NEW - VIDEO, A VIEW FROM A BOAT

a reply to: neutronflux

Picturing fuel drums adds all the space between the round drums. Picturing a cube keeps it an accurate image. Accuracy is everything when calculating.

a reply to: Kester


One. As temperature increases, steels strength to resistance load lessens.

vertexeng.com...

WHAT HAPPENS TO STEEL DURING A FIRE?
Physical and material property changes occur within the structural steel framing during a fire event. Thermal elongation, strength reduction, and a reduction in stiffness can occur. Due to the property changes deformations and buckling can occur at 600°F. If a structural steel framing member, such as a beam or girder, is completely constrained at its connections, deformation and buckling can occur as low as 250°F. Typically though buckling of the member occurs around 1,300°F due to the 50% reduction in strength and stiffness (Depicted in the graphs above).

From WTC 5 if I remember correctly. The WTC buildings were shown to be susceptible to fire related structural failures














Finally. The twin towers had deficient fire proofing with the jet impacts stripping and damaging the fire insulation.

“FIREPROOFING” AT THE WTC TOWERS

www.fireengineering.com...

I investigated the fireproofing in both World Trade Center towers over approximately a 10-year period between the early 1990s and early June 2000, the last time I was in the towers.

There were problems with the fireproofing in the World Trade Towers that may have rendered them vulnerable to fire. These problems are not unique to the WTC; I have observed similar problems with the

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I believe there were no humans aboard at all.

The engine found on the sidewalk has been identified by many who know more than I do as the engine from Boeing 747. That combined with the wing root fairings visible in photos suggest it was one of the 767 types converted to the tanker replacement candidate category by Dov Zakheim's outfit in Israel.

The craft that struck the North Tower was described by many in calls to NYPD as being a smaller craft, commuter or corporate type.

What exactly happened to the actual AA11 and UA175 and UA93 we will never know.

a reply to: Salander

You

the engine from Boeing 747.

Wrong.

Explaining the 9/11 Murray St Engine from Flight 175 (N612UA) that hit WTC2

www.metabunk.org...

Post 3

Well that was quick

I think the above image pretty much proves that even if the 767 had a JT9D-7R4D then the TOBI duct looks like this . I await objections.

The truth movement is based on lies.

a reply to: neutronflux

The truth movement is based on true facts that scare hell out of those attempting to defend the official narrative.

Great similarities between the lies of Anthony Fauci and the media and Dick Cheney and the media. Small irony that you seem to grasp the lies of Fauci and Company, yet are immune to the lies of Cheney and Company.

a reply to: Salander

What does that have to do with the facts in “ Explaining the 9/11 Murray St Engine from Flight 175 (N612UA) that hit WTC2 ” proves you wrong.

Typical truth movement tactic. Get called out on a truth movement myth, change the subject to its all a conspiracy.

And you wonder why the 9/11 truth movement destroyed its own credibility.

a reply to: neutronflux

LOL, the official narrative collapsed on its own. No facts support the official narrative. Impossible cell phone calls, absence of crashed airliners with passengers, overwhelming evidence of nuclear events at WTC.

Your official narrative collapsed on its own, years ago, because all the facts contradict it.

a reply to: Salander

You

LOL, the official narrative collapsed on its own

Has what to do with your statement, “ the engine from Boeing 747”

And your statement being proven a myth by this thread:

Explaining the 9/11 Murray St Engine from Flight 175 (N612UA) that hit WTC2

www.metabunk.org...

Post 3

Well that was quick

I think the above image pretty much proves that even if the 767 had a JT9D-7R4D then the TOBI duct looks like this . I await objections.

The problem is people in the truth movement choose myth over fact. Then keep changing the subject when facts are brought up.

a reply to: Salander

You

nuclear events at WTC.

Dude. Anyone that thinks nukes were used at the WTC are nuts, ignorant, and have a serious lack of grip on reality. Not because they questioned. Because it’s been beaten to death with zero evidence of nukes at the WTC. Mainly there was no radiation above background, and the radiation would have been quiet evident like Fukushima if you think the pile was kept hot by radioactive reactions than smoldering fires. All people at the pile would have became violently ill / died in hours upon being at the pile.

Anyone else notice the weather change in the later part of the original clip?

Nice clear skies, but down by the dock it was storm clouds and rain on the lens. Probably from September 10th.

Why edit the video to post it and change some of the days/sights putting the crash first but still include the other sights from earlier days in a TRANQUIL New York and also a RAINY New York from September 10th?

Still seems "fishy" to me.?

MOST IMPORTANT....Where are all the other people's clips from the boat? There were plenty of people in this clip seen filming and some of them would want to show theirs now this one has been released, surely.

a reply to: nerbot

Like as most people at the time had to use a single vhs tape for multiple shots throughout the day. Or something along those lines?

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: nerbot

Like as most people at the time had to use a single vhs tape for multiple shots throughout the day. Or something along those lines?

Plenty of mobile phones around in the clip. Talking and filming. Look again.

a reply to: nerbot


And what cellphone from 2001 would have quality video to match the clip?? Or VHS?

Camera phone

en.m.wikipedia.org...


The first commercial camera phone was the Kyocera Visual Phone VP-210, released in Japan in May 1999.[91] It was called a "mobile videophone" at the time,[92] and had a 110,000-pixel front-facing camera.[91] It stored up to 20 JPEG digital images, which could be sent over e-mail, or the phone could send up to two images per second over Japan's Personal Handy-phone System (PHS) cellular network.[91] The Samsung SCH-V200, released in South Korea in June 2000, was also one of the first phones with a built-in camera. It had a TFT liquid-crystal display (LCD) and stored up to 20 digital photos at 350,000-pixel resolution. However, it could not send the resulting image over the telephone function, but required a computer connection to access photos.[93] The first mass-market camera phone was the J-SH04, a Sharp J-Phone model sold in Japan in November 2000.[94][93] It could instantly transmit pictures via cell phone telecommunication.[95]

Cameras on cell phones proved popular right from the start, as indicated by the J-Phone in Japan having had more than half of its subscribers using cell phone cameras in two years. The world soon followed. In 2003, more camera phones were sold worldwide than stand-alone digital cameras largely due to growth in Japan and Korea.[96]

Category:Mobile phones introduced in 2001

Pages in category "Mobile phones introduced in 2001"
The following 11 pages are in this category, out of 11 total. This list may not reflect recent changes (learn more).

E
Ericsson T66
N
Nokia 6310
S
Samsung SGH R220
Samsung SGH-T100
Samsung SPH-i300
Siemens ME45
Siemens S40
Siemens S45
Siemens SL45
Sony Ericsson T68
Sony Mobile

Technically not wrong, but irrelevant. N612UA, being an early build 767 had Pratt & Whitney JT9D-7R4 engines. The 747 also had variants that flew the same engine JT9D-7R4 with minor packaging differences. The data plate on the engine and serial numbers of the rotating components within the engine would make it very easy for the airline and the authorities to trace the engine found to the airframe it was installed on.

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: Salander

You

the engine from Boeing 747.

Wrong.

edit on 14-3-2022 by JetRanger because: formatting

edit on 14-3-2022 by JetRanger because: formatting

originally posted by: Moohide
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

I'm sure i'v seen this video in the past, about 10-12 years ago maybe.

.

Yes, same here, ive seen this before about 10 years ago but maybe not here. I remember that the OP at the time was making the point that one guy talking, probably the one taking the video saying “oh lord” oh God”, just doesn't sound believable that he is surprised.

a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Most interesting to me is someone calling it a “United Plane”. As a other poster stated you can’t make out the windows it’s going so fast. How could they identify the airline logo? Not even evident when you pause it.

a reply to: nerbot

Right. And not even just the airport part. Someone even says “United plane”.

a reply to: projectscm

You recognize the plane by the paint scheme or "livery"

United Airlines livery

www.yesterdaysairlines.com...

Can see the red horizontal stripe running the length fuselage with the blue underside The large intertwined red/blue U A on the tail and the large white block letters UNITED AIRLINES The lettering are many time size of windows, so even if can not pick out individual windows can see the letters

These are the major points of recognition

Someone familiar with the livery can recognize United Airlines aircraft

originally posted by: Flyingclaydisk

originally posted by: pheonix358
a reply to: Blue_Jay33

Notice the fuel explosion is external to the building?

If you count the windows you can get a size for the two fireballs. That is the fuel going up, being pushed out of the building.

So much for jet fuel running down on the inside of the building.

Great video.

P

Well, the reason you don't see fire 'inside' the building right away is the impact and resultant explosion immediately exhausted (blew) all the accelerant (air) out of the inside of the building creating a vacuum. So, yes, there likely was thousands of gallons of JET-B running down inside the building (i.e. stairwells and elevator / mechanical shafts). The second reason is the JET-B fuel used in commercial aviation is not particularly flammable unless it is atomized. The impact atomized tons of fuel instantaneously, and it exploded into a giant fireball outside the building, but much of the atomized fuel quickly returned to a liquid state in the accelerant poor atmosphere inside the building due to the negative pressure, so it didn't catch fire until 'much' later.

Incidentally, these same concepts are used to control fires inside buildings by using the HVAC systems; they pressurize areas above and below the fire and exhaust areas at the site of the fire (creating a vacuum). This prevents the spread of a fire longer, giving fire fighters time to begin fire suppression efforts. Now, obviously with a massive incident like 9-11, the HVAC systems were powerless to do anything, but the sheer impact of the crash itself created the vacuum in 1-WTC and subsequently 2-WTC.

Once the temperature of the residual fire from the crash inside the building rose above the flashpoint of the liquid JET-B fuel, then it ignited several minutes after the impact, but not immediately upon impact. This is what you are seeing. You see the impact, and the immediate fireball, then lots of smoke. When the smoke clears you see a giant hole in the corner of 2-WTC, the 2nd tower, but no significant fire like what has developed in 1-WTC (the 1st tower to be hit) 18 minutes prior. Several minutes after this you see a growing fire start to engulf the areas above and below the 80th floor down to 77 and up to 85.

No sinister conspiracies here, just the natural progression of fires following an explosion.

BTW - These same concepts are also why explosives are used to control oil well fires. The explosions evacuate all the accelerants away from the wellhead, so the fire is starved for oxygen for a period of time. This window allows for the well to be sealed so when the oxygen, and subsequent fire return, the fuel source has been shut off and the fire is eventually extinguished.

I love a good conspiracy, what you have pointed out

in my low level knowledge of basic physics, it sounds about right. How you explained it looks just about right with what

im seeing in the video.....

the nefarious forces behind all the actions
of that day ARE UP FOR DEBATE...

"The science" is there for all to watch.....

One thing that I just thought of that I think is interesting is that people always try to blanket debunk these theories by saying "oh well How many people would have to be in on it and say nothing." I mean well D-Day was kept secret, only a select few knew of it, the sheer lengths they went to to keep D-Day a secret from the Germans are well documented and common knowledge now. Plus I mean how many guys does it really take to plant some bombs after hours, two guys go around with a box full of bombs and set them up.