Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

9/11 conspiracy stuff

  1. Mar 13, 2006 #1

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    EDIT: This is delicate. The thread was started in S&D, but just now moved to GD. In no way did I intend to further a conspiracy wing nut theory. I belive there to be a plausible explanation, I just would like to know what it might be: [/EDIT]

    I saw last night a portion of a conspiracy theory on the 9/11 attacks. Most of it was rather absurd but I could not think of a good explanation for the following.

    Tapes of the planes hitting the WTC towers clearly show a flash of light just as the nose of the plane touches the side of the building. Four views of the second strike, and the one and only film capture of the first strike show this flash.

    The conspiracy guy suggested it was an incendiary device to make sure that the fuel ignited upon impact. This suggestion made me snarf my Orangina. But still, what would have caused this flash of light?
     
    Last edited: Mar 14, 2006
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 13, 2006 #2
    There all crazy.I herd one where it said that "muslims suspend the laws of physics":rofl: you don't to suspend the laws of physics to destroy two towers like unless you want all the debree flying toward space.
     
  4. Mar 13, 2006 #3

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Did anyone catch the first plane on video? Here is a video of the second frame, which clearly shows the explosion after the impact. You can even pause and look at the plane halfway disappearing into the building, with no explosion. Keep in mind that the second plane impacted at almost 600mph, which is 880 feet per second or roughly 30 feet per frame of video. The entire plane disappears in 5 frames of video. If you pause it just right, you can see the plane disappearing through one side of the building and the nose of the plane breaking through the other side of the building before exploding.

    http://edition.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/trade.center/day.video.09.html

    Do you have any photos that "clearly show a flash of light just as the nose of the plane touches the side of the building"?
     
    Last edited: Mar 13, 2006
  5. Mar 13, 2006 #4

    Evo

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Watching the videos, it's very clear that there was no flash of light or explosion as the plane hit.

    Chi, the videos you watched were probaby tampered with.
     
  6. Mar 13, 2006 #5

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    To avoid ambiguity, here are 3 captures from the first video of the second plane on the link I posted. In the 3rd pic, you can clearly see the plane breaking through the other side of the building and still, no explosion.
     

    Attached Files:

    • 1.jpg
      1.jpg
      File size:
      3.5 KB
      Views:
      72
    • 2.jpg
      2.jpg
      File size:
      5.2 KB
      Views:
      63
    • 3.jpg
      3.jpg
      File size:
      6.3 KB
      Views:
      78
  7. Mar 13, 2006 #6

    Pengwuino

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Reminds me of this one stupid flash brought up in PWA a long time ago by one of the usuals that showed that convinence store video. Well i watched it and was like "wow... i remember that video being a lot clearer before...". Of course, after some research, i found the original video clip that was probably 3x as clearer meaning the flash guys pixelized the video frames. Sheesh.
     
  8. Mar 13, 2006 #7
    Alex Jones at Ground Zero: The Use Of Explosives In the 9/11 Attack

    http://70.84.33.210/~infomedi/video/previews/170305martialpreview2.wmv

    Is this similar to what you are refering to? I've often wondered about this theory myself. (mentors-if this is not allowed for copyright or something)please delete link.
     
  9. Mar 13, 2006 #8
    I thought that 9/11 conspiracy threads were completely banned?

    http://www.fourwinds10.com/news/05-...-04-911-video-shocks-sacramento-citizens.html
    Is this what you saw Chi? If so the video is there for anyone to download apparently. I can't do that here at work though.

    The link says this about the flash...
    Here's an amusing bit that was just before that...
     
  10. Mar 13, 2006 #9

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

  11. Mar 13, 2006 #10

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Very, very short leash...
     
  12. Mar 13, 2006 #11
    The entire video is relevant to the OP's final question as to possible explanations. It was a clip of an Alex Jones conspiracy documentary which I thought Chi Meson was referring to. Actually, I see TheStatutoryApe posted the more likely clip. Feel free to delete if you believe it to be off topic. (I thought Alex Jones mentioned the plane flashes in his full-length movie.)
     
  13. Mar 13, 2006 #12

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    I'm specifically asking about the claim about the flash as the nose hits the building - what the OP was asking about. I'm not going to wade through a 52 minute video to find it.
     
  14. Mar 13, 2006 #13

    Ivan Seeking

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    That's correct. As per the posting guidelines, 911 threads are banned from S&D since the subject is not consistent with the forum's format.
     
  15. Mar 13, 2006 #14
    Well about 38 mins in to the video posted by TheStatutoryApe, it talks about the flashes specifically. They don't make any "claim" as to what it is in the movie. It wants you to believe that the plane was not the passenger flight that was reported in the media but more like a "cargo plane" of some type, with a mounted long cylindrical object mounted to the fuselage. (an alleged missile, bomb, or external fuel tank).

    Now, if you like, I actually might be able to answer the OP more specifically. I will draw on my time as an Aviation Ordnanceman in the Navy, working on repairing aircraft weapon systems. (I can provide proof if needed). The first time I saw the video I immediately thought of the LAU-92 weapons rail, which mounts to the fuselage of the F-14. It closely matches the apparent dimensions of the mounted object in the videos. This weapons rail is basically just a housing that allows one to easily switch out a smaller bomb rack to missile launcher depending on whether performing ATG or ATA combat. The LAU-92 could feasibly be modified to mount on a cargo plane. (hell, give me some duct tape and some wire and I could probably do it:smile: )
    As for ordinance It could have been a MK-82 GP bomb with a non-delay fuse (When the functioning time of a fuze is 0.0003 to 0.0005 second). Or simply an external fuel tank with the same fuse (slightly modified). Just something to ignite the fuel on impact.

    But lets keep in mind that the video was probably doctored. This coupled with the fact that all "unaltered" equiptment used by the military have safety devices which prevent arming the fuse until it has dropped away from the aircraft. This is done by means of an arming wire, or lanyard, attached to the bomb rack and the arming pin (like a grenade). Only after the bomb falls the length of the lanyard does it actually arm. Not very likely anyone would be able to safely take-off with an armed fuse without significant risk of early detonation! Too risky if your trying to pull off a conspiracy of this magnitude, imo.

    http://www.anft.net/f-14/f14-detail-rack-bomb.htm

    http://www.ordnance.org/fuzes.htm
     
  16. Mar 14, 2006 #15

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    OK reeling it in, and getting back to the OP:

    Avoiding the rest of the conspiracy theories, whether or not it was really an American Airlines craft, whether it was the Jews, the Arabs, the Aliens, J. Edgar Hoover, whether or not we landed on the moon, whether or not Nessie eats eggs, if crop circles are a virus etc etc...

    The "flash" is not the explosion... it is too soon to have anything to do with the explosion. THe flash is small and very brief. It seems to be some sort of friction or discharge or other sparking phenomenon caused by the aluminum nose cone striking the steel/concrete/glass side of the building.

    The first thing I though about is how some stones spark when you strike them together, some other materials will spark when you snap them apart (Wintogreen lifesavers for example).

    I am assuming that the flash was not due to tampering, because the purpose of this flash as evidece of a "detonator" is just too silly to discuss.

    So, sticking to the "D" part of the S&D: what is a reasonable cause of this flash?
     
  17. Mar 14, 2006 #16

    fuzzyfelt

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.parapolitics.info/phorum/read.php?f=44&i=1&t=1

    General Partin says vonKleist omits the most obvious explanation. "It's very simple," he told The New American, "When the noses of the aircraft hit the buildings, you have a bright aluminum flash, the same as we saw at the Pentagon. That's obvious to anyone familiar with physics, chemistry, and what happens when aluminum hits a structure at a high rate of speed." And the proof of that analysis, the general points out, is in vonKleist's own video. "If you watch just a few frames after the nose flash, you'll see two smaller aluminum flashes as each engine strikes the building. That's all it is."

    Hope this helps.
     
  18. Mar 14, 2006 #17

    fuzzyfelt

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I'm not familiar with physics of chem and don't know what happens when aluminium hits a structure at a high rate of speed, myself, is this correct?
    Also, did the flash happen before or during impact?
     
  19. Mar 14, 2006 #18

    Bystander

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    Let's see --- big ol' van der Graaf collector --- travelling at four, five hundred mph for half hour, hour --- at whatever altitudes --- approaching a metallic ground? Wouldn't think it'd be visible, but haven't witnessed all that much lightning from the clear sky.
     
  20. Mar 14, 2006 #19

    Chi Meson

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    This is along the idea I was thinking, except I too do not know what usually happens when high speed aluminum his a solid structure. Is it the KE causing a quick vaporization of the aluminum?

    I also considered the static discharge possibility as Bystander mentioned. What I'd like is to have a confident response for people who bring this up in the future (especially in my classroom).
     
  21. Mar 14, 2006 #20
    I wasn't intending to spur on the conspiracy theory with my last post. I was intending to give you a de-bunking of the missile, bomb, pod theory. You might be smart enough to have already figured that out on your own...but if others do still believe that anything other than a plane was involved, I wanted to present my evidence to the contrary.

    The issue can still be raised if whether there was a flash at all. Those things can easily be doctored. I didn't see any flashes when I watched the video Russ posted.

    As for what caused the flashes (if they occured)...I will bow out of this conversation as I have no idea.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: 9/11 conspiracy stuff
  1. Where were you on 9/11? (Replies: 12)

  2. More 9/11 conspiracy! (Replies: 68)

  3. 9/11 Conspiracies (Replies: 1)

Loading...