Missing Footage from 9/11?

Mkay, so to begin with, I'm known apparently as a dim-witted, illogical, government loving OS supporter. No matter how much I say to the contrary in my views and assertions as well as my conclusions, simply because I believe that the collapses were not the conspiracy, I am shunned by 90% of the avid 9/11 forum followers here.

As it is! I still have one question that bugs my mind relentlessly and allows for a shred of doubt about the collapse of the towers. There was that report about a ring of flashes with a firecracker noise around the 7th or so floor of the WTC 2 before it fell?

I have searched very hard for videos of 9/11 that show the base. At one point, I found TWO videos that WOULD HAVE shown it. The problem? Both videos had a strange glitch that skipped a couple seconds to the point where the tower was halfway done collapsing already. The first one I had found appeared to be a fixed camera off the coast. It showed the whole tower, and just before the collapse it skipped a few seconds to where the debris was already raining down. The second was a woman's video from an apartment or something, and she was filming the street filled with firefighters and cars just before the collapse. She was panning around the base of the tower and then the film skipped to a higher view of the tower already raining down debris.

Can anyone find any video of the base of the towers for 3-10 seconds (hopefully!) before the collapse? I feel like this would severely help everyone decide what was true or false on that day, and I hate that I can't locate those two videos I found a month or two ago. I've just got so many 9/11 videos in my browser history now that it would take hours to sift through all of them.

Also, if no video at all exists even if there should be, why would those seconds be cut out? Does that actually enforce the idea that something wonky was going on in the towers that is being suppressed by someone?

your entitled to your opinions and im glad that you acknowledge that something wasnt right on that day

i remember a witnes describing flashes and pops near the base but i dont recall any videos i will have a look tho am sure some other ppl on here will do a better job than me

IMHO i dont think you will find such videos coz if they exist and came to light they would be difficult to explain

I have not seen any legitimate vid(s) showing that. I have however come across some doctored (very poorly at that) where someone tried to insert that into the vid, it has since went away and can no longer be found. There are also numerous accounts of people telling that they saw it, but there is no other proof other than word of mouth.

reply to post by mikelee


I would love to see video/picture evidence of the sequence of lights/explosion-snap sounds reported. However, I doubt that they exist. And if they do exist, they have been doctored/cut out/unreleased.

Here is another question.
[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/53473aef5754.jpg[/atsimg]

If a bird can create this kind of damage to the wings, is it truly plausible that a wing could cut through steel beams?
Remember the plane lodged itself inside the building almost entirely before exploding.

Just a question, that I'm sure OS supporters will be able to explain.

reply to post by DIDtm


It has something to do with any object that reaches a certain velocity will be able to pass through any other object. Now, the condition of the impacting object isn't very favorable.

Something about mass x velocity squared... says that the faster something goes the more kinetic energy it has to impart on another object. Since the planes were going 400-500 mph, and they did have a lot of mass, while the aluminum would no doubt be shredded, it would certainly damage anything it came into contact with.

reply to post by Varemia


I'm very surprised to see you asking for this. I would suggest some videos, but certainly they will all be labeled as edited by the OS staff. Regardless, this evidence would certainly suggest something different than the OS actually happened, wouldn't it?

Why don't you ask the same about the Pentagon footage?

Originally posted by Varemia

It has something to do with any object that reaches a certain velocity will be able to pass through any other object. Now, the condition of the impacting object isn't very favorable.

This is not really true. When objects collide the forces acting on each object is equal (Newtons 3rd law) velocity doesn't change this. When two objects collide the one with the least mass will be the most damaged. IF the plane was moving fast enough for it's mass to increase above that of construction steel you'd have a point.

Something about mass x velocity squared... says that the faster something goes the more kinetic energy it has to impart on another object. Since the planes were going 400-500 mph, and they did have a lot of mass, while the aluminum would no doubt be shredded, it would certainly damage anything it came into contact with.

Velocity increases mass, but only to a point. The planes were not moving that fast.

It's good to understand basic physics to understand why the towers could NOT have been brought down with plane impacts and fire.

www.physicsclassroom.com...

Take yourself an aluminum hammer
and a sheet of 1/2 inch steel...
pound on that steel with all your might...
and what happens....Nothing.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by DIDtm

 

It has something to do with any object that reaches a certain velocity will be able to pass through any other object. Now, the condition of the impacting object isn't very favorable.

Something about mass x velocity squared... says that the faster something goes the more kinetic energy it has to impart on another object. Since the planes were going 400-500 mph, and they did have a lot of mass, while the aluminum would no doubt be shredded, it would certainly damage anything it came into contact with.

UMM...NO.

Most of us would agree that planes are flimsy things, as Marcus Icke points out: “Computer simulation and mathematical analysis of the impact by MIT, University of Purdue and others indicate that upon impact the wings of the 767 would have shattered and the fuel ignited outside the towers facade, the aircraft would have lost about 25% percent of its kinetic energy on impact and that the tail fin would have sheared off due to torsional forces. In layman’s terms this means that the aeroplane would have decelerated sharply [emphasis added] crumpled up and exploded against the tower’s wall with only heavy objects like the engines and undercarriage puncturing the towers facade. The entire airframe would not have glided through the outer wall and would not have left a large hole roughly the same shape and size of a Boeing 767-200.” Icke’s accompanying photos support his analysis by showing a MD80 landing hard, with its air frame bending and tail breaking off.

Found here:
nomoregames.net...

OFF TOPIC, I know...sorry...maybe I will start a different thread regarding it.

Last time I checked, commercial aircraft are not designed to be missiles. At a rate of speed well below subsonic, it is highly unlikely the whole unit could penetrate a steel reinforced building with the relative ease we were shown in the videos. This is where CGI comes in very handy in assisting to suspend the laws of physics.

I'm pretty sure we all can agree that the planes didn't impact a steel wall. They impacted and flew through a material known as glass, wrenching steel out from its bolts, not cutting steel. It's not very difficult to comprehend.

Originally posted by Varemia
I'm pretty sure we all can agree that the planes didn't impact a steel wall. They impacted and flew through a material known as glass, wrenching steel out from its bolts, not cutting steel. It's not very difficult to comprehend.

Huh.?? Have you seen the amount of steel in the exterior walls.????
And the size of them beams.??

Area wise, there was more steel than glass..

reply to post by Varemia


Do you forget that the whole NIST report hinges on damage to the central core, not just the outer steel mesh?

You can wave away the argument by claiming it was just fasteners being ripped out of the steel mesh, but how do you explain the plane severing inner core columns that were much thicker than the mesh?

reply to post by ANOK


So you are willing to stand in a thin steel mesh while I fire a large aluminum can at 500 mph? I highly doubt that it would be a safe situation. Steel may be harder than aluminum, but force does not just dissipate because it is steel.

reply to post by DIDtm


Your "off-topic" link to 'nomoregames.com' was more enlightening than you think.

Since, that site's statements and "conclusions" are ghastly inept, and quite laughable.

@OP: Even IF you can find some indication of "explosions" at around the seventh floor.....still won't explain the very obvious progression of the collapse...in other words, a "blow out" that is alleged to have occured down lower would have been quite evident, as the portion between "those" floors, and the impact zone floors, would have shown signs of failure BEFORE the cascading, and accumulating, weight of the debris from on top reached it....TOP DOWN, all the way.

Originally posted by Varemia
reply to post by ANOK

 

So you are willing to stand in a thin steel mesh while I fire a large aluminum can at 500 mph? I highly doubt that it would be a safe situation. Steel may be harder than aluminum, but force does not just dissipate because it is steel.

First off it wasn't a THIN steel mesh, why do you insist on adding BS to bolster your argument?

Secondly I would have no problem with it.

Again you need to learn Newtons laws instead of trying to make up stuff.

F=ma

I don't even need to do the math to know an aluminium can at 500mph is not going to have enough force to go through steel. You need more information that you have given to do the math anyway.

I also doubt the claimed speed of the aircraft in question, and I'm not the only one...

A Responsibility to Explain an Aeronautical Improbability
Dwain Deets
NASA Dryden Flight Research Center (Senior Executive Service - retired)
AIAA Associate Fellow

The airplane was UA175, a Boeing 767-200, shortly before crashing into World Trade Center Tower 2. Based on analysis of radar data, the National Transportation and Safety Board reported the groundspeed just before impact as 510 knots. This is well beyond the maximum operating velocity of 360 knots, and maximum dive velocity of 410 knots. The possibilities as I see them are: (1) this wasn't a standard 767-200; (2) the radar data was compromised in some manner; (3) the NTSB analysis was erroneous; or (4) the 767 flew well beyond its flight envelope, was controllable, and managed to hit a relatively small target. Which organization has the greater responsibility for acknowledging the elephant in the room? The NTSB, NASA, Boeing, or the AIAA? Have engineers authored papers, but the AIAA or NASA won't publish them? Or, does the ethical responsibility lie not with organizations, but with individual aeronautical engineers? Have engineers just looked the other way?

tangibleinfo.blogspot.com...

Originally posted by weedwhacker
reply to post by DIDtm

 

Your "off-topic" link to 'nomoregames.com' was more enlightening than you think.

Since, that site's statements and "conclusions" are ghastly inept, and quite laughable.

@OP: Even IF you can find some indication of "explosions" at around the seventh floor.....still won't explain the very obvious progression of the collapse...in other words, a "blow out" that is alleged to have occured down lower would have been quite evident, as the portion between "those" floors, and the impact zone floors, would have shown signs of failure BEFORE the cascading, and accumulating, weight of the debris from on top reached it....TOP DOWN, all the way.

There is no debate that something hit the towers. The question is, as you have failed to answer, theorize or demonstrate, was that is was a large airline carrier with aluminum wings.

And please show how/where/why 'nomoregames.com' statements and conclusions are 'ghastly inept and quite laughable'.