Simple physics may not be enough

Where did THEY hide the building?

Was the plane on the rise?

What is the time of the images?

Could the plane started to flip over as soon as the nose hit the building?

How about: the photos are real and correct, only something is very wrong with the explanation given there?

This is an example of a typical New-Age techniques, of fooling people using half-truths (carefully selected photos), and bent-logic (seemingly reasonable logic using intuitive ignorance of physics). Are you being fooled by it?

Not to defend them, but it's not new age...

"Tell the big lie enough times and it becomes the truth"

-Adolf Hitler

Yeah, Ok, Hitler got away with it, but back then he didn't have internet and computer programs ?

Yuval, I checked it out in Photoshop, and they're right. These pictures have been messed with.

...These pictures have been messed with...

If you say so.

But let's take it on face-value as if they were not messed with.

Even if the pictures were correct, and valid: Something very basic ignorant of physics here. Very elementary.

Can't anyone see it?

It's right there infront of our eyes. So basic, and quite silly.

I can barely contain myself not to simply reveal, and finally kill this thread.

I was 8 when JFK was killed, and the photo crap didn't cut the mustard either. Shoot a full beer can 560 miles an hour, or 9 hundred feet per second, at a steel building, and you'll see a smashed beer can ! You can shoot it at a brick wall and nothing will happen to the wall !

Well, there are witnesses that claim a recon jet was flying around at the same time. If ABC, CNN, NBC, were piping the info to headquarters, don't you think it was instantly rerecorded before it got to your TV sets ? What, you don't expect the government to have more sophisticated equipment then we little civilians have ?

And your claim is...

I'll give you a good question: What if the drone was made to look like a Jet ? It can all be done with a simple flick of a button ! "Lil bits and bytes will do it every-time !"

If you go over to You Tube and search for "World trade center footage collection part one"....go to clip 5 and at the camera speed of 3:00:45:00:00 you'll see the thermite detonating in the walls of the South Tower. Play it back a couple of times and you'll see them sparkling about 50 floors down from the crash area.

Here's another: What if the twin towers were cardboard, and stood there as "buildings" to fool people for the last forty years, in preparation to the upcoming attack?

Is it any less plausible than drones, made to look like liner-jets, with 1000000 gallons of jet-fuel, packed in the drone and in the towers, with real-life people who have mourning relatives all over the states, and the world?

What, to volunteer to sacrifice their lives for this plot?

Or, maybe, they never really die.

Are they all magically hidden in some witness protection program from hell?

I had to laugh over that ! ;-) The first thing is the planes were ordered to cut back on fuel, if you remember ? Their capacity IS 24000 gallons, not a 100,000 gallons. When they were ordered to cut back, they cut back to 10,000 gallons for any flights in the U.S. As you can see, the oil demand was getting higher and higher...just another coincidence. Now, I'm not saying no one died, for truly, and I can only assume, that passengers were on the Jets, but without birth and death certificates or some other verifiable evidence, how can you be so sure there were passengers on those jets ?

Don't tell me you heard it on ABC or CNN, I'll show you where they said: Ossama Bin Laden did it ! tee hee ! I even think it was CBS that said that Bush's military record was fixed, and got caught....ask Dan Rather ?

I don't claim that Bin Laden did it, however plausible (or likely) it is. This was never positively proven, whatever anybody may think.

My problem is with the claims that it was self-inflicted to promote some political agenda, or that it never really happen, other than in cyber-space or some Hollywood studio.

No, I'm wondering if you can pay a terrorist to be a suicidal terrorist ? I don't know how Tim McVeigh pulled-off an execution (I'm wondering if they really did now ?) without so much as a peep of info coming out of him anyway ? Getting caught with a tag missing on the get-away car, is something suspicious to think about anyway.

"Their capacity IS 24000 gallons, not a 100,000 gallons. When they were ordered to cut back, they cut back to 10,000 gallons for any flights in the U.S."

The B-767 family of aircraft were initially designed as long range transport capable of flying across the North Atlantic. However, you don't normally fly an aircraft on relatively short trips like you have with domestic services in continental USA with fully loaded tanks. Actually, while some of the early short range B-767 still had a tank in the fuselage between the wings it was sealed up and never used for storing anything except air.

It doesn't make sense to load you aircraft with an extra 30,000 liters of fuel that you are not going to use and then leave 30 tons of cargo, baggage or passangers that could be earning you money sitting on the ground at the point of departure.

It varies from country to country but the amount of fuel you carry on a commercial flight is enough to get from the departure to destination plus fuel to fly from the destination to an alternate destination plus 10% or a pre determined time in the air. You never go stooging about the sky with full fuel tanks if you don't need to.

So why do environmentalists worry about birds colliding with wind generators?

Wind generators made in America are too fast. Germany has made a 25 ton generator that is very slow, so as birds don't get chopped up, but here in America.....who give's a F--- about a bird ?! tee hee !

It's an optical illusion but if you look real close up you can see the outline of the plane exactly the same in both photos. The smoke in the right hand photo almost obscures the plane but not quite.

IF you look at the tops of the building in both photos you will see that they are not aligned horizontally. So drawing the dotted line horizontally is very unlikely to be plotting the trajectory of the plane from photo to photo.

Also, the fuel on the plane would be carried in the wing, not the nose of the plane.

Still, good conspiracy theories are always entertaining. Could form a basis for a good war.

Greg

...good conspiracy theories are always entertaining. Could form a basis for a good war...

How sad and true

Person who took pictures, moved away to take another picture after explosion when there was enough time and greater fear. Hence, they are not from same point and their entire look has changed due to this change of the base point where person took pictures.

Distance one moved was considerable enough to make this change. The second picture is actually from far point than the first one. It covers more objects in the picture.

Study those pictures carefully. They were both taken from the same location.

Well, there's so many witnesses that claim it wasn't a commercial airline, and there was a pod of sorts under it. If you notice clearly, the claim of the commercial jet question was live, while the pod photo was much later in evaluation to be reported. Take both of these accusations and you'll see, the news filming of the impact, has to have been altered to cause this visual deformity ? Just a speculation. I'm sure the passengers didn't know about anything, or even if there was a pilot controlling the plane ! I'm sure there was, but the way and manner of flying into the Tower shows, the pilot was not only serious in killing himself, with others, but his path was extremely accurate and aggressive !

moon pie: well the moon landing was well rehearsed in a us desert.. the magic of B/W photos & presto... why would i think that?

well there is no _Graffiti_ left on moon, not even the hubble can find any... where people go, they _always_ leave a mark of some kind. can anyone imagine to spend so much $ to get there and not leave a mark ? that does not compute.. bzzzt...

anyway, the luner craft was no match against radiation zones on the way, it would have needed an 1 inch thick sheild...of lead, and the landing craft also.

the current space activities are well within the van allen belts, and technically at the upper reach of the atmosphere..that is not like interplanetary space by any means.

"not even the hubble can find any... "The Hubble is designed to focus on objects which are light years away. To focus on the moon, a mere quarter of a million miles away is like trying to read a newspaper with binoculars. As to whether the moon program is a hoax or not, I would hate to pollute your mind with the truth. You and others like you provide me with great moments of laughter.

"well there is no _Graffiti_ left on moon, not even the hubble can find any"

The Hubble space telescope has a resolution of about 0.1 arc seconds. The largest item left on the Moon by the Apollo astronauts is the base of the LEM and that is about 6 m across. The Moon at its closest is 363,104 Km away so

Tan(Resolution) = 6 ÷ 363,104,000

Resolution = 0.946 x 10^-6 deg

Resolution = 0.0034 Seconds

That means the Hubble doesn't even come close to being able to even detect the largest item left on the Moon and realistically would need a resolution about 100 times better than it has to be able to identify anything.

Sorry mate the concept that the Hubble telescope should be able to detect the marks left by the Apollo astronauts "does not compute.. bzzzt..."

If the burden of proof is on the accusing party, than why not go there themselves to prove it's not possible...

"Wake up Mr. Frank, it's time for your sleeping peels..."

Yeah, sorry, Pills

There is a laser transponder placed on the moon. How do you fake that?

You see now how all of this conspiracy shit is coming down, all the way to the JFK assassination ? I was 8 when that went down, and I believe the reason was John would know of the hoax, so they had to get him outta the way. Remember, NASA is the biggest thing on this f------ Earth ! 135 Billion got stolen for a hoax, and the beer hounds were mesmerized for a year ! The department of education was in on it too !

Now, I witness the Towers, and all we can do is get everyone to protest against High Rise Buildings, since they're unsafe, that a Jet can take them down; hopefully, this'll make-em cough-up the truth of how they truly came down. No, aluminum cannot cut through steel; that's a fact ! Look at how the wings cut through the columns ? This is impossible !

Don't worry, they're not going to get away with it !

"No, aluminum cannot cut through steel; that's a fact ! Look at how the wings cut through the columns ? This is impossible !"

If aluminium can't cut through steel how dose the copper in a shaped charge cut through armor plate and high tensile steel like a hot knife through butter?

I think you've answered your own question: Explosives.

Isn't it obvious? The idiots who spread such nonsense around are loser conspiracy theorists (actually, given that conspiracy theorist = loser, I guess I'm being redundant here) who just refuse to see a simple fact of life. Al-Qaeda does not exist to defend Muslims around the world; if it did, it would be attacking China, not sparing it, because of its persecution of its Muslim Uighur ethnic minority and support of the Serbs in the recently ended Yugoslav Civil War. No. it exists because Osama bin Ladin wants to rule the world. If it isn't so, since he claims that dying to kill infidels is a glorious way to enter Heaven, then why doesn't he do it himself? Of course, I don't expect any conspiracy theorists to answer this question. After all, they claim that KFC uses genetically engineered mutants to get 4 legs per chicken, but fail to explain where KFC gets its chicken wings from. Likewise, they claim that the US government is covering up the existence of extraterrestrial life, but fail to explain why NASA, a US government agency, spends millions of dollars every year searching for signs of extraterrestrial life. These idiots even claim that NASA keeps claiming failure because of a desire to cover up the existence of extraterrestrial life, yet fail to explain why NASA would want to do so, especially since continued failure would eventually lead to Congress cutting off funding for such research. The best explanation for the behavior of these idiots is that it's a lot easier and more convenient for them to explain their being losers on external interference from extraterrestrials or government agents because they have stumbled upon "The Truth", rather than taking personal responsibility for not making an effort to improve themselves. The best possible proof that these idiots are idiots? The very fact that they are still alive despite publishing "The Truth". If what they claim are really true, and that the government agents "persecuting" them are really so deadly and efficient, then why don't these agencies "responsible" for commiting such heinous acts simply murder them to conceal "The Truth"?

Guest, you may be rigth or not, but, I think your post should be divided in several paragraphs if you want others to read it through.

Isn't that the truth!!!

Here goes:

Isn't it obvious? The idiots who spread such nonsense around are loser conspiracy theorists (actually, given that conspiracy theorist = loser, I guess I'm being redundant here) who just refuse to see a simple fact of life.

Al-Qaeda does not exist to defend Muslims around the world; if it did, it would be attacking China, not sparing it, because of its persecution of its Muslim Uighur ethnic minority and support of the Serbs in the recently ended Yugoslav Civil War.

No.

It exists because Osama bin Ladin wants to rule the world. If it isn't so, since he claims that dying to kill infidels is a glorious way to enter Heaven, then why doesn't he do it himself?

Of course, I don't expect any conspiracy theorists to answer this question. After all, they claim that KFC uses genetically engineered mutants to get 4 legs per chicken, but fail to explain where KFC gets its chicken wings from.

Likewise, they claim that the US government is covering up the existence of extraterrestrial life, but fail to explain why NASA, a US government agency, spends millions of dollars every year searching for signs of extraterrestrial life.

These idiots even claim that NASA keeps claiming failure because of a desire to cover up the existence of extraterrestrial life, yet fail to explain why NASA would want to do so, especially since continued failure would eventually lead to Congress cutting off funding for such research.

The best explanation for the behavior of these idiots is that it's a lot easier and more convenient for them to explain their being losers on external interference from extraterrestrials or government agents because they have stumbled upon "The Truth", rather than taking personal responsibility for not making an effort to improve themselves.

The best possible proof that these idiots are idiots? The very fact that they are still alive despite publishing "The Truth".

If what they claim are really true, and that the government agents "persecuting" them are really so deadly and efficient, then why don't these agencies "responsible" for committing such heinous acts simply murder them to conceal "The Truth"?

you guys just don't know about the properties of steel. It's one of the earliest alloys (iron and carbon) and it has remarkable properties. I'll try this one more time!

About a year ago on Discovery Network, they had a show about a renegade bike maker. He did stuff like OCC, but by himself, and they gave him his own show. Anyway the show got to a point where the guy was going to fabricate the gas tank. He had a large piece of 16 gauge steel sheet. He could flex it, but that was about all. He then went on to say that this was good, but he could get it better for molding into a tank.

So, he lit up his oxy-acetylene torch, heavy with soot (not much O2 in the mixture) and moved the flame over the piece of sheet steel while he held it in his bare hand. After about 20 seconds, he easily bent the sheet into any form he chose. A very small amount of heat caused that steel to go into an different alloy that was very bendable!!!

I challenge you to go out to the net and see how many different alloys of iron steel (simple steel) there are that contain ONLY iron and carbon and how radical their different behaviors are. This is what brought the twin towers down! The mild steel was subjected to moderate heat and changed to the crystalline structure that this guy could bend by hand.

GET IT?!!!

That, or the guy used the flame to bend some thermoplastic that looked like steel, to convince us that nine-eleven was possible...

Truth - The New age version:

Truth is elastic, and will fit any body's wishes, if they only try hard enough.

After all: what is the truth? Is there such a thing?

Besides:

Reality, is just one version of many.

Mark Twain makes the point in his book "A Connecticut Yankee in King Author's Court" that any simple peasant girl could enter the court and proclaim that she was a princess overthrown by an evil dragon and everyone would instantly and naturally believe her. As if lying didn't exist at that time. So many knights waiting to do great deeds, perhaps it didn't matter.

Did you ever hear about ferritic-austenitic?

When steel passes 640°C the ferritic cristal struture goes to austenitic, releasing all tensions inside. that is what happens with steel collums in a building.

Under increased heat, the carbon atoms change their bonding orientation, exposing the lattice to irregularities, which is in practical terms, prelude to a fissure.

Ah but you mentioned the secret: Acetylene ! If you apply extreme heat before conduction, yeah, you can bend at the application, but that extreme heat has got to be at least 2400 degrees. Acetylene can produce, with oxygen up too 6000 deg. F. , which is easy to pin-point the heat.

The steel you're referring to is light steel fabrication, the columns in the towers were very much more heavier and denser. The distance between columns, amount of oxygen, at higher elevation, the draft, and other inconsistent burnable and non-burnable materials, shows that a combustion atmosphere of 2400 to 3000 deg. F. is not achievable. Carbon on the other hand prevents steel from being in a molten state, which will break down into fine particles.

You weren't listening to me. The torch flame was almost pure acetylene and almost NO oxygen. If you've used an oxy-acetylene torch, you know that by itself acetylene does not burn very hot at all. Also, I said the heat was low enough to hold the sheet in his hand while applying the flame.

Yeah, it's sad, but I've seen the creation of NASA; my uncle was an engineer for them. It takes a lot of money, and about 40,000 businesses to up-hold NASA, which in turn has to keep drawing money to stay in operation. JFK endorsed them, without thinking for the safety of his own life and others. Money builds greed, and greed needs more money.

I've only seen money going up, but absolutely nothing coming down !

The aircraft is shown banking left with the right wing at a higher level before the point of impact. The explosion shown on a higher level than the point of impact could be the dismembered right wing (which is on a higher level) exploding inside the building.

the timing difference between these pictures is significant.

Debris is already filling the complete zone between impact and the bottom of the view.

What is shown as the center of the explosion is the center of the hot gas cloud that goes up due the heat. this is an normal phenomenon explainable by simple physics. The alignment is correct, look to the building in the back, the angle is only changed.

Oh, why do I spend time on explaining this.

What I doubt on the landing on the moon is the fuel needed to leave again: could the lander have this fuel with him? What % of the mass would need to be fuel?

I can perfectly accept that show loving US television spectators would not accept that there were no live pictures, but how heavy was a television cameras at that moment, and the equipment needed to beam the signal to the earth, and the energy it consumes? I would not take this with me, I would take extra fuel and oxigen instead.

Gwen you're a hoot:

..What is shown as the center of the explosion is the center of the hot gas cloud that goes up due the heat. this is an normal phenomenon...

So simple, so elementary, so confusing.

You've finally killed my thread.

Don't bet on it. You've got a conspiracy going.

Gwen,

I am not sure what you mean about no live pictures of the lunar landing. The first step on the moon was sent live, as was the takeoff of the lunar module and other activities. If it had been filmed, the quality would have been much better.

In fact, I just read an article about the live feeds. The engineers had anticipated better quality in the live feeds, and were a bit disappointed.

Tad

I'm still in doubt that smart people would take that heavy equipment with them just to please the television spectators.

Add the sound to a smart earth base made film, with very bad quality and off you go.

Later you can show the real film, there are real films made.

Oh well someones got to do it , so watch the cross-hairs

They must have done a pretty good job of trickery to fool the Soviets then. I doubt that they would have just rolled over and accepted defeat in the moon race if there were any doubt in thier minds about the 'truth' of the moon landings.

...good job of trickery to fool the Soviets then...

Excellent point. The KGB and GRU retarded dummies?

Gwen, If you would do a little research on the Apollo Mission you would see a camera that weighs no more than a kilogram. Far from the "heavy TV cameras" you are imagining. Actually the camera used on the moon flight weighed less than 24 ounces and used a vidicon image tube. The reason one of the cameras didn't work is because the Astronauts took the lens cap off while it was facing the sun. With no atmosphere to attenuate the sun's infra red energy, the vidicon 's imaging surface instantly evaporated. We (us technicians) were appaled when Armstrong (a M.I.T. grad) picked up a rock a "tapped " it to try to get it to work. The cry of "God please don't give an engineer a tool" rose from all our lips as he weilded that "tool" against our beloved creation.

You raise a good point . The definitions of Engineer and Technician are fuzzy. A good one of either will know a fair ammount of the others job.

...either will know a fair amount of the others...

- - - - - - - - - -

The Soviet Paradigm:

1. Those who know - Do.

2. Those, who do not know how to do - Teach

3. Those, who do not know how to do, or how to teach - Manage

- - - - - - - - - -

The Free Market Paradigm:

1. The technician knows very little, about an awful lot

2. The scientists knows an awful lot, about very little

3. The secretary knows absolutely everything

Or , as an associate once described the academic ladder to me ;

'You start off knowing f all about a lot , and end up kowing a lot about f all'

I think he didn't see that this creates a triangle (base down ) melding with a triangle (base up)- though the brevity compensates.

I thought it was my job sewing the seeds of mischief ! Talk about the Hobbit calling the Goblin Green ,to paraphrase a saying .

...thought it was my job sewing...

One can only do their best. Beyond that, it's pure mishap

The military paradigm: "Secure that building!!!"

Army - Set up a perimeter and guard it.

Marines - Kill everyone inside.

Navy - Make sure all the doors and windows are closed.

Air Force - Buy it.

V.E.R.M.I.N

The sequence is back to front vermin.

Now that I too am a Guru, I have to ask politely, "N.I.M.R.E.V?"

Hold on while I put my hand down my trouser leg to perform the secret handshake.

Stop it U Rug like thing. Anyway , somebody else has to shake it for you (THE HAND). You also have to think or amusing variations or your former self. Sir K

ps -Considered yourself congratulated. I will consult you on all matters of global importance. To the tune of Stingray: ' Nimrev , Nimrev , da de da da da da, Nimrev...'

That's my problem, close my eyes, and someone wants to put me around their lu.

Is that the correct British spelling? (lu?)

Lu= Lutetium

lu =lumen

lieu=substitute

Lu= Chinese actress (?)

loo= toilet (which has a zillion other names)

I'd go for the actress option if I were you (as I'm not sure what the others would do with you , though I have seen strange things in peoples loo's ) . Personall I would have an open log fire and sleep on you . Aghhhh. Definate no . Joking in very non correct way.

When I was very little, my dad had a leopard skin rug. Being a stupid kid, I put my bare foot in the thing's mouth. A moment of lost concentration sent the incisor right through the bottom of my foot! Dad's rug was avenged!

I have spent XX years perfecting the art of putting my foot in things.

I, too. As witnessed by the double "flame-o-rama" I received on another thread!!!

You look like you bounce just fine . I wear spikes just in case.

leaux?

Jeez, Kris. Is that you doin' the Bison?

"doin' the Bison"

This has various interpretations ;

Man spots farmer wrestling a sheep down - " Are you shearing ? "

Farmer - " No , get your own "

Linguistic mayhem is a noble persuit. Talking of which , your previous post sounds suspiciously French (?).

Heaux heaux heaux!

"Lu" was my ex'es rich-girl college roommate. A diminutive figure - scarcely 95 pounds dripping wet (which was quite often) - deeply tanned and very attractive. Uncanny ability to imbibe enormous quantities of liquor seemingly without effort and without any trace of discomfort whatsoever. Never actually seen her drunk; just sober or tantalizingly asleep.

That's curious , I used to know a very similar sounding girl . She could down a pint of Theakestones old peculiar in one . Put all us bar animals to shame. It's the equivalent of drinking Guiness through the nose.

OK we are back on track.

drinking Guiness through the nose

That is what I call "Simple physics"

Have one on me Gwen.

Good call, Kris. Thanks for the site!

First off the person authoring the caption is woefully informed abut aircraft as he states, and I quote "Gasoline would not have been spalled". I am not exactly sure about the word spalled but a Boeing 767 is fueled with kerosene not gasoline.

Next off I must agree with vermin that something is wrong with these images. What I did was draw a horizontal line referenced by the building on the left in both images. If you now compare the edge of the top of the World Trade Center to this line it subtends a different angle in each picture. There are several possibilities here:

1. The two photographs were taken from two separate positions that were a considerable distance apart. This is impossible as the image on the left shows no change meaning that the relative position to this building has not changed.
2. The WTC has moved a substantial distance in the time between the two photographs. If the building had moved this much in the interceding period it would have collapsed immediately not some time later
3. The images have been doctored. This I feel is the most likely scenario and the only one I can see making sense.

Next up the image on the left is taken some time prior to the impact and there is no way to calculate how long before. If you draw a line along the axis of the aircraft you will see that it is not perpendicular to the surface of the WTC and is rather moving from left to right. As such the actual point of impact would be some distance below and to the right of the image of the aircraft on the left.

Further if you remember watching the horrific events of September 11^th the fire ball that formed immediately after the impact billowed and moved upwards from the point of impact. As such you would expect to see the fire ball some distance above the actual point of impact. You also need to consider that the fuel has a considerable velocity at the time of the impact and hence will continue to move in that direction after the tanks in the aircraft are ruptured.

Finally the falling debris is most likely coming from the WTC and not the aircraft. Debris from the aircraft would still have a horizontal component and hence would follow a parabolic trajectory. You also need to consider that there would be two fields of debris falling from the buildings one from the point of entry and the other where the remains of the aircraft exited the building.

Conspiracy theorists are a strange breed and in most cases live in a world of fiction rather than reality. Realistically most governmental institutions can't even organize a bus timetable let alone pull of something of the magnitude they suggest is so common. Get real people, the term "government conspiracy" is oxymoron equivalent in magnitude to "airline food" and "military intelligence".

PS There is something else I just noticed. If you work on the principal that there are two separate explosions, one where the aircraft enters the WTC and the other where the remains of the aircraft exits the building then the center of the explosion at the point of entry is exactly where the entry point of the aircraft would be.

My idea is that the pictures are taken with the same camera. But the camera is shoulder based.

Realistically most governmental institutions can't even organize a bus timetable let alone pull of something of the magnitude they suggest is so common.

It was planned at another moment, to hit together, but ....

It is like the plane hitting Pentagon: It was a fighter or missile. But where is the plane that did not crash on the Pentagon?

Where are those people? All working for the CIA on Guantanamo?

I can imagine some people to take advantage of these occasions and leaving everything behind, setting up a new life elsewhere. But a complete group of which no-one has proven yet that they are connected.

I read that as "Gasoline would not have been spoiled" . This would appear to be a gross distortion of known physical laws. It really does say spoiled

Oh, I'm sure the photos were doctored, I've caught the 2nd hit going from both directions, using "land-marks" as guides. I've even found where the black United flight, amazingly shows the gray-blue details. Then, another film "what we saw on 9-11", you can see, the camcorder was "cut" just before the second hit. Now, knowing this is a CD, how they manage to do that, if it wasn't deliberately edited ? I don't believe you can start and stop a camcorder that fast anyway ?

All I know is if we don't get to the bottom of this so called construction error, no building will be safe as far as I'm concerned.

The Empire State building was hit by a B-29 (?), and survived easily. Of course if you've ever watched old film of it being built, you'd know why.

Image on right appears to be zoomed in. If some one could locate a common focal point on each pic he/ she could then trig out height and side to side location. Or how about counting floors???

I usually don't dignify the hoax people with my time, but this one is painfully obvious. The pictures appear to be from different locations, likely from different equipment.

I would buy into the hoax theory except it can't account for the people that are gone. I am not from New York but my wife is, and she lost some pretty close friends that day. So if it is a hoax, what did they do with the people?

...if it is a hoax, what did they do with the people?...

Good point.

Now, the origin of the legend was made by this French journalist who claimed that through researching the official and popular documentation of the attack surfaced some questionable inconsistencies, the one presented here, being one. Others, mentioned above by Gwen, related to the angle of impact into the pentagon making the level of destruction impossible as described.

Taking the silly notion above, the illustrated center of explosion being the fireball tens of feet above the impact-point, is plain ignorance of basic physics: As if fireballs remain stationary at impact-point, and not raising up by heat. This is so stupid, it's really mocking people's basic intelligence.

Oh don't get me wrong, my heart goes out to all the passengers and Tower citizens. It's the fact that metallurgy and all the related fields are being hung in the balance with theories, when none exist ? 10,000 gallons of kerosene cannont fly-out the rear, explode and still be burning inside to temperatures , close to 3000 deg. F. ? At that rate of temperature, it would still take at least 3 hours before any floor could collapse ?

Large amounts of liquid steel....mp...would glow with a orange color, but thin steel, like 1" would have to glow almost white hot: It's not there ?

"10,000 gallons of kerosene cannont fly-out the rear, explode and still be burning inside to temperatures , close to 3000 deg. F. ? At that rate of temperature, it would still take at least 3 hours before any floor could collapse ?"

You don't need to get to temperatures anything like 1,650° C for steel to start loosing is structural strength. The other thing you are ignoring is all the secondary fires that were started by the flash fire that consumed much of of misted fuel. There were plenty of flammable things within the WTC that could and did burn after they were hit with the burst from the initial fire and it is these fires that were the ultimately responsible for the failure of structure.

Structural steel within buildings is supposed to be protected from fire specifically to prevent it from failing during a fire.. If you look you will find that in most building they cover any steel with a fire retarding insulation that protects the steel from the fire. Asbestos was commonly used but this has now been replaces with ablative material that is designed to burn away taking the heat away as it burns. The other technique that is common is to embed the steel within concrete.

The problem with the WTC is that the material that was used to protect the steel from the fires was ripped off by the impact and the debris of the aircraft. Once the insulation was gone the steel was no longer protected from the heat and ultimately failed.

As an example of steel failing due to heat I have had 4.7 mm diameter steel reinforcing mesh buckle and fail completely when exposed to the temperatures present in a simple bon fire burning nothing more than wood. To say it requires temperatures of 1,650° C for three hours to get a steel structure to fail is total garbage, steel can loose much of it structural strength at temperatures only a fraction of this.

For info on 911 and moonlanding hoaxes see:

www.flybynews.com

Some, are so ridiculous, practically ROFLMAO:

..

Others, took some imagination or knowledge, but frankly, what would you expect, given the web and photoshop culture?

Now, that's a good example ! Imagine the video feeds being controlled by satellite, and re-fed on your television screens, minutes later ?

Both photos are done at different magnifications and perspectives. The pictures are put side to side in an optical illusion manner to hide this. The line drawn between the plane trajectory and the center of the explosion is therefore bogus. Count the floors above the explosion my friend and you will see. Yet another way to manipulate the facts to prove a false point - with pictures!

Tytpical 'conspiracy` idiots! They forgot that hot gas rises.

If you look at the dusty debris trails you can see that they

origionate at the, (marked), impact point.

...hot gas rises...

Could it be any simpler?

Look at how far the debris has fallen in the second photo. What distance would that be? About 20-35 stories? In that time the top of the fireball from the explosion has risen from its own internal convection currents, placing it higher on the building. I see nothing obviously awry with these pictures...

No, the Lunar Landing was taken at the Chase Manhattan Bank, or the U.S. Treasury for 135 Billion dollars. What's the biggest thing on this f------ Earth as stated in the JFK movie ? Answer: NASA ! If John was to see the hoax, he'd a shut-em down, you see why they had to get him outta the way now.

Go to "World Trade Center Footage Collection Part one" and then go to Clip 5. At

3:00:45:00 you'll see the thermite detonating in the wall columns of the South Tower. Play it back and forth and you'll see it very clearly.

I think there is a bold and significant factor, to so many people inclined to see the JFK, the Lunar landing, and nine-eleven plots (just to name a few, what about the Holocaust?) a conspiracy:

It's called "Rationalisation".

When something unlikely, against your mundane expectations happen, instead of looking for the (indeed) un-usual circumstances which allowed it to happen, you "recruit" the "mundane" lowest common-base rational, to explain it.

This is very evident in many cases of victims who died by random-shooting of people who never knew them, or others who died in some freak accidents.

The surviving relatives are so shocked by the apparently senseless killing, they immediately try conspiracy theories, if only to make some lame sense to the senseless plot.

This may be done in order to refrain from blaming God for the slaughter, or in order to avoid a hapless feeling of chaotic, meaningless, reality.

Without some order, some sense of divine justice, and a general, coherent meaning to this life, why bother, right?

When these are not evident, a conspiracy, is a comforting substitute.

Hit point in both pictures look all right and hot plume is expected to go up as by that time temperature of the zone might have reached thousand degree Celsius. Hot air is going up in color and debris is falling below under gravity and momentum.