Does anyone else think that the 9/11 planes exploded far more dramatically

[spooked911]

than one would expect for "normal" plane crashes?

I'm trying to pursue the idea that the reason why so many of the 9/11 plane crashes were more destructive than expected is that they were pre-loaded with explosives.

Part of this theory is the idea that the planes were being controlled by someone on the ground or in another plane-- either using existing technology built into the plane, or having planted additional hardware in the plane for remote-control piloting.

If you think this is crazy, someone already came up with the idea of planes being flown into the World Trade Centre using remote control technology: namely the X-files spin-off TV show "The Lone Gunmen" which aired in March 2001.

The overall theory is that the planes had some sort of device installed for remote-control piloting AND an explosive to completely destroy the plane.

Perhaps all the hijacked planes needed to be completely destroyed so as to hide evidence of the remote-control technology-- and as a back-up in case of a problem such as with flight 93.

Does anyone else think the 9/11 plane crashes were more destructive and had larger more violent explosions than would be predicted?

[Last Lemming]

1. A ancillary question

the two brothers who happened to be filming the Fire Station for a documentary...who were they and what's their background? Did they stick to the party line on what "happened" They certainly never mention explosions...

[hack89]

4. Jules and Gedeon Naudet - google away (nt)

[spooked911]

6. I have been trying to get more info on them and haven't had any luck.

Have you found anything?

I suspect they are intelligence agents of some sort.

[Last Lemming]

7. RE:Have you found anything

I hadn't even thought to look until this moment

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

19. The Naudet Bros. film "911 Commemorative DVD" is really worth watching.

They were filming a documentary in which they were following a rookie fireman, from his training to actually working in a firehouse. I have doubted many things about 9/11 but I have no doubts about them. They became the stuff that the bravest photo-journalists are made of, and both put themselves in harms way.

In the film one of the fireman says: “Floor by floor it started popping out… It was as if they had detonators planted to take down a building.”

Also, on the way to WTC after the first plane hit, one of the fireman driving there said that it looked like an attack. He knew, while Bush said it looked like one bad pilot. Right........

This video really is a piece of history that you should either rent or purchase.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

20. Jules and Gedeon Naudet ...........................

http://www.realityfilm.com/resources/directors/n/naudetgedeon.php

Jules and Gedeon Naudet are French brothers who moved to the United States in 1989 and who both graduated from the New York Film School in 1995. To date they have worked together on two documentary films, both about American subjects. Their first film, Hope, Gloves and Redemption: The Story of Mickey and Negra Rosario (1999), follows two trainers -- one a former gang leader and the other the love of his life -- as they prepare young boxers for an amateur tournament. Through their coaching Mickey and Negra work to help young men and women from Harlem and the Bronx avoid the temptations of gang life.

The Naudet brothers are better known for 9/11 (2002), about the aftermath of the September 11 attacks in New York City. But the film didn't start out that way. Jules and Gedeon Naudet at the time were making a film about New York firefighters, particularly those serving probationary periods before becoming full members of the force. Their particular subject was Tony Benetatos. On September 11, 2001, Jules had his camera with members of Engine 7, who were sent to check out a possible gas leak near the World Trade Center. Gedeon had stayed at the stationhouse.

Upon hearing a great sound, Jules pointed his camera upward to catch the only known footage of the first plane hitting the north tower. He then got inside the North Tower lobby and recorded some of the activity there before fleeing.

Gedeon meanwhile used his camera to record the commotion in the streets near the towers. Together, the two shot 180 hours of footage.

The documentary aired March 10, 2002, on CBS, with native New Yorker Robert De Niro hosting. Much controversy surrounded it, especially with rumors about the potentially gruesome images the brothers had captured on film. But that simply wasn't the case. When Jules saw two people on fire, he turned his camera away. He exhibited similar discretion with subsequent filming. 9/11 went on to win Emmy and Peabody awards.

9/11 has since been released on home video, and Hope, Gloves and Redemption comes out on video in January 2004. No word on the brothers' current projects.

Filmography


911 (2002)
Hope, Gloves and Redemption: The Story of Mickey and Negra Rosario (1999)

[hack89]

2. Show me a "normal" plane crash and I'll let you know. (nt)

[spooked911]

10. Look at the plane crash photos at this site

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/

all the crashes I see there produce recognizable airplanes debris-- unlike the case with flights 77 and 93.

And of course flights 11 and 175 were completely demolished in the two WTC towers -- but it wasn't expected that the planes would bring down the towers. So those crashes were much more destructive than lots of people would expect.

[vincent_vega_lives]

24. Like this one?

and these?







here's one that collided with a building...WEREDY GO?



Here's lots of recognizable airplane debris.



The Fact is, MOST air crashes happen at takeoff or landing, when speed and altitude are low.

Notice what happens when a plane that comes in like this:



crashes...



And I didn't even look at the entire site.

[Last Lemming]

3. Oh, and

none of this is crazy--they are the ones who are crazy

[LARED]

5. What makes you think

they were more destructive than expected?

[spooked911]

8. The Pentagon crash and the flight 93 crash in particular

have oddities suggesting that the crashes weren't "normal."

The flight 175 fireball of course was very dramatic-- some have suggested it was an intentional pyrotechnics display.

Fight 11 also blew up very dramatically if you watch the Naudet video.

Plus, the planes that hit the WTC TOOK DOWN THE TOWERS. That wasn't expected. Perhaps the planes had more punch than normal passenger planes.

[hack89]

9. Who didn't expect the WTC to come down?

[spooked911]

11. Lots of people. The towers were built to withstand a 747 impact.

Before 9/11, no one ever knew that you could bring down a skyscraper by crashing an airplane into them.

[Make7]

15. It was designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707.

If no one thought you could bring down a skyscraper by crashing a plane into it, why did they specifically calculate to see if it would withstand the impact of an airplane?

-Make7

[spooked911]

17. Fair enough. However I meant no one had ever done it before so

the idea hadn't really been tested. Obviously it is theoretically possible under the right circumstances.

So the question is whether the WTC being hit by a Boeing 767 is the right circumstances.

I am open-minded about how the towers came down. I'm not convinced there was any demolition, though the way the towers collapsed was strange. There is certainly some evidence to suggest demolition, but nothing absolutely convincing.

[Abe Linkman]

18. The corollary would be just as valid, wouldn't it?

"There is certainly some evidence to suggest demolition, but nothing absolutely convincing."

That is:

"I'm not convinced the plane crashes & fires were sufficient to cause those skyscrapers to collapse into their own footprints, in less than 15 seconds, though it is strange how fast & furious they came down. There certainly is some evidence to suggest damage to the buildings from the crashes & perhaps the fires might have been contributing factors, but nothing absolutely convincing."

The burden to prove what happened is really on the Gov't, isn't it? And so far, they've not accounted for the many anomalies that cast doubt on the crash/fire combo as being sufficient to do the job, wouldn't you agree?

[MercutioATC]

22. How long SHOULD the buildings have taken to fall, Abe?

"it is strange how fast & furious they came down"


How so?

[The Magistrate]

27. Because, Sir

There have been instances where airplanes have crashed into skyscrapers previously. Perhaps the most famous such occured not to long after World War Two, when a twin-engined Mitchell bomber ran into the Empire State Building. Insurance people are paid to fret about such long-shot occurances....

[John Doe II]

12. The firefighters n/t

[Abe Linkman]

13. Quick mind at work, folks. Very good. n/t

n/t

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

16. Obviously Giuliani knew they would be coming down and was even

given an ETA......................


http://www.freepressinternational.com/giuliani_911.html

[LARED]

14. And those oddities were

what?

The flight 175 fireball of course was very dramatic-- some have suggested it was an intentional pyrotechnics display.

Some have suggested lots of different and weird things about flight 175. No one yet has provided any evidence that pyrotechnics were involved, nor any rational or scientific explanation as to why they think it the impact was not "normal."

Fight 11 also blew up very dramatically if you watch the Naudet video.

Of course it was dramatic. So what?

[Make7]

21. Expectations.

"Plus, the planes that hit the WTC TOOK DOWN THE TOWERS. That wasn't expected." - spooked911
__________

It may not have been expected by the perpetrators of 911 either. I doubt if they thought, or had the expectation, that running a plane into the Pentagon would completely destroy it.

So if that was still chosen a target, knowing that it would not be destroyed, then why would it be unreasonable to assume that the intention of flying planes into the WTC was to cause as many casualties and as much damage as possible from just the impact of the planes?

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

23. questions

Make 7 wrote :

> "(...)why would it be unreasonable to assume that the intention of flying planes into the WTC was to cause as many casualties and as much damage as possible from just the impact of the planes?"

If somebody wanted to cause as many casualties as possible, wouldn´t they have waited an hour longer before striking, and hit the towers lower down, and thereby caused maybe ten times as many casualties?

If they wanted to cause as many casualties as possible, why did they hit the North tower almost at the top?

(If your answer is that it was not possible to hit it lower down, then why didn´t they hit the South Tower first, which was possible to hit lower down, and thereby trap more people?)

[Make7]

25. half

Let me rephrase my question to clarify the actual point:

If the Pentagon was chosen as a target with the expectation of casualties and damage caused by the impact of the plane and not a more widespread structural collapse of other parts of the building, why could we not assume that the WTC was chosen as a target with the same expectations?

They may not have expected the towers to collapse, they may have only thought that any casualties and damage caused would be from the impact of the planes.
__________

"(...)why didn´t they hit the South Tower first, which was possible to hit lower down, and thereby trap more people?" - k-robjoe

How would they know if it would trap anyone or not? People above the impact zone in the South Tower made it out of the building alive.

-Make7

[k-robjoe]

26. > "They may

not have expected the towers to collapse."

True. This is not implausible.

Also, if you believe "they" did it, you allready get the feeling that "they" weren´t all that lusting for as many casualties as possible, when you learn that they passed right over a nuclear reactor, and didn´t chose that for a target.

And ofcourse, chosing that particular wing of the Pentagon.
( Which "they" would have seen was being worked upon, if they were passing by in a car a week or a month prior. )

> "People above the impact zone in the South Tower made it out of the building alive."

They did. Because the plane hit it close to the corner (?)

This also makes you wonder if the perps really had as a goal to cause as many casualties as possible.