It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


'911 in Plane Site' - Has Anyone Seen It?

page: 8
<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in


posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:18 PM
With this amount of information I find it hard to believe that a Jet aircraft could bring down two towers, by no means do I claim to be a professional but looking at the photographs and videos I think even a laymen like me can see that those jets did not cause all that damage and it is my believe/opinion that the buildings where blown up with some type of explosives.
There is just to much circumstantial evidence for me to believe other wise and that inculed the fact that 911 was allowed to happen




Vast amounts of energy were released during the collapse of each of the Twin Towers in Lower Manhattan on September 11th, 2001. The accepted source of this energy was the gravitational potential energy of the towers, which was far greater than the energy released by the fires that preceded the collapses.

The magnitude of that source cannot be determined with much precision thanks to the secrecy surrounding details of the towers' construction. However, FEMA's Building Performance Assessment Report gives an estimate Ref(1):

"Construction of WTC 1 resulted in the storage of more than 4 x 1011 joules of potential energy over the 1,368-foot height of the structure. "That is equal to about 111,000 KWH (kilowatt hours) per tower.
Of the many identifiable energy sinks in the collapses, one of the only ones that has been subjected to quantitative analysis is the thorough pulverization of the concrete in the towers.

It is well documented that nearly all of the non-metallic constituents of the towers were pulverized into fine powder. The largest of these constituents by weight was the concrete that constituted the floor slabs of the towers. Jerry Russell estimated that the amount of energy required to crush concrete to 60 micron powder is about 1.5 KWH/ton. Ref.(2).

That paper incorrectly assumes there were 600,000 tons of concrete in each tower, but Russell later provided a more accurate estimate of 90,000 tons of concrete per tower, based on FEMA's description of the towers' construction. That estimate implies the energy sink of concrete pulverization was on the order of 135,000 KWH per tower, which is already larger than the energy source of gravitational energy.

However, the size of this sink is critically dependent on the fineness of the concrete powder, and on mechanical characteristics of the lightweight concrete thought to have been used in the towers. Available statistics about particle sizes of the dust, such as the study by Paul J. Lioy, et al Ref(3)

characterize particle sizes of aggregate dust samples, not of its constituents, such as concrete, fiberglass, hydrocarbon soot, etc. Based on diverse evidence, 60 microns would appear to be a high estimate for average concrete particle size, suggesting 135,000 KWH is a conservative estimate for the magnitude of the sink.

A second energy sink, that has apparently been overlooked, was many times the magnitude of the gravitational energy: the energy needed to expand the dust clouds to several times the volume of each tower within 30 seconds of the onset of their collapses. Note that the contents of the dust clouds had to come from building constituents -- gases and materials inside of or intrinsic to the building -- modulo any mixing with outside air.

Given that the Twin Towers' dust clouds behaved like pyroclastic flows, with distinct boundaries and rapidly expanding frontiers (averaging perhaps 35 feet/second on the ground for the first 30 seconds), it is doubtful that mixing with ambient air accounted for a significant fraction of their volume. Therefore the dust clouds' expansion must have been primarily due to an expansion of building constituents. Possible sources of expansion include:
thermodynamic expansion of gases
vaporization of liquids and solids
chemical reactions resulting in a net increase in gaseous phase molecules That is explosives.
The evidence does not support the idea that chemical reactions in the dust cloud liberated vast quantities of gases.
Actually, the evidence does support the use of explosives to collapse the towers Ref. (4)
That leaves increases in gas temperatures and vaporization of solids and liquids, primarily water, to drive the expansion.
How much heat energy was involved in expanding the dust clouds? To calculate the energy we need to answer three questions:
1. What was the volume of the dust clouds from a collapse at some time soon after it started (before the clouds began to diffuse)?
2. How did the mixing of the dust cloud with ambient air contribute to its size, and how can this be factored out to obtain the volume occupied by gases and suspended materials originally inside the building?
3. What is the ratio of that volume to the volume of the intact building?
4. How much heat energy was required to produce that ratio of expansion?
5. more

[edit on 23-8-2004 by Sauron]

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 08:22 PM
I talked to a family member tonight that is an engineer and has a background in dealing with this kind of stuff. I asked about static electric buildup and he thought it to be a good possibility. I did some looking around the net for info on this and here is a few things I found.

"Q: Static Discharge Wires
Why not install static wires on gas pumps like airplanes use?

A: Aircraft use static grounding wires before fueling because of the immense amount of static generated during flight. Most of the automotive refueling accidents we have investigated occurred after the refueling process."



"Inerting systems have been used in many military aircraft, starting with a 1950 version of the B-47 bomber jet which sublimated dry ice to produce gaseous carbon dioxide and pump it into the fuel tanks whenever the fuel pumps were active or whenever in-flight refueling was in process. This system was implemented largely over concern over static electricity discharges during in-flight refueling. "



posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:21 PM
I really think the only way we will ever prove this to be fraud is by them coming out and saying it.Not from insider reports,but from the horses mouth(s)
We have the evidence.Video,images,documents,but all that happens is a changed story by the gov. and us trying to find more.We find more,they make up another story.
They think people are stupid or dont care.They feel if they say something a majority will just go along.And many do.But it is people like us on this board that will not allow someone to lie and hide.
We will find out one way or another.

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:39 PM
The more I look at all the evidence the more I think this stuff is pretty straight forward. 3 of the crashes were witnessed by many. The two in NY were well documented on video. There was no pod under the jets. There was no mysterious explosion before the jets hit. There was no reason to. Tower 1 and tower 2 were not controlled demolitions. You couldn't plant explosives ahead of time on exactly the right floor just below where each jet would hit. WTC #7 is hard to say what the deal is with that.

In DC the Pentagon was hit by an AA jet. I found many reports online from witnesses and they pretty much all match up. Plus there is that pic I found which shows a large jet making a very sharp turn at a really low altitude. This obviously was the AA flight making its run on the Pentagon. The camera at the Pentagon doesn't actually show what hit but you can see a vapor trail that indicates something very fast incoming followed by a massive fireball which matches very well with the fireballs from the WTC towers. So they obviously had the same type of fuel source. And there are pics out that show small pieces of wreckage around the lawn of the Pentagon. Remember when a jet hits a solid surface it will shatter which this jet did. It slammed into a very heavy will with a stone exterior. There isn't going to be anything left. The holes in the wall in the rear of the section hit are obviously created by firefighters to gain access to the area from the other side.

The only true debate over the PA flight is whether it was shot down or crashed because of a passenger uprising. The fact that a jet was scrambled to shoot the jet down and the fact that it went down right about the time the fighter was in place to shoot it down and the fact that debris was found so far away from the crash site leads me to believe it was indeed shot down. Which had to happen.

The things that need to be figured out still is what really happened to WTC 7. Also how were passengers able to call from the flights. Air phone? Cell phone? What altitude were they at when the calls were place? What kind of cell phones did they use. Give that info were the calls possible? Why didn't a fighter jet take down flight 77? Where was our military?

The swallow your pride question and get over yourself and your government question: Did we let flight 77 hit the Pentagon and thats why with plenty of warning no fighter jet went after it? Did we know in advance about the attack and thats why Bush made the comment about seeing the first crash on tv before the footage was ever made available? Did we know in advance and this is how we immediately went from a sneak attack to knowing who the terrorist were on all flights, who they worked for, what country they operated in and who the ring leader (Atta) of the operation was?

Us knowing in advance and letting it happen seems more likely than any of the other conspiracy scenarios.

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:45 PM
For those who do not accept the Official Story on the collapse of the Twin Towers, this article is a minor smoking gun. It explains their biggest problem: if the Towers were brought down with explosives how could anyone get them in. Step in Marvin Bush whose company installed the security system...

Vol. 9, No. 2021 - The American Reporter - January 20, 2003

by Margie Burns

posted on Aug, 23 2004 @ 09:51 PM
It was impossible for the explosives to be planted ahead of time. It has absolutely nothing to do with access but rather knowing in advance which random floors the jets were going to hit and placing the explosives on the very bottom floor of the damage area. Then of course you'd have to hide the explosion itself. Plus you'd have to hope that the heat from the exploding jet wouldn't set the charges off early. While mathematically possible you'd probably have better odds with the lottery and you certainly wouldn't try and pull something like this off with such remote odds of succeeding.

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 05:23 AM
It should all be explosives, but definately not the conventional ones... There is no fire or light during the explosions, only extracted huge dust.

One more interesting thing: There was nothing left of the contents of the buildings!! Interesting, isn't it??

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 07:59 AM
A fascinating video.
There can only be a conspiracy surrounding the events of 9/11.
I guess they didn't quantify the value of the internet and the exchange of information it allows into the equation this time around.
There is a wealth of 'evidence' contrary to the official version of events on that fateful day.
It is time to dispense with the worn out phrase of 'conspiracy theory' and replace it with 'conspiracy possibility'.

After all, the world is only re-evaluating from available information and there is no crime in that.
That is what freedom is all about.

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 08:38 AM
Just if we see that... websites containing these 911 details are slowly disappearing one by one... perhaps, this is the fate of the ATS, too. I wonder, who is behind all this? It is very disturbing, that I found enormous data on the 911 for a year after the attacks, but now, there is hardly any. Videos and pics are manipulated, and many wasn't even released, we have those, people recorded to VHS.

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 09:20 AM
We can all talk and write about it until we are blue in the face, the fact is, as just in the days of JFK, thats all is done about it, just a load of people who think they know something is wrong, talking about something which everyone knows is wrong.

Look as I have said before, they knew more in a week in 1912 when the Titanic sunk, than we do now (in this era of vast communication) years on from that day in America. Its not a conspiracy theory; its a conspiracy fact.

The Government have people putting out wild conspiracy theories about what went on that day; just for the reason of making us all look like madmen.

9/11 has its own grassy knoll, my only fear is that it will take another 50+ years for some people to start waking up and understand that this is the case, and by that time we might all be of the attitude, whats the point, those who knew about or did it, are most likely dead or dying, therefore people give up on the whole idea.

Time to act was the weeks and months after, time to act was before they took the rubble away, but theres still time, we must use this time well.

Time is their friend, for time can save them.

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 09:28 AM
You can start by voting the people out of office that are responsible regardless of party. And yes... that means voting for Kerry even if you are a republican. You certainly don't reward the people involved in 911 by re-electing them.

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 09:33 AM
How do we know, that Kerry is not worst than Bush?! With a military background, I can imagine what he is going to do in the name of "the War on Terrorism"...

posted on Aug, 24 2004 @ 11:57 AM
It is pure speculation. But we DO know what Bush does. Perhaps Kerry's war background would have kept him from being railroaded by a terrible plan of attack the way Bush was. Also since he isn't an oil man the chances of him being less interested in the middle east is pretty good. Which also takes away some of the motives the terrorists have to attack us.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 03:01 PM

Originally posted by Hawk

Whoa. That's definitely a "wtf" right there. I didn't even notice that.

I know that high-frequency vibrations turn concrete into dust, but as far as I read from that article... that wasn't made of concrete!

Yep, Hawk... some kind of unknown weapon, for sure.
Now I switch to the expensive narrowband, probably I will come here very rarely:-(

De ha errefel jrsz, megdobhatsz egy E-maillel. Addig is j frumozst.... :-D

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:33 PM
Poor souls.............. consumed by yet another fantasy of the great liberal spin machine. Defenders of the radical extremist and tormentor of the weak mind.

posted on Sep, 3 2004 @ 10:44 PM
The WTC collapsed because of structual failure. It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, creating potentially enormously high temperatures. The strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

Modern structures are designed to resist fire for a specific length of time. Safety features such as fire retarding materials and sprinkler systems help to contain fires, help extinguish flames, or prevent steel from being exposed to excessively high temperatures. This gives occupants time to escape and allow fire fighters to extinguish blazes, before the building is catastrophically damaged.


posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 12:50 AM
i'm sorry guys but im not going to start calling others idiots in this post instead here is a link.

pentagon models, renderings and animations

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 03:26 AM

Poor souls.............. consumed by yet another fantasy of the great liberal spin machine.

go back to fark you troll.

I think people are being mislead away from the Israeli implications connected to the entire event.

posted on Sep, 4 2004 @ 06:39 AM
its amazing that the WTC was designed to withstand a 707 impact (fuel capacity similar to 767)!!!

wats also mind-boggling is that, how jet fuel, burning at 1,300 degrees, was able to melt construction steel, which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees!!!

witnesses had this to say when the towers collapsed...

Don Halasy: " As I turned to run, a wall of warm air came barrelling toward me. I tried to outrace it, but it swept me up and literally blew me into the wall of a building. By the time I regained my footing, a hailstorm of debris was falling from the sky."

David Handschuh: " Instinctively I lifted the camera up, and something took over that probably saved my life. And that was to run rather than take pictures. I got down to the end of the block and turned the corner when a wave a hot, solid, black wave of heat threw me down the block. It literally picked me up off my feet, and I wound up about a block away. "

What each of these witnesses are describing is known as the shockwave effect! what causes shockwaves? Explosives. what possible explosives could be used in this type of attack? controlled demolition, the only logical explanation to why the towers fell straight down!!!


posted on Sep, 11 2004 @ 08:25 AM
I just watched this DVD and wow. All the rumors and bits and pieces of information regarding the pentagon, missile attacks and mystery explosions are all brought up in this video. Eye witnesses, actual video, actual photographs that all point to a different story other then what the world is being told. This is the most solid video I have seen on this matter yet. Everything that is brought up has some evidence to back it up. I highly suggest you all check this out.

new topics

top topics

<< 5  6  7    9  10 >>

log in