly struck?

Fire.
It was a steel framed building, the fire brigade didn't have the reources to fight it, and they knew it would fall (structural deformation was a major clue). There is even a youtube of a firefighter explaining on the day, and you can see the fustration.

Why did both WTC 1 & 2 and WTC7 appear to fall as if felled by controlled demolition - straight down?

Gravity.
And they didn't look like controlled demolition - no explosions prior to falling, the start of collapse was not at the bottom. I could go on.

Surely buildings suffering aerial attack with the variables involved would not fall in an identical manner?

They fell due to fire. The structural damage from the planes speeded up the process, but the buildings were doomed when they could not be controlled, and given the location of the fires.

The physics of the collisions: some say there should be more plane debris outside the buildings? Like wing and tail parts.. should there?

See previous post.
But also, it is irrelevant what "some" would think, as the planes hit buildings (and a field). Evidence is there for all to see.

What was the object underneath the 767?

Part of a 767. Even twoofers rarely try to claim this one anymore.

Apologies for the rushed nature of post.

 

[AronSearle]

 

[joinerjohn]

If , the planes were added to the video afterwards, why is there a wealth of amateur video taken on the same day from differing angles, all showing the second plane striking the building? You really believe people would hand over their videos to the authorities and get them back with a plane edited in ?
Nah, most conspiracy theorists , can't see the wood for the bloody trees.

 

[EddieM]

If , the planes were added to the video afterwards, why is there a wealth of amateur video taken on the same day from differing angles, all showing the second plane striking the building? You really believe people would hand over their videos to the authorities and get them back with a plane edited in ?
Nah, most conspiracy theorists , can't see the wood for the bloody trees.

To be fair to SS he dismissed the video editing conspiracy theory as completely implausible. See original post.

 

[securespark]

As a plane enthusiast as a kid, I used to have a radio you could listen to the pilots with. Also, from me Ma's house, you could look up and see the underbelly of the planes. Not that the 767 was around in the 70's, but I can see that the images of the plane seem to differ to those of other 767's I've seen.

 

[bhm1712]

The alleged pod underneath the fuselage on flight 175 has been disproven many times over. The pictures of flight 175 from below, which allegedly shows that flight 175 had some kind of missile pod attached fails to take into account the construction of modern airliners.

The wing to fuselage fairings create the pod like effect when an aeroplane like the 767 is viewed from below at the same time as the aeroplane is banking slightly in one direction. That taken into account, as well as the grainy photos and videos, and the sun light pretty much shows you a normal underbelly of a 767.

In the following photo although not taken from the same angle, shows how the wing fairings which houses the air conditioning packs and some other avionics and landing gear can create a pod like bulge when viewed from below.

 

[securespark]

Gotcha. Thanks.