9/11 conspiracies

[Greatdane]

I just found this interesting vid on google. And it shows one side of the case, but some of the parts in it are quite shady...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... ge&pl=true

Watch the whole movie before making any judgements, you will probably find some of it lacking, so post what you believe in this thread. If you have other good conspiracy theories then post 'em. One conspiracy is as good as another...

[Doink]

Conspiracy theories are simply not meant to be taken seriously. Why did you even post this, anyway? Knowing the other forumites, you're going to get burninated.

[RHJunior]

Let me guess.

The Twin Towers fell straight down--as opposed to keeling over like felled trees--- which means it was demolition charges inside the towers, right?

(no, I'm not looking at the video. I've heard every possible variation of the stupidity imaginable.)

Okay, I'll restate this as I recall it being given by those who built the towers in the first place...
When the two planes struck the towers, they opened a blazing jet-fuel juiced inferno on the floors they struck. Hot enough to melt steel.
When the support beams softened enough, the entire upper half of the structure DROPPED-- wham--- like a titanic piledriver onto the lower floors. the compression force blew out the windows, then snapped the support girders below. This proceeded in a rapid chain reaction all the way down to the ground. The towers basically jackhammered themselves into the ground.

[Astral]

I'll be the first to admit that a good deal of the Conspiracy theories surounding 11/9 are more then a little far fetched, but there were a few eyebrow razing questions left unanswered for a good deal of time after the event. Though the 'jackhammer' explenation combined with the neglence of not compleating the fireproofing on the supports dose pritty much cover all baces on the towers, I still can't see how on earth that pasinger plane (dispite its smaller size) managed to fit through such a small hole in the pentigon. Even after I heard the 'official explenation' I couldn't quite get my head around the science of it, even though it kinda made sence.

Most conspiricy theories are mearly speculation and rumer gone compleatly nuts, many are based on real questions that were razed / left unanswered at the time. Often, even when there is a conspiricy to be had, it's never as spectacular as the more fanatical theoriets would have you belive, but that dosn't meen there isn't one there. Always best to keep an open mind, take everything with a pinch of salt and makesure to check the tinfoil over your roof every few days for holes... they're watching you know *looks around nervously*

[Kerry Skydancer]

Small hole? SMALL? Astral, have you ever seen the Pentagon in person? It's solid stone construction (steel was in demand for the war effort at the time) and a huge building. That 'small hole' was three stories high.

A plane hitting a solid stone wall at 250 knots isn't going to have a lot of large pieces left, so the 'where's the wreckage?' idiots don't have a leg to stand on, either.

Take Doink's advice. Conspiracy theories are almost invariably produced by people who a) don't know the basic facts about whatever they're conspiracy-ranting about, and b) are unable to comprehend that sometimes Stuff Just Happens. They can be amusing, but don't take 'em seriously.

[StrangeWulf13]

While we're on the subject, I'd like to point you all to an article pertaining to this.

I knew there was a reason I kept this link in my bookmarks.

Read it, learn, then turn off the conspiracy nuts. They've never provided anything useful anyway.

[Madmoonie]

You fly fly a 727 into a building and see if it still standing. The engineering was good enough to withstand a PLANE flying into it. For at least 15 minutes.

[Doink]

Take Doink's advice...

Hold on, let me savor this moment before continuing.

Hhhfff.... ah.

Okay.

Basically, these people crave excitement so much that they want to believe in these flimsy yet entertaining conspiracy theories.

Strangewulf gave a nice, in-depth article for us to see. I wonder if there are articles debunking other conspiracies out there...

(I never thought I'd see the above quote on this forum. )

Also:

Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

These [CENSORED]s are striking a whole lot of nerves and I want them to stop right now, dammit!

[Tbolt]

And just on a tangential note I saw a video in which an F-4 Phantom was rammed into a test block of concrete at 450 MPH. (The test was to see what the durability of the concrete was in the event that an aircraft hit it. The concrete was to be used in the construction of a nuclear plant)

The only pieces of the aircraft left were the wingtips, that is because they overhung the test block by about three feet. The slow motion video was quite impressive. The airctaft basically stopped and the wingtips kept moving forward like they were still attached to something. The "cut" looked as clean as a razor.

Nothing else of the aircraft remained identifiable, the test block didn't budge.

A shallow angle of impact will produce less damage to both target and projectile than something that hits more to the perpendicular.

Drat, I probably shouldn't be posting this, TOTQ is the least political of the three comics at this time, and frankly the shouting is giving me a headache. =x.x=

[Madmoonie]

The only pieces of the aircraft left were the wingtips.

Freakin' ouch, dude.

[BrockthePaine]

I saw that video too. The thing just turned to flippin' dust.

[The JAM]

Saw that video too. I was wondering why there wasn't at least an intact tail piece at the wreck at the Pentagon. Thanks for clearing things up!!

[Astral]

Small hole? SMALL? Astral, have you ever seen the Pentagon in person? It's solid stone construction (steel was in demand for the war effort at the time) and a huge building. That 'small hole' was three stories high.

A plane hitting a solid stone wall at 250 knots isn't going to have a lot of large pieces left, so the 'where's the wreckage?' idiots don't have a leg to stand on, either.

Take Doink's advice. Conspiracy theories are almost invariably produced by people who a) don't know the basic facts about whatever they're conspiracy-ranting about, and b) are unable to comprehend that sometimes Stuff Just Happens. They can be amusing, but don't take 'em seriously.

I wasn't saying that I beliave everything the conspiricy theoires state, I'm saying that I personaly' can't picture that folding effect happening, or how a thin alumilium nose cone some how managed to punch through through nine feat of concreat before the entire plan vanished into thin air dispite the fact that previouse crashes leave masses of ejected wrechage from entire engins to tail wings. I just can't get my head around it. Even though its confirmed by many sciantists it still seems damn amazing that the wings folded back so far as to be near flush with the body work as it smashed its way though the heavy stone work, leaving no trace of the impact on the out side except that one hole, bearly large enough for the fusilage. And why was there no trace of the six tone engins? The one part of the plane that should have easily survived?
Dispite the fact that it couldn't really have been anything but a plane, given eyewhitness reports I can still see how the teorists could be easily lead to a sinister concution even with the lack of evidence.

[Greatdane]

As I wrote, I don't believe everything in that movie, besides, how many have seen it yet?

Anyway, there is one thing that struck me, above all else, and that's the engines. If what the video says is true, then the airplane's engines are made of an titanium alloy, which is, supposedly, able to withstand around the 2000 degrees celcius. The airfuel is supposedly only able to burn at a maximum temperature of 1500 degrees. This means they should have been able to find the engines. All four, that is. If what they claim in the video is true then the engine found was not even the type used in the plane in question.
This is only for the Pentagon, I'm not doubting that two airplanes hit WTC.

And I'm not trying to get flamed, or even to say that this is the correct version of what happened, I just think that too many things don't add up. But please, see the movie before you judge. Yes, it has many holes, but it also have quite a few good points. Even the first few minutes will tell an interesting story.

[Maxgoof]

Sorry, I do not want to watch a two hour streaming documentary.

[Kerry Skydancer]

As I wrote, I don't believe everything in that movie, besides, how many have seen it yet?

Anyway, there is one thing that struck me, above all else, and that's the engines. If what the video says is true, then the airplane's engines are made of an titanium alloy, which is, supposedly, able to withstand around the 2000 degrees celcius. The airfuel is supposedly only able to burn at a maximum temperature of 1500 degrees. This means they should have been able to find the engines. All four, that is. If what they claim in the video is true then the engine found was not even the type used in the plane in question.
This is only for the Pentagon, I'm not doubting that two airplanes hit WTC.

And I'm not trying to get flamed, or even to say that this is the correct version of what happened, I just think that too many things don't add up. But please, see the movie before you judge. Yes, it has many holes, but it also have quite a few good points. Even the first few minutes will tell an interesting story.

What'd I say about conspiracy theories sounding plausible when you don't know the subject that they are ranting about?

Aircraft engines are not made of solid titanium. They're made of lots of little bitty titanium blades that will scatter all over the landscape when the engines impact a stone wall. There was an engine of the same type in the fighter that Tbolt talked about. It vanished along with the rest of the fuselage when it impacted, and these engines would've done the same thing. Airplanes are flimsy things, overall. There's not that much there, there.

I'm on dialup and couldn't possibly download the whole thing, even if I thought it was worth watching. What were a few of those good points in the flick? The engines weren't one... what else has he got?

[Greatdane]

Let's see... Because you can't, or won't, see the vid you want me to retell the 'good' points... That would require me to write about stuff that, as you so correctly pointed out, are not exactly my domain. If I retell it, some of the important points will be lost, and perhaps I might remember something wrong. It's already a couple of days since I saw it, and I can't really remember 80 minutes of, more or less, facts. You will have to see the movie if you want to know what it is about.

Also, as I said, I base what I write here on what I saw. I'm only human , I can't know everything.


StrangeWulf13, I saw the link, http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... tml?page=1
It shed light on some of the more dodgy things of the vid, but some of the things in the vid are not included on the site, so I can't really be sure still.

[Astral]

I'll have to be quick, I've got to be at uni in just under half an hour.
I'm not trying to be popus or anything here so please don't take it that way, I just don't have the time at the moment to organise these points into a sutable argument, so am going to quote his questions from the documentory;

1: The offical explenation had the plane strikeing the pentigon at a speed of 530mph, that derived from the calculation of how fast it would have had to be going at in order to punch through the three outer rings of the building. However, the offical black box readings, given very soon after the crash, were suposedly showing a speed of around 300mph. Indeed, the plane was not disgned to fly at speeds exceading 400, and simmerler insances of a 757 doing this would have entire componants of the plane ripping off before it had compleated its landing/crash. No compants were found along its tragectory.

2:A 757 has two Prat-Whitny engins made of steal and titainium alloy, which are nine feet in diamitor and wiegh in at over six tones a peace. Titanium has a melting point of 1688c, jet fule, also known a kerrasene, is a hidrocarbon and can mentain a temp of 1120c for 40 minuets, if the fule is constant. The fule would have burned off emediatly upon impact, thus, it is sciantificaly imposible that 12 tons of steal and titainum were vaporised by Kerrosene.

3: The two engins should have been found reativly intact. Instead there was a single terbojet engin, aproximatly three feet in diamitor found inside the building. After this was show by the AmerricanFreePress, readers wrote in and surgested that it might be a part of the Auxilary power unit, mounted in the tail section of the plane. However, even RolesRoyce, the poeple who would have designed it, did not recognise it as a componant from an APU. Like wise, a Defuser case was found in the colapsed wrechage. If it belonged to a 757 there should have been several triangular bessles, which were no where to be scene on this modle.

4: If flight 77 was vaporised on impact, it would be the first time in aviation history. In every other example of a plane crashing at full speed into a solid object, huge wing sections, tail sections and dozens of bodies were recovered from the scene.

5: If the plane was vaporised, how could they identifie all of the victims through DNA?

6: If 12 tons of engine sudenly smashed into the wall of the pentigon at 530-mph, they would have burried themselves into the wall, making two distinct marks. You only have to look at the photos from that day to realise there is no other damage appart from a single 16ft hole before the roof colapsed. Like wise, if this tragectory is to be belived, the 757 would have had to bounce/scrape acrros the lawn. Indeed, the goverment clamded it did exactly that. But if so, why are there no scars on the lawn? Look at any other 'bellyflop' landing from an aviation disaster and you will see masive scars in the ground, even before any kerrosene was ignighted. And why did the Reals of cabling stacked at the front to the building excape vertualy untouched?

7: Why are the windows next to the whole compleatly intact? (although personaly there are documents stating that the windows in that section were only resently reinforced, that could be explaned)

8: In photos taken before the roof of the outer ring colapsed, the only damage to the outer wall is a single 16ft hole. A 757 is 155ft long, 44ft high, has a 120ft wingspan and weighs almost one hundered tons. Are we suposed to belive that this aircraft could symply vanish into this hole without leaving any large wrechage on the outside? Where is there no damage from where the wings, the engins, or the vertical stabiliser should have struck the building? Offical explenation was that the entire structure folded back under the enourmous pressure, but how are the wings of a plane that big, going that fast, under full thrust suposted to spontainously reverce direction and fold back untill flush with the fusiliage?

Though the why of the conspiricy explained in the documentory fits about as well as a pair of clown pants that had been chewe up in the wash, the questions themeselfs still stand unanswered. Above all these questions, however, one stands proud: In direct line of sight there are no less then six camera's from a Gas station, a hotell, and a department of trasport trafic camera. Given the time span, one of these must have captured at least one frame with an identifiable plane within it. However, with minuets of the disaster, these tapes were confiscated by fedoral employies and the staff instructed not to talk about what they'd seen. To this day those tapes remain hiddern from public veiw, dispite the fact that if the goverment's story is true, they are the one thing that would irrifutably prove, beyond all resonable doubt, that a plane did strike the pentagon. So why the secreacy?

Dose ANY of this prove conspiricy? No. Well, not for me anyway.
And the mere idea that the US goverment initiated this attack on its self and its citisens is just sick (plus I boubt they'd have the gray matter to be able to plan something so inticate, never mind organise and exicute it).

The only thing I'm sure of so far is that we'er not being told the whole truth about the 911 attacks.

But for all we know, the suposed coverup could have something as simple as the result of a monumental cockup, something that had to be covered to save face and now can't be reveiled without causing a mass scandle.

Look at what happened in the UK recently, when it was admitted that over 1000 assilam seekers, jailed for all manner of crimes from tax evation to murder and rape, were simply released back onto the streets when they should have been imediatly deported? Heads more then just rolled, they were knocked for six and the consiquences of this (in comparrason) rather small omition will be felt for many elections to come.

[The JAM]

Then what DID hit the Pentagon?

[Madmoonie]

Then what DID hit the Pentagon?

A plane.