JREF Forum - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

What should an aircraft look like in surveilance videos?

leftysergeant — Wed, 16 May 2012 02:34:54 GMT

To those who expect any of the videos of the 9/11 aircraft to be more clear, consider that all of them just accidently caught the images they did. The clearest are the Fairbanks and Hezarkhani videos, because the camera was focused right where the plane was headed.

The parking lot cameras at the Pentagon were focused on a much closer point. The net work news cameras were focused on the towers, so the aircraft only came into focus just as it hit.

Here is what a good camera focused a couple hundred feet out, with no fish-eye distortion shows when an aircraft passes by a little beyond the point of focus. How clearly do you see the aircraft against the background between 0:03 and 0:07?

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

Youtube User Xendrius Back with a Bang. LOL

Oz1976 — Mon, 14 May 2012 23:50:29 GMT

A month or two ago a video was posted by youtube user Xendrius claiming it the be all end all of twoofness. After a few of us here viewed and commented on the video and in a thread dedicated to it, he ended up taking it down vowing to remake it in all it's glory. Well...he's done so. For your enjoyment...

I AGREE

Be prepared for a parade of the traditional meme's of the last 6 years.

IranContraScumDid911

derchin — Sun, 13 May 2012 23:53:24 GMT

http://www.youtube.com/user/IranContraScumDid911

I've watched some of his videos in the past and occasionally he gets into arguments with other members over the physics of the collapse.

Here's a few snippets of his arguments:

Quote:

The last building collapsed at 5:30pm after loud audible explosions heard and reported by all sources all day long. The laws of motion PROVE that the towers were taken down in a controlled demolition. That also proves alot about you. Then there is thoudsands of eyewitnesses, virtually all we can find, that claim hearing explosions or seeing a demolition characteristic. The 1/4 mile high buildings turn to dust at near full gravitational acceleration. What are you trying to pull?

Quote:

The only energy you could have in a mechanical collapse is mass which we see turns to blasted dust and ejecta and velocity which we do not see enough loss. This is a real simple one, since the laws are universal and science is scalable. There is not one object of this density in your reality that 1/3 of its mass will fall into the other 2/3 mass from 1/10th its height at near full G turning both to dust. In science you have to be able to recreate and observe your claims to call it a fact, kid.

Quote:

Isaac Newton's laws of motion and gravitational acceleration both say the towers could not collapse in roughly 10 seconds. The towers were graduated 32 times stronger in load bearing capacity at the bottom 8 floors than the top 8 floors. All modern structural engineering of low mid and high rise buildings is at least five times over engineered its actual load bearing capacity. The engineers that made these towers have larger claims. Your kinetic energy tale discounts the numbers. Youre late

Quote:

Why do you have to explain to me what I am seeing? The laws of motion prove what I am seeing is a demolition. The 1/4 mile high building exterior fails to grade within 11 seconds, but the inner core is uncrushed by weight from above (the spire plumb and unbent). That is 1/10th of a second of gravitational load resistance for every TEN (10) floors of collapse. The ONLY energy available in a mechanical collapse is mass (blows to dust) and velocity (negligible loss from resistance).

Quote:

The laws of motion say you are incorrect, thermodynamics says your are dreaming, you have no case study, you cannot recreate nor can we observe your claims, and you have no empiracle evidence for your caveman theory. NIST calls your ******** a "new phenomenon", but fails to explain any further ..... thus still assumption and theory.

Quote:

If it did at full G, it would mean there literally was not a building there to be crushed. 1/10th of a second above the speed you could dive off a ten story building, is hardly enough resistance to say there was a steel building that collapsed into itself. It is clear you want to argue, not proof the facts. Have a great life kid in the new America, I remember America before 9/11 real well.

Sorry for all the quotes. :(

Here's some of his videos:

9/11 Audible Explosions Before The North Tower Collapse
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2niG...eature=related

9/11 New FOIA Zoomed Footage of Person Waving and Explosions
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrgQ2QmtCh0&feature=plcp

9/11 Flight 77 Did Not Crash Into The Pentagon
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AWJ2xzuvfNE&feature=plcp

9/11 Flight 93 Missing From The Crater In Shanksville Pennsylvania
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a07yJAAhgq0&feature=plcp

Thoughts?

(Please move to "9/11 Conspiracy Theories". My mistake.)

Local collapse in WTC7 at ~ 5:20pm

uglypig — Mon, 07 May 2012 08:31:15 GMT

i711.photobucket(.)com/albums/ww114/peterene/fig_5_20.jpg

i711.photobucket.com/albums/ww114/peterene/595527698.jpg

This photo had been taken about one minute before the global collapse ensued. I shows a big cloud of dust that has spread to a considerable distance. This, along the the NW corner measurement indicates a large scale local collapse. The progression of failures was taking place during the last two minutes and has the potential to explain the rapid, almost symetrical collapse even better than the NIST simulation.

youtu. be/KELwL9DCqqw?t=7m54s

Video showing another possible local collapses in the final 30 minutes.

Clarification needed please, i'm new here

Johnny Brant — Sun, 06 May 2012 21:30:15 GMT

Sorry to come in late on this long multiple-thread subforum, but are people saying the US Govt staged 9/11 as an excuse to invade the mid-east?
If that's so, can somebody explain to me why Al-Qaeda have never said "Hey we didn't do 9/11, we was framed!"