For The Love Of Port

I do not subscribe to the theories purported in this video, so please don't shoot the messenger. What are your thoughts?

80 minutes in length:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 11&pl=true

"video not available"

did you watch it? 80min?!?

I watched this video yesterday, before Squires closed the thread. Thought provocing to say the least. I am not someone who is into the whole conspiracy theory thing, but the video does raise some interesting questions. mostly about the lack of plane wreckage. Having spent the better part of ten years (between full time and part time assignments) at my job working in Air Support I have seen numerous aircraft accidents. All of which leave a ton of wreackage all over the place.

On the other hand, I have seen things survive or be destroyed in a wreckage that everyone scratches their heads and wonders "How'd that happen.".

I am no engineer, but I have always wondered how two skyscrapers (and a smaller building near by) could have been so completly destroyed by something that hit near the very top. Since the building is designed to support the load, would'nt the top part fall off, leaving the bottom standing? After all the bottom was unscathed in the impact of the planes. I've seen those TV shows that show old buildings being destroyed by explosives and if even one explosive is missed placed or does not go off, the building does not completly fall down.

OK, I may be stirring the pot a bit here, but...

I believe that with those buildings the demolition groups are trying to implode the building with no damage to buildings next door. Much easier to bring a building down without caring about this when compared to a controlled collapse.

Jay.

I have not watched the movie, but I remember that someone said 2 importants things in the days following the crash.

In the first tower, the concrete structure that is in the middle of the tower was so damaged that is why the tower crashed. Then for the first and second tower, the metal did just melt under the intense fire.

I do believe that these structure are very precise in the wieght distribution on each metal bar and if 1-2 are removed the building can stay intact, but not 2 floors.

What happened at the Pentogon is still a big mistery for me, I think that a big rocket or suicide bombing from a car is more plosible than a plane crash.

About the conspiracy, well... I think that the Bush family have too much interest with terrorists family. It could have help them in their plans. I also find weird that they train man in other country for wars and they give them weapon. A few years later they are your enemy and you hunt them blindly...

As a Canadian, I've been able to follow all this with a different view of the news than most Americans.... I'll stop here as I don't want to go deep into politics and american media on a wine forum.

I can't watch the video but you guys have got me hooked - what is the basic theory being put forward here?

Derek

What a surprising topic for this forum! :)

Regarding the cause of the tower collapses, the video states that there are NO precedent in history of a multi-stories building collapsing because of a fire.

Firefighters also describe how the lobby looked like before the first collapse : all the windows were broken, etc. Official explanation : fireball coming down from the elevator shaft. What is weird is that there is no sign of fire or burned material, just a fine powder very much alike to what a high explosive would produce.

These affirmations are made between min 20 and minute 30 of the movie.

Another thing that is questionned in the video : where did the plane engines go? They were never found in the wreckage. Official explanation : vaporized under high heat. But these engines are made of titatium, which has a fusion point of ~1600C. Kerosene, in a pure oxygen environment, can generate ~1000C of heat...

Anywho I enjoyed this video as it questions many official explanations and tries to give plausible answers. Take it with a grain of salt because it is truely not even close to being objective, but still worth watching and discussing it afterwards.

URL in Roy's post seem to have been broken, here is another try :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 11&pl=true

I did not initially plan to put this controversial piece here and planted it on the Ebob site and knew it would take minutes before being locked down.

With all the early cries there .... Mark let it hang for more than 24 hours before he locked the thread. Amazingly, he left the thread up so that folks could still open and watch the film. More than I had hoped for.

Again, I do not condone nor agree with all that is in this film. I think it is important to watch though ... just to open one's mind that there may be other explanations to the official version of what happened.

To me the most important point of the film is that it shows that so many CRITICAL pieces of information, video, voice recordings etc ... have mysteriously been withheld from investigators and the family members who lost their lives. That is the real tragedy here, beyond the loss of life at the Twin Towers, Pentagon and the grassy knoll in Pennsylvania.

I haven’t seen this particular film but I have read and watched some of this 9/11 conspiracy stuff and frankly find it doesn’t stand up to the facts. Like most conspiracy theories it proceeds to a complicated conclusion, ignores Occam’s Razor, not to mention contradictory facts, and uses a series of questions based on false presuppositions. There are readily available explanations for the conspiracy theorists charges for instance the websites that debunk urban legends, and pages such as this
http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm consolidate many of the counter-arguments

I'm particularly referring to the theories that planes didn't really strike those buildings and/or couldn't have caused the resulting destruction and death; not the theories which assert that this happened but that the people, motives and forces that were really behind the attacks are not what we've been lead to believe. The latter theories are in a different class, and I am just strongly skeptical of them. The former don't add up for me.

Andy V. wrote:I am no engineer, but I have always wondered how two skyscrapers (and a smaller building near by) could have been so completly destroyed by something that hit near the very top. Since the building is designed to support the load, would'nt the top part fall off, leaving the bottom standing? After all the bottom was unscathed in the impact of the planes. I've seen those TV shows that show old buildings being destroyed by explosives and if even one explosive is missed placed or does not go off, the building does not completly fall down.

I'm no engineer either, but engineers have long since addressed this topic: that the impact destroyed structural elements of the building and damaged others, blew away fireproofing insulation leaving the remainder vulnerable to the ferocious fires that followed, which caused the affected floors to sag downward and pull the outer structural elements inward until they failed. Sure the building could support the stationary weight of the upper floors, but not the momentum of their impact in a collapse. I can carry a 50-lb. sandbag (with some effort); but if you drop a 50-lb sandbag to me from a second floor balcony, I couldn't catch it and would doubtless sustain injuries.

Alexis wrote:Regarding the cause of the tower collapses, the video states that there are NO precedent in history of a multi-stories building collapsing because of a fire.

Does the video cite any precedent for such a fire being stoked by 20,000 gallons of high octane jet fuel, AND being immediately preceded by a 100-ton airliner slamming into its structural core at cruising speed?

Alexis wrote:Another thing that is questionned in the video : where did the plane engines go? They were never found in the wreckage. Official explanation : vaporized under high heat. But these engines are made of titatium, which has a fusion point of ~1600C. Kerosene, in a pure oxygen environment, can generate ~1000C of heat...

Personally I’m not surprised there wouldn’t be much left when they hit the pentagon at an estimated 250mph. That building is an enormous mass of limestone over steel-reinforced concrete, and they had just finished further reinforcing it with a lattice of steel tubes and Kevlar to withstand bomb blasts. The plane hit a bulletproof vest on an massive concrete wall, and what remained was mostly in small pieces. Still, there IS evidence part of one of the engines punched through to the second ring.

Fred_Quebec wrote:What happened at the Pentogon is still a big mistery for me, I think that a big rocket or suicide bombing from a car is more plosible than a plane crash.

I find this quite startling. What do you suppose happened to American Airlines 77? Numerous eyewitness accounts, well known to locals, have an airliner hitting that building. Both black boxes from that flight were recovered at the Pentagon crash site, along with the remains of all but one of the passengers, including my former boss, her husband and two little girls, who we know were on their way to Australia (via California) on that flight. Where did they go? What sort of enormous conspiracy of really, really bad guys would be required to dispose of that airplane and its passengers somehow? How many co-conspiring Airline and FAA officials, police, firefighters, EMTs, medical examiners, coroners, etc., would be required to even begin to cover up a lack of airplane parts and human remains? How could the subterfuge be maintained?

If it was possible to cover up something so massive, would we ever even find out about such little things as, say, Cheney shooting his hunting buddy? wouldn't that story be a simple thing to hide, if you could really get hundreds of first responders to keep quiet at the Pentagon, for instance? Our recent history and current events provide plenty of evidence of truly lousy cover-up skills among the people running our country. Avoiding exposure is just not that easy (avoiding consequences is another matter…) even in small indiscretions involving few people.

I just watch this video tonight and found really interesting. Many things said on it where new to me and I really liked the way the media covered the events live. But from memory those lives comments where quickly replaced my hand made description that would better suit administration view of the day.

Anyway, enjoy! It is really well made.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3848835726

Just to add my

Being in the explosives business, I have friends who drop buildings for a living.

From conversations with them I can say that the towers fell because they were built on the cheap.

If a plane had flown into one by accident, there would now be the mother of all lawsuits going on - against the architects...

If the towers had had a concrete core, or rigid cross braces, they would not have fallen.

Put simply, the strengthening bits that demolition guys normally have to remove or weaken were not part of the design. They might not have survived a major hurricane...

The only conspiracy surrounds Bush's links to Saudi Arabia - Watch Fahrenheit 911.

Tom

uncle tom wrote:Being in the explosives business, I have friends who drop buildings for a living.

Somehow my job in the Pensions Administration business doesn't seem so exciting any more

Derek

"I'm a politician. When I'm not kissing babies, I'm stealing from their mam'as"
This quote from The Hunt for Red October summes it up quite nicely

(Roy, sorry if that gets to political)