Kevin M. West

Sorry I didn't mean to misquote you. The section of the building that broke away at the top of building 2 did tilt. But once it started to tilt, any remaining structure still attached was torn away and there was no more pivot point. With no more pivot point, there was only gravity pulling straight down, and the building below which was resisting the same on all sides since it was undamaged until that point. There's really no way to break the building near the top and have that top piece tilt significantly out of the area of the building, and there's no reason the bottom should have fallen over when it was being crushed from the top down.

Of course we think Reinert was responsible, he admitted to altering all sorts of things for that video. If you need his confession for that specific piece, why don't you ask him?

Considering the only place the footage exists with incorrect audio is reinert's documentary, and there are no official nasa versions with the incorrect audio, I'd say his rebuttal makes perfect sense. Unless you can find an official nasa source with the wrong audio?

I remember seeing this claim on another forum, it was attributed to the conspiracist in that case because he didn't specify the source so it could be checked out. With this further info, yeah, it can definitely be attributed to artistic license of Reinert.

How did 2 identical buildings fall in the same manner? Think about that for a sec. How did they fall straight down? Gravity. The buildings weren't strong enough to stay together while they toppled over, as soon as one side failed and they started to tilt, the tilt made the other side fail, and it went straight down from there. No part of the building was strong enough to hold one side of the top part to act as a pivot. And they were not anywhere near 'in their own footprints', every building for a couple blocks in every direction was damaged, some so severly they had to be destroyed, and one so bad it fell on its own.

So they rigged up explosives on every single floor of the building while it was occupied, impressive. 'Every bit of concrete was pulverized into powder' ???? Nonsense http://www.w3.org/People/Jacobs/2001/10/wtc/pdrm1956.jpg

Of course some look melted, car bodies are made of plastics and thin sheets of metal. Why would tires burn completely away? Because firefighters had better things to do than put them out. Unless you're referring to the ones where there are no remains at all on the wheel or on the ground around them, in which case the car was clearly moved afterwards and the tire remains fell away. I don't see anything strange about any of the burned vehicles. I've seen a few car fires, they don't always spread to the entire car. Sometimes the front burns up, sometimes the back burns up, sometimes the top. Sometimes the metal itself burns (they use aluminum sometimes). As for the 'spire' turning to dust, that is so laughable I feel like I'm wasting time addressing it for the 10th time. The column had the support knocked out from under it by debris piling up at the base, and it fell straight down. It's that simple. It was covered in crushed drywall and concrete like everything else there, and some of it came loose as it fell, leaving a trail of dust. The combination of the dust obscuring it, and the motion blur as it fell, and the crappy low resolution of the videos you find on the web, make it hard to see, but even with all that you can still see it fall away, and not vaporize.

Just to add to the speed of impact bit, double the speed means 4 times the kinetic energy. These planes were both going about 2.6 and 3.2 times the speed that the architect determined to be a likely impact speed. That would be 6.76 and 10.24 times as much kinetic energy for the impacts, and that's before even taking into account the larger size of the planes.

You obviously have not looked at the site. Many of the toasted cars were up to a half mile away, on the East River side of the island instead of the Hudson River side. I was referring to the one large parking lot where all the cars burned, that was on the hudson. The cars near the east river were all moved there to get them out of the way during the cleanup.

Just looked at the pictures of the cars... some first impressions... Some of the cars they list as burnt are clearly not, they are just covered in dust, for example figure 67 and the car in the foreground in 70. Figure 71, large piece of debris landed on it, it burned from the top down and stopped before it was completely burnt, and then it was moved in the cleanup. Figure 72, the 'wilted' van looks like something fell on it, and all of them were clearly moved after they burnt, hense the missing parts. Figure 73, the paint burnt off from the top down. Figure 74, looks like something fell through the roof and started the fire on the inside. Figure 75, duh, they were parked right next to the impact point and set on fire by the fireball. Figure 76, why is the passenger door burned? Because fire spreads, what kind of question is that. What's odd about the hood curling? Do they even know what the hood is made of? The 'randomly toasted' cars on the FDR is a funny one. You can clearly tell that the cars did not burn there, but were moved there afterwards during the cleanup. It just goes on and on with grossly misinterpreted images and false conclusions.

What's bizzare about the cars? Lots of flaming debris fell from the impact site, only takes one piece landing on a car to start the whole lot on fire.

What kind of explosives produce pools of molten metal?

You bring up the issue of losing science knowledge, but the problem is science knowledge wasn't lost. ENGINEERING knowledge was lost. There's a huge difference, and engineering knowledge loss is a regular occurance (in fact several examples have been posted in this thread already).

First of all, the apollo program started before kennedy announced it, it was more than 8 years. There are several factors here regarding the timeframe for new missions. funding: The cost of the apollo program alone, adjusted for inflation, is about $135 billion. That's more than 8 years worth of nasa's current budget (their ENTIRE budget, not 1 program). The new program has much bigger goals and lower funding, hense, it will take longer. reusability: They want to design reusuable hardware this time, so it's not just a couple one-off missions. duration: They want to stay much longer this time, not just short stops on the moon. In fact, they just announced that they want to setup a permanant base this time.

If the top of a picture is black, like the sky in these b&w apollo photos, then there will be no clear line between the edge of the exposure and the unexposed film. This is why a note scribbled in between frames might overlap the image, or a scan might overlap the unexposed part of the film. It is not evidence of anything other than someone not bothering to be careful with a frame that was ruined before they got it. You'll notice that it's only on the crappy images that nobody has bothered to create a better scan. The photoshop measurements mean everything, the fiducials are there precisely to have a fixed reference in the image. You can easily use them to find the edge of a frame. Two frames later in the same strip you can barely see more 'anomalies' along the top edge, just less visible because they were written and/or cropped differently. Not sure how that's proof though, you'll just make the same claims that they're lights or something.

Well as demonstrated, there are images without the 'lens flare' that show the writing. But, there is one thing the images with writing all have in common. They are all very poorly cropped. Why? Well, the ones we've seen so far were spoiled images, mostly due to light leakage. They could have been purposefully cropped that way to show that the light went outside of frame and was not part of the image. Or maybe they were just such crappy images that no one cared enough to take the time to do it right. Whatever the reason, they are clearly NOT stage lights.

I do. I added the fiducials that aren't visible against the sky based on the locations of the rest of the visible fiducials. The red line is the approximate location of the edge of the exposure. I haven't done the same for the one with the sprocket holes but I'd be willing to bet that those are outside the exposure also.

I'm a 29 year old Systems Administrator from NJ. My interest in manned space missions landed me on some forums where the Apollo program is disputed, and it's become a hobby of mine to research and debate the 'inconsistancies' that some claim are proof of a hoax.