Pick Your 2 Most Glaring Points of Questions For 9/11?

Originally posted by benoni
You seem to be pretty good at thinking neno.....

What do you think about my Big Plane question on the previous page???

edit on 15-11-2010 by benoni because: (no reason given)

I think that the hole did not appear to be smaller than the fuselage diameter, assuming that your photo montage was accurately sized.

Originally posted by fonenyc

the "black box" or data recorder has survived worse than 911 in other plane crashes throughout istory.... 0 out of 8 is a ticket to the minors and very suspicious odds for something designed to withstand severe conditions

I suppose "worse" is more of a subjective judgment than an objective one in this estimate, but irrespective of that, why bring up the destruction potential of rubber and paper vs electronic equipment at all then?

Rubber products are amazingly resilient, and paper products have not been know to hit surfaces at velocities that would produce any appreciable damage to them... so why were they put into that equation to begin with?

I'm just not getting what sort of comparison between the 3 you were attempting to draw...

Originally posted by captiva
. Why are Bush, Cheney etc not sitting on death row as I write?

Well, despite what you think or want "innocent until proven guilty" still occurs in the USA, thus they are innocent.

You also needs things like a trial, a court, some evidence - oh, you also need something to charge them with, despite what you think!

reply to post by dereks


The only innocent on 9/11 were those that perished. I dont need a trial to know who the murderers were.

second line, smaller than the first

i dont think i will ever witness something like this live again. i was watching, on the other side of the world, live as it happened. it was just before i went to bed and we had a news flash of a plane into the building. i turned over to see what idiot in a little plane could hit a building so big. needless to say, i never went to bed that night. its something that will haunt me forever....i never ever thought those buildings would collapse.

anyway....onto my 2.

1/. how the passport of one of the hijackers was found on a footpath (sidewalk i think you call it). the planes and everyone on board were incinerated, yet this passport survived?. thats my biggie as far as unanswered questions.

2/. all film confiscated from the servo (gas station i think you call it), that would have shown the plane hitting the pentagon. fbi apparently showed up just after and took all footage from any camera even near the area. ? why.
Just show the bloody footage, you have it, and that would go a long way too showing good faith in you citizens.

Originally posted by turbofan
reply to post by nenothtu

 

I'll pick flight data record electronics since it's packed in a titanium case which can withstand thousands
of g's of impact and thousands of degrees of heat.

These specs have been employed since the early 90's

www.l-3ar.com...

Crash Impact Test -- It has been agreed that 3400gs for 6.5 ms would be required to meet most accident scenarios. This test is actually performed with a cannon. A Fairchild CVR has survived a crash that was estimated to be more than 6000 gs.

Fire Test -- The devices are subjected to 1100 degrees Centigrade for 60 minutes, then undergo 10 hours at 260 degrees Centigrade. Because of its outstanding fire survival record, the Fairchild Model A100CVR was used as the model to insure mandated standards could be obtained. The very latest FAA standards require the fire test to be expanded to 1 hour at 1100 degrees Centigrade. which all solid state models of L-3 Recorders meet or exceed.

Oops, did I mention the flight data recorder is solid state? That means there are no moving parts inside to
break like a DVD player.

edit on 15-11-2010 by turbofan because: fix quote tags

First, define for me what is meant by "gs". Is that supposed to mean "G's"? Are you SURE this was an engineer that wrote that, using that terminology? I'll have to accept your claim here in the absence of any sort of qualifiers being listed, I suppose. Also, it probably wouldn't be polite of me to point out that page was selling... flight recorders...

Still, "G's" only apply to the sudden stop factor of an impact. I can probably agree that the mere impact of the plane wouldn't vaporize a flight recorder. Some of the OTHER destruction wrought that day may have a bearing on the situation, though.

6 and a half milliseconds is a pretty short time, isn't it? What happens if the damaging forces last longer than 6 and a half thousandths of a second? What happens if something MORE than 5000 pounds of pressure is applied? 5000 pounds of pressure... I wonder how much an 1100 foot tall concrete and steel building would weigh, taking into account that 5000 pounds is slightly over the weight of an average pickup truck?

1100 degrees is hardly the "thousands" you cite. It' a bit over 1 thousand, not multiple "thousands". Still, that's pretty warm.

To be honest, I don't have the answers to these questions, but it seems they are worth asking if construction parameters of a flight data recorder are cited as the rationale behind the clearly impossible (if we are simply to accept that parametric argument, then clearly it is impossible for the recorders not to have been found - at least I take it that is the thrust of your argument, anyhow) happening. They apparently were not, making the clearly impossible quite possible.

I believe that Occam's Razor may apply here. Since what you claim is impossible quite clearly happened, there must be a logical explanation for that discrepancy. Generally, the simplest explanation of an event that satisfies all of the parameters is to be preferred. It would seem likely that the design specs were exceeded. This is much simpler and more likely answer than some vast conspiracy that somehow hasn't been blown open in nearly 10 years by some guy shooting off his mouth. As a matter of fact, I don't think all of the folks arguing in favor of that vast conspiracy have yet settled on a common foe behind it. I've seen everything from neocons to Israelis to some nebulous "NWO" cited as being behind it. Find me a logical culprit, and it could potentially sway the argument. Bin laden took credit, or rather he blamed "Allah" via the actions of AQ, so I'm inclined towards believing the cave dwellers did it.

Solid state vs moving parts? Did I mention moving parts somewhere? I surely didn't mean to, as I was thinking "electronics", not moving parts. Most circuit boards are quite a bit more delicate than say, for instance, your average capstan or flywheel. To be honest, the moving parts question never even crossed my mind.

Also, I have no idea what part of an airplane houses the flight recorder. Is it your contention that this part of the airplane was recovered intact, but the recorder was just missing?

1) Why the official story narrative as told by the 911 Commision is still considered an historically accurate rendering of events?
2) How anyone who's researched this to any degree could actively work to continue to support and defend the official story in light of all evidence to the contrary?

1. The countless videos showing the explosions in the side of the buildings, nowhere near were the planes hit

2. The way the buildings fall at near free fall speed, which is consistent with controlled demolition

reply to post by punterdeb

all film confiscated from the servo (gas station i think you call it), that would have shown the plane hitting the pentagon. fbi apparently showed up just after and took all footage from any camera even near the area. ? why.

Common tactic by law enforcement is to get video from all business/ATM in area to see, if by chance, camera recorded anything of interest to investigation

Because security cameras are designed to show activity of interest to the business - usually to prevent theft
Often are aimed at doors or at cashiers, not to catch shots of random jet liners passing overhead

Of the 85 videos viewed by the FBI only 2 showed fleeting images of Pentagon attack - Doubletree Hotel
camera showed smoke cloud raising from Pentagon. Citgo gas station showed shadow of aircraft passing overhead .

Dont post much but here is my two questions about that day.

1. WTC 7 falling after never being hit by a plane.

2. No clear video of a plane hitting the pentagon.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by HappilyEverAfter

 

That kind of made me facepalm. After all, NOT A SINGLE official story engineering paper/article has ever said that steel was melting in the towers.

youre right, neither did I,
heat and deform standing
puddles weeks later on ground.
Thank you

reply to post by loveguy

Why would the owner of WTC7 have the authority to "Pull-it?" Should it not be the battalion chief's?

Been over this before

The fire chief, Daniel Nigro, made the decision to clear area around WTC 7, anticipating its collapse

Silverstein had no input on decision - fire chief informed him as matter of courtesy that WTC 7 was being
abandoned and left to burn.

The "pull" meant pulling or evacuating FF from the area

1. Live video footage showing the front(1st quarter) of the second plane that is flying onto the screen, is shown exiting the building, intact... (cant remember where i saw that).. Obviously the "live footage" was altered on the spot, cut and pasted, and shown exiting the building. Timeframe to do this? 7 seconds.

2. WTC 7. Showing explosions, up and down the building, BEFORE falling in a controlled demolition.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave
The way the truthers are raping the tragedy of Edna Cintron is literally dancing in the blood of a victim of 9/11 for their sick conspiracy claims and I find this offensive and self serving, not to mention ghoulish. It's one thing to think it's funny to accuse everyone and their hampster of being secret gov't agents, but THIS is crossing the line IMHO

What temperatures are required to be life threatening to a human being?

What temperatures are required to weaken steel? Is there a significant difference?

Steel still has 60% of its strength at 1000 deg F. What happens to water at 212 deg F?
Isn't the human body mostly water?

Talk about RAPING science and dishing out a bunch of emotional bull#.

So she could have been driven out by a 400 deg fire that had almost no effect on the steel.

psik

Bummer. Only 2.

1. The 9/11 commission itself.

2. The blatant lies by the Bush administration that are still part of the OS (e.g. "we had no warning", etc.).

reply to post by SLAYER69


Actually you're wrong Slayer69.
The footage of the first plane wasn't shown until approx. 10 hrs. later. Bush never saw it live like he said. He also never thought that with which he answered the questioner. IOW he lied. It's a proven fact he lied. Why?

Edit: The Bush Jordan speech would've been no. 3 for me.

1. Why did this website so quickly take down the theory presented by Dimitri Khalezov's 911thology?
2. Why the format change to go along with that same removal of said theory?

Ok. so we all know that it was an inside job and if the towers was an inside job id say its more than likely the london 7/7 bombings was an inside job too.

here is my question. What are we going to do about it other than just talk about it on the internet?

my answer would be. Nothing!

Like it or not but we are cowerds, we see things that go on right under our noses and we do nothing at all. Some people on here talk about the zombies in the world who still walk around asleep, but at least they are just stupid and not cowerdly and stupid.

Thanks

#1. Distribution of steel

#2. Distribution of mass

Skyscrapers must h9ld themselves up. They must withstand the wind. The designers know that. Airliners hitting skyscrapers can't be analyzed without that information.

Our engineering schools are up to their necks in this nonsense.

How much steel had to be weakened for collapses to start? How could a collapse be analyzed without knowing the distributions of steel and other mass?

www.youtube.com...

psik

The whole story is just completely unbelievable; like a badly-written novel.
It amazes me that everyone doesn't know that 911 was a setup. Two things
that stand out for me are general in nature, but they will do:

1. It looked wrong. If you know about aircraft, materials, chemistry and
physics, then you can't imagine the scenario where the fuel in two
planes could totally demolish two (incredibly) huge buildings, built
from concrete and steel. But not burning for days (fueled by what -
office equipment?) and then collapsing into a sad heap, but turning to
powder that flowed down streets within hours.

2. Too many coincidences. It turned out to be just what people wanted:
a couple of obsolete office buildings demolished that were too expensive
to renovate or dismantle (but nicely insured), public backing for a war
that just might have had something to do with oil, a new Bad Guy that
even the simplest of minds could identify, and a reason to squeeze and
control the population; not just in the USA but in almost all countries.


It's the worse thing that I can remember happening. And they got away with it.