pentagon crash video, released Options

[Divergent Realit...]

tv just said they were going to release that video at 1pm

dont know if they mean today, eastern, pacific.

but it will be nice to see that.

i wonder how doctored it is.

[jonathan83]

from drudgereport: http://www.judicialwatch.org/5772.shtml

edit: better article now http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/05/16/0...6.xsxvy62c.html

US to release video of September 11 attack on Pentagon
May 16 1:08 PM US/Eastern
Email this story 

The US government has agreed to release video film Tuesday showing a hijacked jetliner strike the Pentagon on September 11, 2001.

Taken by surveillance cameras in the Pentagon parking lot, the images have been the subject of lawsuits prompted in part by conspiracy theories surrounding the attack.

The Justice Department, which had blocked their release, agreed to turn over the video clips now that the trial of Al Qaeda plotter Zacarias Moussaoui has ended, a Pentagon spokesman, Bryan Whitman, said.

Whitman said the images appear to be the same as a series of still pictures previously seen on US television.

"We fought hard to obtain this video because we felt that it was very important to complete the public record with respect to the terrorist attacks of September 11," said Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a group that sued for the release of the video.

"Finally, we hope that this video will put to rest the conspiracy theories involving American Airlines Flight 77," he said in a statement.

The group said it would post a copy of the video on its website, www.judicialwatch.org.

The Pentagon admitted having the video last year, but said it could not release the film because it was part of its investigation into Moussaoui, Judicial Watch said.

Moussaoui was sentenced to life in prison this month over the September 11 attacks conspiracy.

Flight 77 slammed into the Pentagon at 9:37 am on September 11, killing 189 people in the jet and on the ground.

During the Moussaoui trial, prosecutors showed pictures of burning bodies amd human remains as well as images of the explosion triggered by the Pentagon crash.

This post has been edited by jonathan83: May 16 2006, 11:15 AM

[nickluto]

Any follow up to this guys? www.judicialwatch.org isn't even connecting

[Spectatrix]

It's on the front page of CNN.

[JRockTTU]

OMG conspiracy theorists, there goes that one.

[Divergent Realit...]

OMG conspiracy theorists, there goes that one.

hehe. really?

[Spectatrix]

OMG conspiracy theorists, there goes that one.

Not necessarily... the videos are characteristically non-distinct. As in, it's hard to tell what kind of plane is crashing or if it's even a plane at all.

[Seeker]

the videos are here: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html

it doesn't even look like a plane, it looks exactly like a missile!!!!! i can't believe the gov actually released this stuff, instead of putting all the conspiracy theories to rest these videos are just going to fuel the flames.... i can't believe they released something that looks exactly like a missile hitting the pentegon

watch the videos and tell me thats not a missile.

[Junsui]

Who cares?

I think I've seen this video before.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

the videos are here: http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/foi/index.html

it doesn't even look like a plane, it looks exactly like a missile!!!!! i can't believe the gov actually released this stuff, instead of putting all the conspiracy theories to rest these videos are just going to fuel the flames.... i can't believe they released something that looks exactly like a missile hitting the pentegon

watch the videos and tell me thats not a missile.

Its not a missile















its a camera with horrible time between frames... thus stupid conspiracy people will say its a missle

[Seeker]

Who cares?

exactly, you're just a lockstepping brainwashed consumer whore content with being enslaved by a fascist government which perpetrated the biggest coup d'etat in history against the american people... as long as you have your ipod you're happy

[Junsui]

exactly, you're just a lockstepping brainwashed consumer whore content with being enslaved by a fascist government which perpetrated the biggest coup d'etat in history against the american people... as long as you have your ipod you're happy

I don't have an Ipod. So I guess I'm not happy?

[Seeker]

Its not a missile















its a camera with horrible time between frames... thus stupid conspiracy people will say its a missle

looks like a missile to me!!!!

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

exactly, you're just a lockstepping brainwashed consumer whore content with being enslaved by a fascist government which perpetrated the biggest coup d'etat in history against the american people... as long as you have your ipod you're happy

people couldn't cover up a blow job for the president, what makes you think that they could use as many people as this required.... murdering this many people, AND IT NOT COME OUT?

who's brainwashed again?

[Junsui]

looks like a missile to me!!!!

I really can't see anything in that picture. It's pretty blurry.

[Testm0nkey]

hahaha
i think youd be able to see a large passenger plane if it was there

[Divergent Realit...]

from the two videos you can see a vertical fin and a nose.

i would like a comparison of scale with the tail image. that would make it a bit easier to see what was what in the videos.

[Junsui]

hahaha
i think youd be able to see a large passenger plane if it was there

I doubt it. All of the colors are blended together for me.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

looks like a missile to me!!!!

my point is that i could see elvis if i looked hard enough in a crappy video like that.

[Junsui]

I do kind of see a UFO in the corner. I can see a saucer shapped silver flying object. I bet it was aliens. Oooo it looks like the spaceship on Flight of the Navigator!

[Divergent Realit...]

looks like a missile to me!!!!

hmm...

[Seeker]

[Junsui]

hmm...

I told you! You see it?

[Divergent Realit...]

ah ha, lance points out that little thing that sits about as well as a dead monkey. the sie of the hole.

sure, you can prop up a dead monkey. but you still know its a dead monkey.

the lack of wing marks and wing wreckage just doesnt add up for a fucking huge plane.

the fuel did not automatically atomize the wings once the nose made contact. they would slap the building and splode some shit.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

awesome, i was wondering what the scale of plane vs building is... yep its a plane, not a missle in the video

lol and look at where the engines are on the plane and where they would go in the crash... right where the hole is... heh

[Junsui]

The Flight of the Navigator didn't have wings! I bet it shifted into that one speedy shape where it's all pointy in the front and just rammed into the building.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

ah ha, lance points out that little thing that sits about as well as a dead monkey. the sie of the hole.

sure, you can prop up a dead monkey. but you still know its a dead monkey.

the lack of wing marks and wing wreckage just doesnt add up for a fucking huge plane.

the fuel did not automatically atomize the wings once the nose made contact. they would slap the building and splode some shit.

its also a digital image made by someone... not the actual picture they have with water and smoke all in the way

[Seeker]

where's the plane?

[rabble]

where's the plane?

thats my only question as well...
With normal plane crashes you have alot of scrap all over the place, but with this one there isnt really anything...

Not that I am a conspiracy theorist, but its just something that seemed odd.



and that "new" video is crap.

[chook]

Object looks to big to be a missle, doesn't mean its the 757

[nickluto]

the tail height (from belly to tip of tail fin, with gear retracted) of a 757 is 14.9 yards or 44.7 feet tall.

the pentagon is 77 feet tall....

i just dont see how the object in the picture is anywhere near 58% (this is assuming that the object was flying just inches above the ground, ignoring the aerodynamic interaction between the wings and the ground at ~600mph) the height of the pentagon...even considering the perspective difference.

granted, the object (half of it) can only be seen in 1 frame. it goes from tip to about midway through, and the next frame shows the explosion with what seems to be the tail part sticking out.

the "new" video is nothing more than the extension of the previous 5 frames released right after 9/11

edit: not to mention the "contrails" or vapor trails that are seen coming from the object (they obviously aren't) . this only occurs at high altitudes with passenger jets due to the engine exhaust pushing the frigidly cold air past it's saturation point, forming little clouds.

Why the exhaust trail? missles are rockets, different from jet engines because they carry their own oxygen supply onboard which is usually liquid (very cold) so that the tank can carry more fuel in less space.

and yeah, the video quality sucks, so can't really be sure.

8 frames after impact, the contrast goes way up. shockwave??

Not sure if its a missle at all (i dont think so), but it could be a smaller civilian or military jet plane. the nose looks a lot like a learjet 45, Cessna Citation X, or a Dassault Falcon 2000 private plane

[Seeker]

another theory is that a smaller remote controlled drone plane hit the pentagon rather than a missile, which seems more plausible. one thing is for certain, and that's that it wasn't a boeing 757

[Testm0nkey]

i blasted through the pentagon in my computer chair from the sky and ran away real quick like

[Seeker]

possible

[dauss]

Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...F-8006R-001.jpg




Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...F-8006R-002.jpg




Source: http://www.defenselink.mil/photos/Sep2001/...F-8006R-003.jpg

Where's the plane? Seats? Corpses?

[pysex]

that video is bs.....


they've already released that one before with like 5 frames taken out of it


if they're releasing the whole video now that moussa;slkdjfeieiiieieieieieiei is in prison then release the videos from the hi-res/high frame rate cameras on the hotel, gas station, and txdot station......

[dauss]

well if they did that it would prove that it wasn't an american airlines plane that hit.

[Junsui]

well if they did that it would prove that it wasn't an american airlines plane that hit.

Exactly! It was the Flight of the Navigator!

[John6.7]

For the people who think it's not a plane... Where did the 4th plane go?

[nickluto]

Section 8 of Project Northwoods

[FORSAKENR320]

[nickluto]

Why is this such a radical idea?

In the Spanish-American war the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, Cuba (which was later highly theorized to be an inside job) was used as justification for intervention in Cuba and liberation of the Phillippines.

In WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania (a passenger vessel that was later learned to have weapons, ammo, and food for the british war effort, unbeknownst to the crew/passengers) was cited as the cause for US intervention

In WW2, there was Pearl Harbor, which a lot of people theorize the U.S. knew about but was just lackidasical to respond to.

In vietnam there was the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that was later thought to be a total hoax, no US war ship was shot at and if it was, probably by US munitions.

And in the War in the middle east, terrorism is being used.

This may or may not be a conspiracy, but given what has happened in the past, why is this such a "radical" idea?

as a matter of fact, as logic would have it, i should think that YOU were the fringe lunatics given the record of planned conspiritorial attacks v. genuine provocation.

[Junsui]

It's not a "radical" idea. I just like my theory better.

[nickluto]

It's not a "radical" idea. I just like my theory better.

True. To each his/her own.

[Seeker]

Why is this such a radical idea?

In the Spanish-American war the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, Cuba (which was later highly theorized to be an inside job) was used as justification for intervention in Cuba and liberation of the Phillippines.

In WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania (a passenger vessel that was later learned to have weapons, ammo, and food for the british war effort, unbeknownst to the crew/passengers) was cited as the cause for US intervention

In WW2, there was Pearl Harbor, which a lot of people theorize the U.S. knew about but was just lackidasical to respond to.

In vietnam there was the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that was later thought to be a total hoax, no US war ship was shot at and if it was, probably by US munitions.

And in the War in the middle east, terrorism is being used.

This may or may not be a conspiracy, but given what has happened in the past, why is this such a "radical" idea?

as a matter of fact, as logic would have it, i should think that YOU were the fringe lunatics given the record of planned conspiritorial attacks v. genuine provocation.

congratulations, you actually study history and try not to repeat the same mistakes, most people don't

[Timbo]

This footage is OLD, like a month after the attacks old, 2001.

Saw it on the BBC, in a documentary. Frightening shit. Probably a missle, too

Timbo

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

Why is this such a radical idea?

In the Spanish-American war the USS Maine was sunk in Havana Harbor, Cuba (which was later highly theorized to be an inside job) was used as justification for intervention in Cuba and liberation of the Phillippines.

In WWI, the sinking of the Lusitania (a passenger vessel that was later learned to have weapons, ammo, and food for the british war effort, unbeknownst to the crew/passengers) was cited as the cause for US intervention

In WW2, there was Pearl Harbor, which a lot of people theorize the U.S. knew about but was just lackidasical to respond to.

In vietnam there was the Gulf Of Tonkin incident that was later thought to be a total hoax, no US war ship was shot at and if it was, probably by US munitions.

And in the War in the middle east, terrorism is being used.

This may or may not be a conspiracy, but given what has happened in the past, why is this such a "radical" idea?

as a matter of fact, as logic would have it, i should think that YOU were the fringe lunatics given the record of planned conspiritorial attacks v. genuine provocation.

sigh...

so because something causes us into action like in the past

and you are stupid enough to think the current one is a conspiracy

= all the other incidents were



Havana is still not known as to what caused it, but the only theories are that it was a munitions accident, was the spanish, or was the cubans wanting our help by framing the spanish... NOT US MURDERING OUR OWN CITIZENS

Pearl harbour: Conspiracy is we knew it was gonna happen ahead of time...
NOT THAT WE MURDERED OUR OWN CITIZENS

etc. etc.

You people have NOTHING... ,let me repeat NOTHING, to go off of for a good argument, so you make it up as you go. You see a shitty camera view with lots of motion blur, and instead of using the obvious fact of THATS THE PLANE HITTING THE BUILDING ON A SHITTY CAMERA VIEW, you say "well since i can't see the obvious with this camera.... ITS A MISSLE!!!!!!"

Oh and not to forget the "they haven't shown us the cameras from the hotel or gas station!!!" argument: You realize they haven't given back cameras from the jfk assasination right? And its not because its a conspiracy, its because the government doesn't make top priority of giving back evidence... they just could care less whether the people get it back or not. It was evidence and when they are done with it they just move on to other things.

Anyhoo, in conclusion... i think its a huge conspiracy and the pentagon, twin towers and other plane were all government planned. More over, everything that has ever happened in the past is simply something devised by the bush administration for the sheer goal of enslaving the human race so meglatrons can rule the planet. ALL HALE MEGLATRONS!

[Seeker]

weak

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

weak

forgot, logic isn't allowed here, ill leave you Professors to your superiour intellect (minus evidence) now

[nickluto]

 

forgot, logic isn't allowed here, ill leave you Professors to your superiour intellect (minus evidence) now

for every "MIT expert" you cite, i will cite 5.


from NIST, from MIT, from wherever the hell you want....

it doesnt matter what the "experts" think, because most of the "experts" all think its bullshit.


it matters what you think....

i dont even care that you agree with me, i just care that you think for yourself

if you can justify what happeend by saying things like "GRAVITY and heat can do a LOT of damage from that high in the air" ...so be it, but you should just realize how fucking stupid and sheepish you sound.

[Testm0nkey]

i may have missed it but where is seth's 'factual evidence' that it was a plane hit ? all i read by him is how its obvious its not a missle

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

for every "MIT expert" you cite, i will cite 5.


from NIST, from MIT, from wherever the hell you want....

it doesnt matter what the "experts" think, because most of the "experts" all think its bullshit.


it matters what you think....

i dont even care that you agree with me, i just care that you think for yourself

if you can justify what happeend by saying things like "GRAVITY and heat can do a LOT of damage from that high in the air" ...so be it, but you should just realize how fucking stupid and sheepish that sounds.

lol i love it when you post... so funny


What MIT expert evidence have you shown?

And heat warps, gravity brings things down... thus heat and gravity do lots of damage... please tell me you aren't THAT stupid heh... dont bother answering that

[nickluto]

lol i love it when you post... so funny


What MIT expert evidence have you shown?

And heat warps, gravity brings things down... thus heat and gravity do lots of damage... please tell me you aren't THAT stupid heh... dont bother answering that

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248


Titled: MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

Thank you. Have a Nice Day !

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

i may have missed it but where is seth's 'factual evidence' that it was a plane hit ?  all i read by him is how its obvious its not a missle

he was refering to me putting up evidence contrary to everything he said on the towers falling.

This one i have simply said it can't really be made out WHAT it is, thus ill go with ocams razor of it being the plane.

Dont get me wrong, i love conspiracies as much as the next guy, but come on, getting all pissy because i say it is to blurry to be known at all is just funniness.


Anyway, im gonna stop commenting on it from the rational perspective, because ya'll wanna talk conspiracy, so ill be a good sport and let you, i've said my peace.

Sorry for the panty twists

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1822764959599063248


Titled:  MIT Engineer Breaks Down WTC Controlled Demolition

Thank you. Have a Nice Day ! 

google video fun


Have fun, i've shown the logical view point of how everything on towers could simply have happened how its believed... im satisified nuff.

If i can though, ill find one with good music


occam's razor

[pebkac]

Ok, perhaps you guys could answer a question for me. If the flight didn't crash into the pentagon what happened to it? I mean, it's not like American Airlines could have very well just lost it in between the cushions of their couch.

[Testm0nkey]

i suppose whereever 'flight 93/153' disappeared to

[pebkac]

Which would be?

[nickluto]

  google video fun


Have fun, i've shown the logical view point of how everything on towers could simply have happened how its believed... im satisified nuff.

If i can though, ill find one with good music   


occam's razor

That's fine.


If you consider occam's razor though, consider the following: there are no paradoxes.

If you find one, check your premise, because it will most undoubtedly be incorrect.

Ok, perhaps you guys could answer a question for me. If the flight didn't crash into the pentagon what happened to it? I mean, it's not like American Airlines could have very well just lost it in between the cushions of their couch.

We may never know, the FAA is under a gag order from the government not to talk about the events of 9/11....if the "conspiracy" didnt happen, why the gag order? What might they possibly not want us to know?

The simple question of why? is all that remains....

If all the events occured factually as represented in the 9/11 comissions report, they must therefore be able to be accounted for by the FAA flight controllers, emergency responders etc...but they are all under gag order...

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

That's fine.


If you consider occam's razor though, consider the following: there are no paradoxes.

If you find one, check your premise, because it will most undoubtedly be incorrect.

Ok, perhaps you guys could answer a question for me. If the flight didn't crash into the pentagon what happened to it? I mean, it's not like American Airlines could have very well just lost it in between the cushions of their couch.

We may never know, the FAA is under a gag order from the government not to talk about the events of 9/11....if the "conspiracy" didnt happen, why the gag order? What might they possibly not want us to know?

The simple question of why? is all that remains....

If all the events occured factually as represented in the 9/11 comissions report, they must therefore be able to be accounted for by the FAA flight controllers, emergency responders etc...but they are all under gag order...

what the hell are you talking about? Ockhams razor states that in a answering a question or "phenomenon", the principle recommends selecting those that introduce the fewest assumptions and postulate the fewest hypothetical entities.
(or go with the most obvious)

The question of what happened on 9/11, put through occams razor, (to most people i would guess) is that men hi-jacked planes and drove them into things.

Instead of adding all kinds of assumptions of, it was planned ahead of time by our own government, we hid planes and people for the hoax , people ahead of time set charges to destroy a building, missles were designated and fired at two places by other conspirators at a different location. Plus assuming everyone involved is perfectly loyal to the cause and keeping the secret, and assuming no one would see these missiles and if so have been silenced or discredited. Also have to assume the osama admitting thing is fake (planned), etc...


ockhams razor

[nickluto]

lol i love it when you post... so funny


What MIT expert evidence have you shown?

And heat warps, gravity brings things down... thus heat and gravity do lots of damage... please tell me you aren't THAT stupid heh... dont bother answering that

okay, heat warps....heat warps what? steel at under 500F what usually begins to warp steel?


and yes, gravity brings things down....but what things? Under what circumstances? Total structural failure? 50% failure?


prove to me these failures occured and I will believe you...even a couple accounts and I will 100% be behind you...until then, i believe what my gut (3 years of engineering classes) have taught me, and that's that you are full of shit, and anyone thinking similar (no matter what degree, stature, or claim) you believe tells you.

bring it on, chicken.

(find one scientific equation that relates heat and gravity/structurally tested steel, etc and i will believe you)...hint: it exists, just let me know what it is, prove to me it is wrong and i'll believe you.

[pebkac]

okay, heat warps....heat warps what? steel at under 500F what usually warps steel?


and yes, gravity brings things down....but what things? Under what circumstances? Total structural failure? 50% failure?


prove to me these failures occured and I will believe you...even a couple accounts and I will 100% be behind you...until then, i believe what my gut (3 years of engineering classes) have taught me, and that's that you are full of shit.

bring it on, chicken.

I think the key thing you're missing here is that most accidents we have experience with were ACCIDENTAL. This means the pilots did everything in their power to prevent them. Now, don't you think the people that perpetrated 9/11 flew the plane into the pentagon at the plane's maximum speed? And don't you think that caused a great deal more damage to the plane?

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

okay, heat warps....heat warps what? steel at under 500F what usually begins to warp steel?


and yes, gravity brings things down....but what things? Under what circumstances? Total structural failure? 50% failure?


prove to me these failures occured and I will believe you...even a couple accounts and I will 100% be behind you...until then, i believe what my gut (3 years of engineering classes) have taught me, and that's that you are full of shit, and anyone thinking similar (no matter what degree, stature, or claim) you believe tells you.

bring it on, chicken.

want me to quote the statistics from the mit engineer again? because i dont know myself what heat is required to warp. he said that steel can warp with a 300 degree deference between two points on a piece of steel.

He explains how the actual capacity of the steel was reached and thus how the failure and collapse happened.

All i can do is show you what an expert on the subject says, i can't make you read it... or see believe what the guy says...

again, he shows logic for every question you asked, and im personally satisfied, i've no interest in making you believe.

[nickluto]

I think the key thing you're missing here is that most accidents we have experience with were ACCIDENTAL.  This means the pilots did everything in their power to prevent them.  Now, don't you think the people that perpetrated 9/11 flew the plane into the pentagon at the plane's maximum speed?  And don't you think that caused a great deal more damage to the plane?

So you're saying that out of however many plane crashes that have occured, 0% of them have resulted in some kind of wreckage present? Show me one other occurence of a plane crash having occured where no wreckage has been found as well and I'll believe you. In addition, show me another case of a building of structural steel components having been reduced to rubble to the ground having collapsed as a result of fire and I will be behind you 100%.

[nickluto]

want me to quote the statistics from the mit engineer again? because i dont know myself what heat is required to warp. he said that steel can warp with a 300 degree deference between two points on a piece of steel.

He explains how the actual capacity of the steel was reached and thus how the failure and collapse happened.

All i can do is show you what an expert on the subject says, i can't make you read it... or see believe what the guy says...

again, he shows logic for every question you asked, and im personally satisfied, i've no interest in making you believe.

That's along the correct lines, then. tell me.


and keep in mind steel is a great conductor and the "core" of the world trade center would actually act as a huge heat sink.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

I think the key thing you're missing here is that most accidents we have experience with were ACCIDENTAL. This means the pilots did everything in their power to prevent them. Now, don't you think the people that perpetrated 9/11 flew the plane into the pentagon at the plane's maximum speed? And don't you think that caused a great deal more damage to the plane?

plus the fire engulfed the entire floor almost instantly, the buildings being designed for fires starting in like trash cans and slowly getting bigger (thus using up the fuel in the building as they get bigger).

the towers where roughly 1 acre big per floor, thats a big area putting off heat, enough to make things warp (plus when things heat up they lose strength), they didn't need to melt to buckle, warp, and fall.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

That's along the correct lines, then. tell me.


and keep in mind steel is a great conductor and the "core" of the world trade center would actually act as a huge heat sink.

fine, im gonna qoute the entire article for you, so you can read it ... since you can't manage to click on the link provided earlier by me in the other thread... so ill go find it, quote the WHOLE thing....



or will i? Do i really give a fuck about try ing to prove anything to you? maybe... hold your breath please...

might a problem right there lol

[pebkac]

So you're saying that out of however many plane crashes that have occured, 0% of them have resulted in some kind of wreckage present? Show me one other occurence of a plane crash having occured where no wreckage has been found as well and I'll believe you. In addition, show me another case of a building of structural steel components having been reduced to rubble to the ground having collapsed as a result of fire and I will be behind you 100%.

Show me a case where someone's INTENTIONALLY crashed a jumbo jet into a building made of steel and I'll be behind YOU 100%. Oh wait. That hasn't ever happened before has it?

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

NOVA: After the planes struck and you saw those raging fires, did you think the towers would collapse?

Eagar: No. In fact, I was surprised. So were most structural engineers. The only people I know who weren't surprised were a few people who've designed high-rise buildings.

NOVA: But you weren't surprised that they withstood the initial impacts, is that correct?

Eagar: That's right. All buildings and most bridges have what we call redundant design. If one component breaks, the whole thing will not come crashing down. I once worked on a high-rise in New York, for example, that had a nine-foot-high beam that had a crack all the way through one of the main beams in the basement. This was along the approach to the George Washington Bridge. They shored it up and kept traffic from using that area.

Some people were concerned the building would fall down. The structural engineers knew it wouldn't, because the whole thing had an egg-crate-like construction. Or you can think of it as a net. If you lose one string on a net, yes, the net is weakened but the rest of the net still works.


Earlier skyscrapers (top) had columns spaced evenly across every floor. The World Trade Center (bottom) broke with tradition by having columns only in the central core and along the exterior walls. 

 
That's essentially how the World Trade Center absorbed an airplane coming into it. It was somewhat like the way a net absorbs a baseball being thrown against it. If you lose a couple of the columns, that's not the end of the world. It will still stand up.

NOVA: The World Trade Center was also designed to take a major wind load hitting from the side.

Eagar: Yes. A skyscraper is a long, thin, vertical structure, but if you turned it sideways, it would be like a diving board, and you could bend it on the end. The wind load is trying to bend it like a diving board. It sways back and forth. If you've been on the top of the Sears Tower in Chicago or the Empire State Building on a windy day, you can actually feel it. When I was a student, I visited the observation deck of the Sears Tower, and I went into the restroom there, and I could see the water sloshing in the toilet bowl, because the wind load was causing the whole building to wave in the breeze.

NOVA: Are skyscrapers designed that way, to be a little flexible?

Eagar: Absolutely. Now, there are different ways to design things. For example, Boeing designs their aircraft wings to flap in the breeze, while McDonnell Douglas used to design a very rigid wing that would not flex as much. You can design it both ways. There are trade-offs, and there are advantages to both ways.


  
"Most buildings are designed to sway in the breeze." 
 
Most buildings are designed to sway in the breeze. In fact, one of the big concerns in the early design of the World Trade Center, since it was going to be the tallest building in the world at the time, was that it not sway too much and make people sick. You can get seasick in one of these tall buildings from the wind loads. So they had to do some things to make them stiff enough that people wouldn't get sick, but not so rigid that it could snap if it got too big a load. If something's flexible, it can give; think of a willow tree. If you have a strong wind, you want the building, like the tree, to bend rather than break.

NOVA: Brian Clark, one of only four people to get out from above where United 175 hit the South Tower, says that when the plane struck, the building swayed for a full seven to 10 seconds in one direction before settling back, and he thought it was going over.

Eagar: That estimate of seven to ten seconds is probably correct, because often big buildings are designed to be stiff enough that the period to go one way and back the other way is 15 or 20 seconds, or even 30 seconds. That keeps people from getting sick.

Upper floors pancaked down onto lower floors, causing a domino effect that left each building in ruins within ten seconds. 

 
NOVA: The Twin Towers collapsed essentially straight down. Was there any chance they could have tipped over?

Eagar: It's really not possible in this case. In our normal experience, we deal with small things, say, a glass of water, that might tip over, and we don't realize how far something has to tip proportional to its base. The base of the World Trade Center was 208 feet on a side, and that means it would have had to have tipped at least 100 feet to one side in order to move its center of gravity from the center of the building out beyond its base. That would have been a tremendous amount of bending. In a building that is mostly air, as the World Trade Center was, there would have been buckling columns, and it would have come straight down before it ever tipped over.

Have you ever seen the demolition of buildings? They blow them up, and they implode. Well, I once asked demolition experts, "How do you get it to implode and not fall outward?" They said, "Oh, it's really how you time and place the explosives." I always accepted that answer, until the World Trade Center, when I thought about it myself. And that's not the correct answer. The correct answer is, there's no other way for them to go but down. They're too big. With anything that massive -- each of the World Trade Center towers weighed half a million tons -- there's nothing that can exert a big enough force to push it sideways.


  Even traveling at hundreds of miles an hour, the planes that struck the World Trade Center did not have enough force to knock the towers over. 
 
NOVA: I think some people were surprised when they saw this massive 110-story building collapse into a rubble pile only a few stories tall.

Eagar: Well, like most buildings, the World Trade Center was mostly air. It looked like a huge building if you walked inside, but it was just like this room we're in. The walls are a very small fraction of the total room. The World Trade Center collapse proved that with a 110-story building, if 95 percent of it's air, as was the case here, you're only going to have about five stories of rubble at the bottom after it falls.

NOVA: You've said that the fire is the most misunderstood part of the World Trade Center collapse. Why?

Eagar: The problem is that most people, even some engineers, talk about temperature and heat as if they're identical. In fact, scientifically, they're only related to each other. Temperature tells me the intensity of the heat -- is it 100 degrees, 200 degrees, 300 degrees? The heat tells me how big the thing is that gets hot. I mean, I could boil a cup of water to make a cup of tea, or I could boil ten gallons of water to cook a bunch of lobsters. So it takes a lot more energy to cook the lobsters -- heat is related to energy. That's the difference: We call the intensity of heat the temperature, and the amount of heat the energy.

2nd page:

NOVA: So with the World Trade Center fire, the heat was much greater than might have been expected in a typical fire?

Eagar: Right. We had all this extra fuel from the aircraft. Now, there have been fires in skyscrapers before. The Hotel Meridien in Philadelphia had a fire, but it didn't do this kind of damage. The real damage in the World Trade Center resulted from the size of the fire. Each floor was about an acre, and the fire covered the whole floor within a few seconds. Ordinarily, it would take a lot longer. If, say, I have an acre of property, and I start a brushfire in one corner, it might take an hour, even with a good wind, to go from one corner and start burning the other corner.

That's what the designers of the World Trade Center were designing for—a fire that starts in a wastepaper basket, for instance. By the time it gets to the far corner of the building, it has already burned up all the fuel that was back at the point of origin. So the beams where it started have already started to cool down and regain their strength before you start to weaken the ones on the other side.

On September 11th, the whole floor was damaged all at once, and that's really the cause of the World Trade Center collapse. There was so much fuel spread so quickly that the entire floor got weakened all at once, whereas in a normal fire, people should not think that if there's a fire in a high-rise building that the building will come crashing down. This was a very unusual situation, in which someone dumped 10,000 gallons of jet fuel in an instant.

NOVA: How high did the temperatures get, and what did that do to the steel columns?

Eagar: The maximum temperature would have been 1,600°F or 1,700°F. It's impossible to generate temperatures much above that in most cases with just normal fuel, in pure air. In fact, I think the World Trade Center fire was probably only 1,200°F or 1,300°F.

Investigations of fires in other buildings with steel have shown that fires don't usually even melt the aluminum, which melts around 1,200°F. Most fires don't get above 900°F to 1,100°F. The World Trade Center fire did melt some of the aluminum in the aircraft and hence it probably got to 1,300°F or 1,400°F. But that's all it would have taken to trigger the collapse, according to my analysis.

NOVA: You've pointed out that structural steel loses about half its strength at 1,200°F, yet even a 50 percent loss of strength is insufficient, by itself, to explain the collapse.

Eagar: Well, normally the biggest load on this building was the wind load, trying to push it sideways and make it vibrate like a flag in the breeze. The World Trade Center building was designed to withstand a hurricane of about 140 miles an hour, but September 11th wasn't a windy day, so the major loads it was designed for were not on it at the time.

 

"You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature." 
 
As a result, the World Trade Center, at the time each airplane hit it, was only loaded to about 20 percent of its capacity. That means it had to lose five times its capacity either due to temperature or buckling—the temperature weakening the steel, the buckling changing the strength of a member because it's bent rather than straight. You can't explain the collapse just in terms of temperature, and you can't explain it just in terms of buckling. It was a combination.

NOVA: So can you give a sequence of events that likely took place in the structural failure?

Eagar: Well, first you had the impact of the plane, of course, and then this spreading of the fireball all the way across within seconds. Then you had a hot fire, but it wasn't an absolutely uniform fire everywhere. You had a wind blowing, so the smoke was going one way more than another way, which means the heat was going one way more than another way. That caused some of the beams to distort, even at fairly low temperatures. You can permanently distort the beams with a temperature difference of only about 300°F.

NOVA: You mean one part of a beam is 300°F hotter than another part of the same beam?

Eagar: Exactly. If there was one part of the building in which a beam had a temperature difference of 300°F, then that beam would have become permanently distorted at relatively low temperatures. So instead of being nice and straight, it had a gentle curve. If you press down on a soda straw, you know that if it's perfectly straight, it will support a lot more load than if you start to put a little sideways bend in it. That's what happened in terms of the beams. They were weakened because they were bent by the fire.

But the steel still had plenty of strength, until it reached temperatures of 1,100°F to 1,300°F. In this range, the steel started losing a lot of strength, and the bending became greater. Eventually the steel lost 80 percent of its strength, because of this fire that consumed the whole floor.

If it had only occurred in one little corner, such as a trashcan caught on fire, you might have had to repair that corner, but the whole building wouldn't have come crashing down. The problem was, it was such a widely distributed fire, and then you got this domino effect. Once you started to get angle clips to fail in one area, it put extra load on other angle clips, and then it unzipped around the building on that floor in a matter of seconds.

  Watch an animation of the floor trusses giving way, followed by the buckling of the outer columns.

QuickTime | RealVideo: 56K/ ISDN+ 
 
NOVA: Many other engineers also feel the weak link was these angle clips, which held the floor trusses between the inner core of columns and the exterior columns. Is that simply because they were much smaller pieces of steel?

Eagar: Exactly. That's the easiest way to look at it. If you look at the whole structure, they are the smallest piece of steel. As everything begins to distort, the smallest piece is going to become the weak link in the chain. They were plenty strong for holding up one truss, but when you lost several trusses, the trusses adjacent to those had to hold two or three times what they were expected to hold.

Those angle clips probably had two or three or four times the strength that they originally needed. They didn't have the same factor-of-five safety as the columns did, but they still had plenty of safety factor to have people and equipment on those floors. It was not that the angle clips were inadequately designed; it was just that there were so many of them that the engineers were able to design them with less safety factor. In a very unusual loading situation like this, they became the weak link.

NOVA: I've read that the collapse was a near free-fall.

Eagar: Yes. That's because the forces, it's been estimated, were anywhere from 10 to 100 times greater than an individual floor could support. First of all, you had 10 or 20 floors above that came crashing down. That's about 10 or 20 times the weight you'd ever expect on one angle clip. There's also the impact force, that is, if something hits very hard, there's a bigger force than if you lower it down very gently.

NOVA: Miraculously, a number of firefighters survived inside Tower One. They were on the third or fourth floor in a stairwell, and immediately after the collapse they looked up and saw blue sky above their heads—their part of the stairwell survived. How is that possible, with all the force of that 500,000-ton building coming down?

 

"They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded." 
 
Eagar: Well, you have to understand the stairwells were reinforced areas of the building. The stairwells were in the central core, which had more steel than the outer areas, which were big open floors. So that extra steel formed a little cage to protect them. It's still amazing, though.

Now, there could have been someone two floors below who could have been completely crushed. It just depends on how the steel buckled. If you take that soda straw again, and you push it sideways, it will develop a buckle at some location, probably somewhere in the middle third. Well, if you happen to be where the buckling occurs, that area is going to get smashed, but if you're, say, below where the buckling occurred, basically the whole thing can push sideways. They were very, very fortunate that they happened to be in an area that was somewhat shielded and protected by all the extra steel in the central core.

I read one of those people's statements in the paper the other day, and he said that if they'd been in the lobby, they'd be gone. I was in the lobby of the World Trade Center years ago, and it was some three or four stories tall. What was going to buckle? Well, the lobby had the longest columns, so they were going to buckle. Those firefighters were just above that, so they were protected by the buckling underneath, within this sort of steel cage.

In fact, that's how they design automobiles for crashworthiness. They try to design the passenger compartment to be a cage, and the hood and trunk are supposed to deform and absorb the energy so that you're protected by this little cage of steel that hopefully won't deform.


  Engineers have found evidence that the aluminum of the planes' fuselages and wings may have melted, but there is no evidence that it burned. 
 
NOVA: There's a theory that the aluminum of the planes caught fire.

Eagar: Yes, a number of people have tried to reinforce that theory. Now, the aluminum of the planes would have burned just like a flare. Flares are made out of aluminum and magnesium, so are fireworks, and they burn hot enough to melt steel in certain cases.

However, they have had people sorting through the steel from the World Trade Center, and no one has reported finding melted steel, which means that we didn't have that aluminum flare. In any case, burning aluminum would have been white-hot, about 4,000°F, and someone would have seen it even through that dense black smoke.

Of course, aluminum can burn. That's what demolished the [British destroyer] Sheffield in the Falklands War [when it was struck by an Argentinian missile]. It wasn't the Exocet missile that destroyed the superstructure of the Sheffield. The missile wasn't big enough, just like the plane wasn't big enough to bring down the World Trade Center. That Exocet missile did damage the Sheffield, but what doomed the Sheffield was the aluminum superstructure caught fire and burned. So you suddenly had something like 1,000 or 10,000 times as much fuel as you had in that Exocet missile.

Now, this is not a type of fire we have to worry about in buildings. We don't have anywhere close to those types of conditions. And we didn't have those in the World Trade Center, in my opinion.

NOVA: How soon will a definitive report of the causes of the collapse be released?

Eagar: Well, there's some very sophisticated analysis that various people in the government, at universities, and at structural engineering firms are doing to understand it. Most of those people have not yet published any conclusions. To do a good job of research on something like this can typically take one to two years. I don't expect to see any conclusive reports probably until about the first anniversary of the attack.

 

"There will still be people worrying about this ten years from now." 
 
There are different levels of analysis. You can do the back-of-the-envelope, which was what I and other people did early on. But to do the full analysis will take much longer. I suspect there will still be people worrying about this ten years from now.

NOVA: In your back-of-the-envelope analysis, you concluded the World Trade Center was not defectively designed, but not everyone apparently accepts that conclusion.

Eagar: A lot of people said, Well, the building failed. That's true, but nothing is indestructible. The question is, why did it fail? In this case, as I've explained, it was the fire covering the whole floor in a few seconds that made this different from any other fire that anyone had ever designed for.

If people say, Well, couldn't we have designed it for this, I say, Yes, we could have. We could build buildings that could survive a jet running into them with a full fuel load. In fact, the military does. But they're bunkers. We build these things for the President and the rest of the 150 leaders of the country to go to as a secure area. You can do that, but your building costs go up by a factor of about 100. Well, do we want to have 100 times fewer homes for people to live in? Do we want to have 100 times fewer roads?

If we were to harden everything against a terrorist attack, we'd push ourselves back into the first half of the 19th century in terms of living style. Now, some people might consider that an improvement, but not everybody, so society has some important tradeoffs here. There's got to be some middle ground where we can make things more secure but not destroy our standard of living.

NOVA: Anything we should do now to retrofit existing skyscrapers like the Sears Tower?

Eagar: Well, one of the things that's really important and is relatively inexpensive is a public communication system. I've been in high-rises when the fire alarm goes off, and everyone looks around the room and decides, Should we just continue meeting and ignore the fire alarm, or should we evacuate? Fortunately, in most cases—and I've had to be the person in a few of those cases—people say, Look, it's a fire alarm. We don't know if it's real. Evacuate. So you need better public-address systems to inform people that this is not a test, this is not a false alarm, you'd better get out of the building.


  Better communications systems may have allowed more people to escape the towers before they collapsed, Eagar believes. For instance, if more people had known that Stairway A in the South Tower, shown here in green, had survived the impact, more people may have gotten out before the building collapsed. 
 
Survivors from the World Trade Center have said that some people took four or five minutes to figure out there was something more than just some false alarm. Other people started moving immediately. Obviously, the quicker people started to move, the better chance they had of reaching safety.

NOVA: How about improving the fire safety of the building or putting in extra stairwells?

Eagar: These are very difficult things to redesign into current buildings. They can and will be added to future buildings. The simplest thing is the communication system. And better training of firefighters. Those things will definitely be done.

If you look at the World Trade Center disaster, it would have been greatly minimized if the safety personnel had been aware of the danger they were in. They didn't realize it was going to collapse. As I said earlier, there are only a few engineers in the country who had ever designed skyscrapers like this who would have realized, but they couldn't communicate within that first hour with the people at ground zero. Nobody could call to New York City at that time.

So better communication. The military's known that for years. They've invested tremendous amounts of money in better communications. That's been one of the differences in having fewer lives lost on the American side in recent wars. We've got much better C3I—Command, Control, Communications, and Intelligence. They've spent billions of dollars, and it's saved thousands and thousands of lives in the military. We can do that on the civilian side as well for these big structures, though, in my opinion, skyscrapers are not the problem anymore.

 

"A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack." 
 
NOVA: What is?

Eagar: I think the terrorist danger will be other things. A terrorist is not going to attack the things you expect him to attack. The real problem is pipelines, electrical transmission, dams, nuclear plants, railroads. A terrorist's job is to scare people. He or she doesn't have to harm very many people. Anthrax is a perfect example. If someone could wipe out one electrical transmission line and cause a brownout in all of New York City or Los Angeles, there would be hysteria, if people realized it was a terrorist that did it.

Fortunately, we have enough redundancy—the same type of redundancy we talk about structurally in the World Trade Center—in our electrical distribution. We have that redundancy built in. I shouldn't say this, but this was how Enron was able to build up a business, because they could transfer their energy from wherever they were producing it into California, which was having problems, and make a fortune—for a short period of time.

NOVA: Gas pipelines don't have redundancy built in, though.

Eagar: No, but one advantage of a gas pipeline is the damage you can do to it is relatively limited. You might be able to destroy several hundred yards of it, but that's not wiping out a whole city. The bigger problem with taking out a gas pipeline is if you do it in the middle of winter, and that gas pipeline is heating 20 percent of the homes in the Northeast. Then all of a sudden you have 20 percent less fuel, and everybody's going to have to turn the thermostat down, and you're going to terrorize 30 million people.

The lesson we have to learn about this kind of terrorism is we have to design flexible and redundant systems, so that we're not completely dependent on any one thing, whether it's a single gas pipeline bringing heat to a particular area or whatever.

Remember the energy crisis in 1973? That terrorized people. People were sitting in long lines at gas pumps. It takes five or 10 years for society to readjust to a problem like that. What happened in the energy crisis in 1973 was we had essentially all our eggs in one basket—the oil basket. But by 1983, electric generating plants could flip a switch and change from oil to coal or gas, so no one could hold a gun to our head like they did before.

   Thomas Eagar is Thomas Lord Professor of Materials Engineering and Engineering Systems at MIT. He was recently nominated to serve on a National Research Council committee on homeland security. To see Eagar's article, "Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse? Science, Engineering, and Speculation," which was coauthored by MIT graduate student Christopher Musso, go to www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

dont really care if thats satisfactory... i gotta go to bed. Believe what you want, more power to you.

[nickluto]

Show me a case where someone's INTENTIONALLY crashed a jumbo jet into a building made of steel and I'll be behind YOU 100%. Oh wait. That hasn't ever happened before has it?

Yep, it has.

The Empire State building was hit in 1945 by a B-25 bomber.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...News8-0112.html


and has stood to this day...


what?


you didnt believe me?

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

Yep, it has.

The Empire State building was hit in 1945 by a B-25 bomber.
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...News8-0112.html


and has stood to this day...


what?


you didnt believe me?

just to clarify, thats a prop plane going slower than normal because of weather and trying to find way, plus different building layout.

Just thought its worth pointing out

[nickluto]

just to clarify, thats a prop plane going slower than normal because of weather and trying to find way, plus different building layout.

Just thought its worth pointing out

so its not going as fast?


do you even know how minute the velocity force is when calculating such momentum?


i doubt so, mr. lawyer...


maybe i'm wrong....you tell me....(you can tell me, you just don't know how)


you c

gravity + heat does a lot of damage that high in the air, right?


wrong.


you lose. prove me wrong, i dare you. i'm waiting

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

so its not going as fast?


do you even know how minute the velocity force is when calculating such momentum?


i doubt so, mr. lawyer...


maybe i'm wrong....you tell me....(you can tell me, you just don't know how)


you cant...


gravity + heat does a lot of damage that high in the air, right?


wrong.


you lose. prove me wrong, i dare you.

LOL you really are hilarious... especially the losing part. Like you are in a competition you feel you are winning...

no my friend... you lose...


and in such a funny way


oh and congrats on the quoting me again thing... i guess the fact that its correct eats you up inside... that amuses me

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

what ever, you type to slow, good night

[FORSAKENR320]

all of you are really gay. why can't you just hate foreigners like the govermnent wants you too? then it won't be necessary for the government to stage terrorist attacks to shake us out of our lethargic state of stupor into action.

[jonathan83]

1. what happened to the real plane and all the people aboard?
2. can someone find out if they ever discovered remains to give the families? if so, answer solved.

3. and finally, if the plane was going really, really fast, which i'm guessing it was...wouldn't the wings break off/cave in to the main hole with the rest of the plane or something?

[Seeker]

nickluto - teh winner
chicken - teh loser

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

nickluto - teh winner
chicken - teh loser

Lance misspelling THE - opinion irrelevant

[FORSAKENR320]

THIS THREAD HAS MADE ME 10% MORE STUPID

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

cnn re-did the video to point out the valid frames now... showing the nose and fuelsalage of the 757.

[FORSAKENR320]

for those who are too lazy to read.... this sums up this entire thread

[Seeker]

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/lawn.html

[pebkac]

http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/lawn.html

Here's an idea.... maybe the plane DIDN'T hit the ground before it hit the pentagon.



Look at the way the damage is spread out. Looks to me like the plane hit from the top.

[Spectatrix]

Look at the way the damage is spread out.  Looks to me like the plane hit from the top.

Did you watch the videos that were released yesterday? The plane or whatever was obviously at ground level.

This post has been edited by Spectatrix: May 17 2006, 10:49 AM

[pebkac]

Did you watch the videos that were release yesterday? The plane or whatever was obviously at ground level.

Doesn't mean that it actually touched the ground though.

[Spectatrix]

True. Just pointing out that it didn't hit from the top.

[Seeker]

In this Image we can see an Ariel path marker in the grass. It is not easily seen on the ground but I am still looking for some ground pictures to back up this satellite picture. However it is a very compelling picture as the Masonic all seeing eye is visible here. The actual bottom part of the eye points at the impact point on the pentagon wall and in the approximate flight path that the object that hit the Pentagon took.

What does this mean, well in Illuminati Symbology terms it is like a calling card I would say. Further if what we are seeing here is real then it gives credibility to the fact that the so called Terrorists were Patsies and this Ariel marking pattern may have been used to mark the impact point from the air where the pilot or object was suppose to hit the Pentagon.

Those who do not know who and what the Illuminati are, I suggest that you download and watch David Icke's Lecture on the Illuminati.

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

[pebkac]

http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm

Yes. Or it could have also been possible that the pentagon hired a shitty gardener. That's the more likely possibility I would say.

[Throwdown]

what about all the grieving families? are those secret government operatives paid to throw off the american public? how about all the people who saw it?

the government is stupid in that they have a problem withholding evidence. it causes speculation and conspiracy theories when there doesn't need to be. i fault them for that

most of you wouldn't trust the Bush administration to orchestrate a lunch order at Chili's, and you think they somehow pulled off the greatest coverup in human history?


if you seriously think the pentagon was staged, you need to have your head examined

[pysex]

i'm not denying the fact that something flew into the pentagon....

and i'm not about to say it was our own government that did it....


but i will say that the defense department has to be completely retarded to expect me to believe that a commercial airliner did that...

[Spectatrix]

Aliens did it.

[Divergent Realit...]

Aliens did it.

and thus, we have come full circle.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

what about all the grieving families? are those secret government operatives paid to throw off the american public? how about all the people who saw it?

the government is stupid in that they have a problem withholding evidence. it causes speculation and conspiracy theories when there doesn't need to be. i fault them for that

most of you wouldn't trust the Bush administration to orchestrate a lunch order at Chili's, and you think they somehow pulled off the greatest coverup in human history?


if you seriously think the pentagon was staged, you need to have your head examined

im waiting for them to tell you that you "are teh lose" or something stupid because you said the obvious

[Spectatrix]

im waiting for them to tell you that you "are teh lose" or something stupid because you said the obvious

God, Seth, you are TEH SUCK!

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

God, Seth, you are TEH SUCK!

that hurts

[Spectatrix]

that hurts

GOOD.

[GhostofTHECHICKE...]

GOOD.

That'a girl

[Junsui]

and thus, we have come full circle.

Hah! I told you!

[Junsui]

cnn re-did the video to point out the valid frames now... showing the nose and fuelsalage of the 757.

I watched that. Darn. I guess it wasn't a spaceship.

[impala454]

i think the problem with a lot of you guys going "omg there's no where near enough damage to the building" are thinking too much about a regular building. it's no where near a regular building.

The other thing is, people who are saying it's a missle, look at the size of the thing in the corner that someone circled. if you correlate the size of the object with the size of the building at impact, that puts the size of the object at roughly 2 stories. that'd be a purty big missle

also keep in mind the thing has got to be moving at least 200 mph, and the video is at a very low framerate.