I hate conspiracy theories. I think they're junk. Ridiculous.
Or I thought rather. Then I saw a movie that made me think twice. The whole time I watched it I thought this is ridiculous, but the evidence still had merit. It's long. Some of you have almost certainly seen it.
I don't really buy into conspiracy theories either. After a disaster, it's part of human psychology to blame authority figures. Oftentimes, I think, this is how such theories get started. I also thought several of their finer points were somewhat dubious.
That said, this video raised some VERY interesting questions for me. Mainly, the relatively small amount of damage to the pentagon, and the witness testimony concerning secondary explosions at the World Trade Centers.
If anyone with a chemistry/engineering background would be willing to weigh in on some of the technical issues raised, I'd be interested.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
Watching the video now....
The music is cool.
Other than that I'm skeptical.
Posted by Earendil18 (Member # 3180) on :
I'm taking this with a grain of salt, but it does raise interesting questions as others have mentioned. While I'm not a plane engineer by any means, I always thought planes of that size were built with mainly aluminum in order to keep the weight down. An aluminum tube dun do that to the Pentagon.
The nitty gritty stuff is dubious, but again, very interesting.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
After thinking about it further, I remember the news making references to "secondary explosions." In all the other things that happened after 9-11 it's easy to understand why people forgot about it, but now I'm curious, and can't seem to locate any websites that talk about it objectively (i.e. don't start hurling accusations of conspiracy around).
I guess the main aspect I didn't like the video is that they seem really REALLY desperate to lay the blame at Bush's doorstep, but they just don't have the evidence to back it up. I'm no fan of this administration, and Bush certainly did benefit from 9-11, but that's simply not good enough. Whether or not it's true, it damages the effectiveness of the movie to make that claim, implicitly or expressly, without the evidence to support it. I think it's the same failing that Farenheit 911 had. I liked that movie, and this one - dispite the awful narration - but we should all expect more evidence to back up such serious charges.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I'm seriously thinking of relocating to another country. Can anyone offer anything that directly contradicts any of the points made in this documentary? Anyone? Please?
Anyone suggest a good country to move to? (I am not joking around, I believe this video and several others like it and don't know what to do about it other than relocate)
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Was this the same video that stated that a high rise building doesn't collapse because of a fire because it is reinforced with solid powerful steel? Or that the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was not a large commercial plane but a tiny plane made of aluminum and that these men went on the scene to pick up scraps of metal and they didn't find the sort of debris that suggests a large plane crashes into a building? Because if it was, that was the points that got me...
But it might be a different video...
Posted by Brian J. Hill (Member # 5346) on :
quote: Or that the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was not a large commercial plane but a tiny plane made of aluminum and that these men went on the scene to pick up scraps of metal and they didn't find the sort of debris that suggests a large plane crashes into a building? Because if it was, that was the points that got me...
Umm...sorry to rain on the conspiracty theorist's parade, but if the Pentagon really wasn't destroyed by a large Boeing 757, then what happened to Flight 77 ? I'm sure the relatives of those on the Flight certainly would like to know why the plane made a U-turn over West Virginia, set a new course for Arlington, VA, and then disappeared.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
Yes, that's what I wondered too... That seemed a bit far-fetched, but the building part was really interesting...
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
Sorry for posting before I've had a chance to watch the movie, but from just a quick google image search I would say that the Pentagon looks pretty damaged to me.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Mainly, the relatively small amount of damage to the pentagon,
quote:Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
There are numerous analyses of the WTC collapse out there.
quote:I'm taking this with a grain of salt, but it does raise interesting questions as others have mentioned. While I'm not a plane engineer by any means, I always thought planes of that size were built with mainly aluminum in order to keep the weight down. An aluminum tube dun do that to the Pentagon.
100 tons at 350 MPH does a lot.
Posted by calaban (Member # 2516) on :
Not to mention all that jet fuel.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
For the people with eyes to see and ears to hear...
quote: Umm...sorry to rain on the conspiracty theorist's parade, but if the Pentagon really wasn't destroyed by a large Boeing 757, then what happened to Flight 77 ?
Come on...seriously, come on.
The Pentagon -wasn't- destroyed, it was barely damaged. And if someone went to all the trouble of launching a missile at the Pentagon and confiscating all tapes of the event don't you think they would simply murder the passengers and destroy/sell off the plane?
Did you guys actually watch the vid?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Barely damaged? All 5 rings were damaged. The walls of the pentagon are MUCH stronger and harder to penetrate than the walls of the WTC were, and the plane went into all 5 rings. The roof of the inner rigns didn't collapse, but that doesn't mean anything. The dozens of stories (edit: above the crash site) of the WTC didn't collapse until the building came down.
I've seen that video many times.
This so-called proof relies on understating the damage a jet liner could do to the WTC and overstating what it could do to a rock building with 10 walls.
It's pure b.s.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Dag- Then where are the wings/fuselage/any large debris? They aren't outside the Pentagon. Also the windows around the hole were intact after the plane hit. The cable spools in front of the building were undamaged. The grass is pristine after a 300ton airplane was flown two feet above the ground at 530 miles an hour by a pilot who had never flown a large jet before. How'd that happen?
Also think of this, the official story states that the high heat of the burning jet fuel weekened the steel and caused the towers to collapse. The official story also identified one of the hijackers because his passport was found on the streets of manhattan on Sept. 11. How pray tell did the paper passport not burn up while the steel buckled?
Also, why weren't there any bodies found at the crash site of Flight 93? Every other plane crash in history has included some form of human remains. However this time there were none. Also where is the debris from Flight 93? Again, no fuselage/cocpit/tail sections.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dag- Then where are the wings/fuselage/any large debris? They aren't outside the Pentagon. Also the windows around the hole were intact after the plane hit. The cable spools in front of the building were undamaged. The grass is pristine after a 300ton airplane was flown two feet above the ground at 530 miles an hour by a pilot who had never flown a large jet before. How'd that happen?
The snopes article already linked answers this.
quote:Also think of this, the official story states that the high heat of the burning jet fuel weekened the steel and caused the towers to collapse. The official story also identified one of the hijackers because his passport was found on the streets of manhattan on Sept. 11. How pray tell did the paper passport not burn up while the steel buckled?
Probably because it didn't end up in a pool of jetfuel? This isn't that hard to conceive of.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
But the air would be hot enough to ignite a piece of paper. Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees! It doesn't need to be in a pool of jet fuel.
EDIT: THe snopes rebuttal doesn't hold water. The hole on the exterior of the Pentagon was only 16ft wide. Skecthy enough for the fuselage, but for the fuselage and the wings? Not likely.
Also for the photagraphed piece of debris. That's the largest piece. The only one of that size. That doesn't compare to other plane crash debris.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Look, anyone who really thinks that an airliner didn't hit the Pentagon has been smoking some serious crack. First of all, I know people who work near the Pentagon who SAW the plane go in.
Secondly, assuming the existence of some powerful conspirator who has the means and desire to 1.) damage the Pentagon some other way, and 2.) to get rid of flight 77 and all its passengers, why bother with the deception? If you want to hit the Pentagon AND destroy the plane AND make people think the plane hit the Pentagon, isn't the easiest way to accomplish all three to FLY THE FREAKING PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I agree a plane hit the Pentagon. But was it Flight 77 piloted by Hani Hanjour?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Why not?
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Because it is extremely difficult to fly a plain that weighs several hundred tons 2 feet off the ground if you're a poor pilot (which was the general consensus about Hani Hanjour). Also, the BBC and The Guardian both claim to have tracked down 9 of the accused hijackers.
(EDIT: Off topic, but Dag are you a Hoya?)
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If anyone with a chemistry/engineering background would be willing to weigh in on some of the technical issues raised, I'd be interested.[/quotes]
Swarms and swarms and swarms of chemists, engineers, firefighters, forensic analysts, and experts of every conceivably relevant field have weighed in on every issue even hinted at in this "compelling" video.
Listen to Dagonee. Read the snopes link given. Don't jump onto the conspiracy bandwagon because the video designed to make you think you're so clever to have seen through this deception is doing anything but pandering to your ego. ------
Juxtapose,
[quote]Mainly, the relatively small amount of damage to the pentagon, and the witness testimony concerning secondary explosions at the World Trade Centers.
Your objection has been successfully overcome. First of all, the Pentagon was not an ordinary building. It was massively reinforced. Second, all five rings of the Pentagon were damaged.
Earendil,
quote:An aluminum tube dun do that to the Pentagon.
Yes they do, if they're going very fast. I could throw a pebble at you and if it were going 300+mph, you might just end up dead.
Stone Wolf,
quote:Can anyone offer anything that directly contradicts any of the points made in this documentary? Anyone? Please?
Read Dagonee's link. It responds to every "point" made in this video.
quote:The Pentagon -wasn't- destroyed, it was barely damaged. And if someone went to all the trouble of launching a missile at the Pentagon and confiscating all tapes of the event don't you think they would simply murder the passengers and destroy/sell off the plane?
The Pentagon suffered massive damage to all five rings. And the Pentagon was a seriously reinforced building. As for your reasoning, it can support any conclusion.
If the Men in Black were really responsible for 9-11, doesn't it make sense they're Neuralize anyone who knew about it?
Synesthesia,
quote:Was this the same video that stated that a high rise building doesn't collapse because of a fire because it is reinforced with solid powerful steel? Or that the airplane that crashed into the Pentagon was not a large commercial plane but a tiny plane made of aluminum and that these men went on the scene to pick up scraps of metal and they didn't find the sort of debris that suggests a large plane crashes into a building?
That reinforced steel will melt and degrade if it gets hot enough-which it did. The airplane was a commercial airliner, as swarms of eyewitness accounts and actual damage to the Pentagon's five rings and reinforced structure confirms. The debris does not match what a layman might expect because of the enormous fire which incinerated much of it.
Ryan Hart,
quote:Then where are the wings/fuselage/any large debris? They aren't outside the Pentagon.
Inside the Pentagon and destroyed. The plane went into the Pentagon. The windows were supported and encased by the reinforcement of the entire structure, and although I'm not actually sure there's a chance that windows on the Pentagon might not be ordinary glass.
I'd certainly place that probability a smidgen higher than a massive complicated conspiracy by an evil government that nonetheless was so inept it couldn't tie up these loose ends any knucklehead can observe.
quote:The official story also identified one of the hijackers because his passport was found on the streets of manhattan on Sept. 11. How pray tell did the paper passport not burn up while the steel buckled?
Passports aren't just naked paper. They're held in things. Furthermore, all kinds of strange things survive fires and airplane crashes. It's not an exact totally predictible science.
The wings snapped when it hit the building and were forced in alongside the fuselage.
quote:As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
These kinds of "theories" make me tired. There isn't a single objection raised by that "compelling" video that hasn't been soundly put to rest by just one thorough look at the Snopes article.
But I know it pleases the ego to think one is the lone possessor of Truth, and smarter than the other sheep.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:But the air would be hot enough to ignite a piece of paper. Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees! It doesn't need to be in a pool of jet fuel.
You don't think things got thrown around during the crash?
quote:The grass is pristine after a 300ton airplane was flown two feet above the ground at 530 miles an hour by a pilot who had never flown a large jet before. How'd that happen?
quote:Because it is extremely difficult to fly a plain that weighs several hundred tons 2 feet off the ground if you're a poor pilot (which was the general consensus about Hani Hanjour).
It wasn't "2 feet off the ground":
quote:As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
quote:(EDIT: Off topic, but Dag are you a Hoya?)
Nope. I'm a double 'hoo.
quote:THe snopes rebuttal doesn't hold water. The hole on the exterior of the Pentagon was only 16ft wide. Skecthy enough for the fuselage, but for the fuselage and the wings? Not likely. Also for the photagraphed piece of debris. That's the largest piece. The only one of that size. That doesn't compare to other plane crash debris.
How do you know? First, there is no evidence the hole is only 16 feet wide. Further, there was other damage besides the hole.
From snopes:
quote:As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire. Nonetheless, damage to the building caused by the plane's wings is plainly visible in photographs, such as the one below (note the blackened sections on both sides of the impact site):
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Rakeesh, Did you read the snopes article and watch the video? I ask because your description is not correct. There are planty of issues raised by the video that are not addressed by the snopes article, which was not written to refute the claims of this video, but rather related, earlier claims.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: But the air would be hot enough to ignite a piece of paper. Jet fuel burns at 2000 degrees! It doesn't need to be in a pool of jet fuel.
But the fire didn't start the instant the plane hit the building, and the air around it at the time of the crash certainly wasn't hot enough to ignite paper. So the passport could have been thrown clear in the crash/explosion, and not been involved in the fire at all.
As already stated, the points in the video are basically total crap. The incredible amount of work you're theorizing to make it work is just amazing.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
Actually if you watch the videos of that day, the fire did start the instant the plane made contact with the tower.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
My mind isn't made up, but I was disturbed by the video, and I have two things still bothering me, after reading some well-reasoned responses in this thread...
1) Where was the wreckage from flight 77 and flight 93? Where were the bodies? Where were the jets?
2) If the twin towers weren't brought down by demolitions, what were those explosions and those flashes of light in the lower floors as the towers came down?
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Where was the wreckage from flight 77 and flight 93? Where were the bodies? Where were the jets?
These questions were already completely answered.
quote:what were those explosions and those flashes of light
If you crush anything containing elecricity or power, you are going to get sparks. If you crush something very large with very large amounts of power running though it you are going to get very large sparks and explosions.
I beg of you all, please use your own minds so we don't have to sit here answering your queries over and over the same questions. If you have questions yourself after watching that video, go look for the answers online.
Also, start with the assumption that it's not a conspiracy, rather than the other way around. I'm not saying don't question, I'm saying question in a reasonable way from the most likely and simple explanation of the incident rather than from an extreme view.
Only once you have completely eliminated the obvious explanation can you move on to slightly less obvious explanations, and finally, once those are completely eliminated those you can start along the magic/science fiction/conspiracy lines.
Appearances can be extremely decieving.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
Know a guy who was in the Pentagon when it was hit. It was hit by an airliner.
Ditto's Teshi's points about the "explosions" while the towers were coming down. The power available in those things has some pretty powerful destructive power. There are arcflash levels that will kill a man just with the concussive blast.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
quote:These questions were already completely answered.
Not to my satisfaction.
And you know, this is a discussion forum, and the topic being discussed is "9-11 Conspiracy". If you don't want to participate in such a discussion, that is your perogative, leave the thread.
But it is silly to tell others to stop asking questions just so you don't have to answer them.
You are under no obligation to participate in this conversation. Do not belittle those of us who wish to. Uncool.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
TL, just wondering what to your satisfaction means. Or how much research you've done, other than the video.
Why am I arguing? People aren't often swayed from conspiracy theories. Nevermind.
Posted by Stan the man (Member # 6249) on :
At this entire discussion
That is except for Dagonee, Rakeesh, Irregardless, and Teshi.
This is the biggest excuse for trying to scapegoat an answer as I have seen in a while. An' for some stupid reason I am going to post in it.
quote: I'm seriously thinking of relocating to another country. Can anyone offer anything that directly contradicts any of the points made in this documentary? Anyone? Please?
Anyone suggest a good country to move to? (I am not joking around, I believe this video and several others like it and don't know what to do about it other than relocate)
Stone_Wolf_, why are you still here then? You have absolute freedom to leave this country and yet...you stay. If your conviction to leave is so strong, then move. I tire of these comments.
I had a conviction and I stuck to it. I signed my name on the dotted line to use my life to protect this country if it came to it. I still would. However, your comments almost make me feel like I am wasting it. Almost. See, my family and friends are my primary reasons. They don't feed me this Bull%$&^ of a line about wanting to leave for some stupid reason.
However, I tire. Any responses...just keep em. I'm going to abandon this thread like the "red headed step child" it has grown to be.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
For the love of Christ. First of all, I've never said that the video had me convinced *at all*. But I chose to watch it with an open mind, and those are the questions I came away with. The *research* I've done consists of reading this thread and clicking links.
That's it.
I am not taking the position that there was some kind of conspiracy. I asked a question because I figured, hey, this is hatrack, and it's full of smart people, and someone surely has expertise that I lack on this particular issue, or has thought of it in a way that I did not.
Posted by TL (Member # 8124) on :
That was for smitty.
Posted by smitty (Member # 8855) on :
thanks, I was confused.
There's been a ton of research on the subject.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote: First, there is no evidence the hole is only 16 feet wide. Further, there was other damage besides the hole.
I have to say, the hole looks bigger than 16 ft. But not much. And the damage surrounding the main hole looks mostly like fire damage. As for the plane being smashed up and almost completely incinerated, that doesn't, to my knowledge, usually happen with other crashes. Also, why didn't the turbines do any damage to the outer wall?
Also, there's the problem of the missing security cameras from the gas station and sheraton hotel. The few frames of the impact that I have seen don't show a plane, so I consider them inconclusive.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
TL, I apologise for seeming harsh. As I said before, I do not oppose the thread itself. I shall explain myself further:
I feel like the people who took responsibility for answering the questions in this thread have been doing all of the legwork. I realise we could have just ignored this thread, so it is partially our own fault.
In this thread, the posters who have been skeptical, inconvinced, questioning whatever what you want to call it, have done very little of their own discussion on the topic in a meaningful fashion, or any of their own research. Many questions have been posed such as "Why was the Pentagon hardly damaged?" but the asker of the question didn't say something that could concievably answer that question, discussing the possibilities himself or herself or providing possible solutions or discussion.
Since none of the questioners were answering or discussing themselves, I, for one, felt compelled to respond and give answers. I don't have expertise in this area, I have research skills and common sense. I am no smarter than you.
quote:or has thought of it in a way that I did not.
But TL, you did not present your own views in any detailed fashion, only answered two questions. You did not lead me to believe you had any idea what the flashes could have been were they not explosives. I answered your question as best as I could using what I know about electronics*.
My problem is/was that I felt that this "discussion" was not a discussion, but a rather one sided question and answer session.
I hoep this helps you understand why I encourage your (plural your) own investigation into this topic, rather than relying on people like Dagonee to dig up information for you.
Also, research will allow you to remember more and also follow the directions you are interested in more easily.
* Please note, I only know what I know from being around electrical equipment, such as a toaster or a lightbulb, all my life.
EDIT: Juxtapose, I reinterate myself: You ask questions but you do not use your own mind. You say only "here's my proof", you do not suggest your own personal solutions to the problem.
The Problem being in this case that it is most likely not a conspiracy, therefore, this must be explainable.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
<random>
The people who composed that video cribbed their bass loop from Massive Attack (who may well have cribbed it from somewhere else themselves). It was featured as persistent background music in a good chunk of the playable portion of Metal Gear Solid 2: Sons of Liberty, which prominently features elaborate conspiracy theories that are stylistically similar to this one. It wouldn't really surprise me if these folks did indeed play and love that game.
</random>
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
I don't know what to think. So I just try to look at it from all sides.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Juxtapose, I reinterate myself: You ask questions but you do not use your own mind. You say only "here's my proof", you do not suggest your own personal solutions to the problem.
That's because I don't have a solution to the problem. I think the video makes some good points, but has some holes in it. I think the same thing about the snopes article. So...I'm confused. I never thought, nor do I think that this all adds up to Bush ordering an attack on his own country, but by the same token, this administration hasn't been very trustworthy.
Does a widespread government conspiracy sound somewhat absurd? Yes. Does the idea of a 757 squeezing, wings and all, into that hole sound equally absurd? More or less.
The point here is that I don't know the answer to this problem, so I'm asking questions. As you said, you're certainly not obligated to answer them, but if it's getting annoying to keep having holes in your argument pointed out, maybe you should reevaluate that argument.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Juxtapose, that hole looks as expected to my untrained eye (my degree is in chemical engineering, not civil or structural). You can even see wider areas where the wings partly went in. I see no reason to assume that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757.
Your comment that the 757 would have to have "squeezed" into that hole shows where we're coming from different places, I think. It didn't "squeeze in" at all. The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building; I think the 757 hit and was basically torn to pieces as it passed through. So the wings were broken back (the wing holes aren't as long as the wings themselves for this reason) since they weren't designed to bear any significant load from that direction, the fuselage went straight in like an arrow and then the outer ring collapsed behind it. I'm not at all surprised that they didn't find anything -- I mean, it would be a lot like sifting through the WTC wreckage and expecting to be able to pick out what used to be part of a plane.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:Does the idea of a 757 squeezing, wings and all, into that hole sound equally absurd?
quote:That's because I don't have a solution to the problem.
Other than reading other rebuttals or reports, there are several things you can do here independantly, and then report to this thread.
1) Find out the size of the hole and the width of the aircraft. Read about the strength of the wings and how much force it would take to snap them off. Also, look at how the wings are attached to the craft- do they stick out straight or are they already pointing backwards?
2) Find more photographs of the crash site, there must be thousands. Remember to look for non-conspiracy ones to balance your viewpoint.
3) Think what you know about fire and the density of heat within it. Also read about the building itself.
4) Think of what else could have made such a hole.
That's what I would do. Generally, you can start by searching using google "9/11 pentagon crash" or something. See what you get.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Herearesomelinks to get you started.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
No one has addressed what happened at flight 93. Where were the bodies of the victims that went down in that flight? I'll tell you. They were "incinerated." This is the only time in the history of aviation that that has ever happened.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
Provide us with a non-conspiracy link about that, please, Ryan Hart.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by twinky: Juxtapose, that hole looks as expected to my untrained eye (my degree is in chemical engineering, not civil or structural). You can even see wider areas where the wings partly went in. I see no reason to assume that the Pentagon was hit by something other than a 757.
Your comment that the 757 would have to have "squeezed" into that hole shows where we're coming from different places, I think. It didn't "squeeze in" at all. The Pentagon is a heavily fortified building; I think the 757 hit and was basically torn to pieces as it passed through. So the wings were broken back (the wing holes aren't as long as the wings themselves for this reason) since they weren't designed to bear any significant load from that direction, the fuselage went straight in like an arrow and then the outer ring collapsed behind it. I'm not at all surprised that they didn't find anything -- I mean, it would be a lot like sifting through the WTC wreckage and expecting to be able to pick out what used to be part of a plane.
I concur. Having looked at the relevant photos, there are reinforced columns still intact in the lower floors, so it's certainly true that the wingspan of a 757 could not have fit inside intact. But why would you expect it to be intact? The aluminum wings would fragment and the pieces would be carried into the building (between columns) by inertia.
BTW, I'm a Chem. E., too. Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: No one has addressed what happened at flight 93. Where were the bodies of the victims that went down in that flight? I'll tell you. They were "incinerated." This is the only time in the history of aviation that that has ever happened.
Again, why fake this? If Big Brother is willing to kill thousands of people, and these people in particular, why go to the trouble of killing them elsewhere AND incompetently faking a crash, when you could accomplish both by simply crashing the plane into the ground?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Mr. Squicky,
You've got me there. I've read the article on several occassions, but have not seen the entire film. I should not have said that the article refuted all of the film, because I am uncertain if it has or not. I got too irritated with the conspiracy theory and was wrong to have said so.
I will say this, though: all of the most serious objections raised in this thread-the damage to the Pentagon, the passport, the debris-have been dealt with many times.
Posted by dantesparadigm (Member # 8756) on :
This is completely ridiculous conspiracy theory garbage.
Here are witness accounts who saw the plane hit the pentagon.
I stayed at a hotel in DC that had there satellite knocked off the roof by the incoming plane.
As far as flight 93, there were the phone calls to people on the ground, and the victims of plane crashes are often incinerated in the crash because of the temperature at which jet fuel burns.
Its completely irrational to think that government would have any motivation to kill two planefulls of people and fire a missile at the pentagon. When you think logically about a 9/11 conspiracy, it becomes impossible. Where the terrorists in on it, why has Bin Laden taken credit for the attack. Thousands of people would have to be privy to this, not one of them found it extreme enough to say anything.
This entire thread is incredibly offensive. Try using Occam's razor; all the 9/11 attacks were perpetrated by terrorists. There's no reason to go about assigning all these extravagant means and motives to the government. Try using a little common sense and maybe watching a little less Al-Jazeera.
Sorry in advance for the truculent tone of this post, but this stuff is really offensive.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Wow. Reading those accounts is something else. Wow.
Posted by Synesthesia (Member # 4774) on :
One never knows. It's hard to see the whole story, so even the most radical ideas can help to put things in perspective.
Posted by Irregardless (Member # 8529) on :
Finally watched the whole video. It's really too lame to merit a point-by-point response, and this is not an exhaustive examination, but here are some of my initial reactions:
1.) The comparison to other high-rise fires (w/ no building collapse) is fallacious. The other fires did not have a ton of jet fuel injected into them.
2.) The video makes a point about the melting point of pure elemental titanium vs. the burning temperature of jet fuel. However, the components being discussed were titanium alloys, not pure titanium, and therefore would have somewhat different melting points. Furthermore, metals can either soften or become brittle at temperatures significantly lower than that at which they actually liquify. For example, here is a text that says titanium melts at 3300 F but rapidly loses strength above only 800 F: http://www.tpub.com/content/aviation/14018/css/14018_44.htm
3.) The video repeatedly plays a bunch of witnesses using the word "explosion" to describe the collapse of the towers. This is meaningless. The term 'explosion' is here being used to describe the billowing cloud of dust and smoke being expelled from the building as it collapses. I might call it that myself, but that doesn't mean there were internal detonations.
4.) Unlike a planned building implosion, the collapse of the WTC towers clearly propagates *downward* from the point of the airplanes' impact. Controlled demolitions typically take out critical points all along the height of the building so that it falls all at once.
5.) Mixed messages. The video makers clearly want us to believe that these additional explosions were part of the alleged controlled demolition. But it gives *many* different times for these explosions, as early (in one case) as 9 seconds after the plane hit the north tower. Obviously the tower didn't collapse at that point, so why the 'explosion'?
6.) It is ridiculous to assert that the family members of all the hostages who called them on airphones / cell phones would be fooled by this voice-synthesizing nonsense.
7.) The video falsely claims that cell phones don't work at airliner cruising altitudes. This is simply false. In a sense, they work *too* well -- the reason their use is widely prohibited (aside from paranoia about interference w/ airplane instruments) is that in an airplane you're moving at hundreds of miles per hour and you've got direct line-of-sight contact with scores or hundreds of cell towers, and those resources were not designed to deal with that kind of load.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: No one has addressed what happened at flight 93. Where were the bodies of the victims that went down in that flight? I'll tell you. They were "incinerated." This is the only time in the history of aviation that that has ever happened.
How many airplanes have ever crashed at full speed? An airplane that crashes at 100 miles per hour is going to break up a LOT less than an airplane that crashes at 350 miles per hour. And now that I've looked it up, the TOP SPEED for a 757 is 609 miles per hour. Something going that fast would not just break up, it would almost DISINTEGRATE! Further, who said the plane that hit the pentagon was flying level? A plane that hits something at a 90 degree angle would only make a hole as big as the fuselage. Of course, you also have a plane flying at 600MPH into heavilly reinforced concrete. What's going to win? I've seen pictures of the outside of a heavilly reinforced Submarine Pen in WWII that was hit with a 22000lbs bomb. The ouside didn't look bad at all. Just a hole about five feet across. It was the INSIDE that got blown to hell and back.
The problem here is that you are using data collected from NORMAL airplane crashes. this is in NO WAY a normal situation. Like I said, how many airplanes crash at full speed? How do I know these planes were going full speed? Let's think. I want to do as much damage as possible...hmmm...Should I go slow? Or line myself up and punch it? Yeah. I think the last one works better.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't think it's out of the ordinary for a plane to crash going fairly fast. If you consider they are crashing due to a malfunction, the air brakes might be one of those malfunctions, and falling for several thousands of feet will probably bring the vessel up to terminal velocity. And though I don't know what that is for a 747, but I'd be willing to imagine that by far it's faster than 100 mph.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
There is quite a difference between a vertical impact and a horizontal one.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Well, given that we don't have an on hand database of all normal crashes in the last quarter century or so, or even all crashes of that airplane type, there's no way to know how many were vertical, horizontal, or on a specific degree that fell inbetween the two, thus we don't really know the information used to create the average of what is, and is not, a "normal" crash.
Given that there've only been a handful of crashes of large Boeing airplanes in the US, or even the world, in the last ten years even, or twenty, I think "normal" is injected with a lot extrapolation of what people figure it'd be like if it happened more often.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
That's one of the major failings of this video. Too much of it depends on what the average person thinks would happen. I think it's pretty safe to say that what the average person thinks would happen and what really will happen is usually quite different.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Hey, did you fellas hear about that moon landing that was faked? Boy, those guys sure are crazy.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
Some of the "proof" I've seen about the "faked" moon landing is pretty funny.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
And then, when they saw how we fell for the "moon landing" hook, line, and sinker, those bozos at NASA had the gall to fake a Mars landing, too! Luckily for the American public, someone had the courage to make a documentary uncovering the whole scandal.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I'm actually watching the video now...
Most of this looks like coincidence, rather than plotting, though I am curious as to the reason so many officials cancelled their flights on the 10th that were to take place on the 11th. Assuming it's true of course.
The narrator is flat wrong about there only being "14 fighters to protect the entire United States." That's just silly. The Air National Guard consists of hundreds of fighters, and at the very least, the carriers in port have fighter wings assigned to them, and could be used in case of an emergency. There were fighters all up and down the Eastern seaboard, sending three jets a hundred miles away is immaterial.
The one guy saying the plane had no windows and it wasn't a normal plane... how would they get all those families to SAY they'd lost loved ones on flights that never existed? It's far fetched, especially for one supposed eye witness testimony. There's no way American Airlines would go along with it.
So far as all this jabber about it not being a 757, I've SEEN footage of the plane crashing into the Pentagon, they played it all over the place after 9/11.
Continues watching...
Posted by Morbo (Member # 5309) on :
Stone Wolf, before you pack your bags, do a little research on the subject. Don't believe all the over-hyped conspiracy films and websites--almost all their claims are either unsubstantiated rumour or have been soundly debunked.
Great debunking link to Popular Mechanics, human. All my quotes are from there.
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: EDIT: THe snopes rebuttal doesn't hold water. The hole on the exterior of the Pentagon was only 16ft wide. Skecthy enough for the fuselage, but for the fuselage and the wings? Not likely.
The small hole is in Ring C, in the middle of the Petagon. The exterior, Ring E, had a 75ft hole.
quote:FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.
Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."
The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
quote:Originally posted by Lyrhawn: The narrator is flat wrong about there only being "14 fighters to protect the entire United States." That's just silly. The Air National Guard consists of hundreds of fighters, etc..
The one guy saying the plane had no windows and it wasn't a normal plane... how would they get all those families to SAY they'd lost loved ones on flights that never existed? It's far fetched, especially for one supposed eye witness testimony. There's no way American Airlines would go along with it.
quote:FACT: On 9/11 there were only 14 fighter jets on alert in the contiguous 48 states. [14 on ready alert, not counting the hundreds of fighters NOT ready to spring into the sky at a moments notice
Birnbach,[the "no windows" eyewitness--Morbo] who was a freelance videographer with FOX News at the time, tells PM that he was more than 2 miles southeast of the WTC, in Brooklyn, when he briefly saw a plane fly over. He says that, in fact, he did not see the plane strike the South Tower; he says he only heard the explosion.---from the link, pp3
Posted by Shigosei (Member # 3831) on :
I don't have much to add, except to point out another way in which these crashes were different than typical airliner crashes. I suspect that in most crashes, the fuel is dumped before impact to minimize the risk of fire. Obviously, the terrorists would have no reason to do this, and as I recall, the planes were headed to the West Coast and would therefore have a LOT of fuel.
I have zero problem believing that the bodies and most of the plane were incinerated.
Posted by human_2.0 (Member # 6006) on :
Read the PM article. It is ALL debunked there. Another interesting point is that that article is almost a year old and the conspiracy theorists have nothing new to add.
They just wont accept the evidence. I can imagine many reasons why they wont. I started to list a few, but changed my mind and now I think the main reason they wont is because they don't want to give Osama the credit of being able to pull off such a huge attack. I've actually read another story that says a similar thing about JFK, that we have to have grandious theories because we can't handle that nobody's can cause so much destruction and hurt.
Posted by starLisa (Member # 8384) on :
quote:Originally posted by Jon Boy: And then, when they saw how we fell for the "moon landing" hook, line, and sinker, those bozos at NASA had the gall to fake a Mars landing, too! Luckily for the American public, someone had the courage to make a documentary uncovering the whole scandal.
I picked up the DVD of that movie a couple of years ago. When they're down in the desert and they each take something to use to help survive, one of the items is a long piece of glass that can be used as a knife. I yelped at the TV, "Don't give it to OJ!" But they did. <sigh>
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I have one question. If the attack on the Pentagon went down like they said it did, why don't they squash all this conspiracy talk and just show the vid?
[ January 30, 2006, 10:35 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
Conspiracy theories are sillies.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
I drove by the Pentagon quite frequently after 9/11.
The hole was definitely wider than 16 ft.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
It wouldn't help, vid's can be faked.
Conspiracy theorists have a no lose argument. Facts that may prove them right are considered indisputable. Facts missing are proof that the conspiracy is strong. Facts that prove them wrong are considered misinformation dropped by the conspirators.
Why do so many people believe in the conspiracy?
Because its easier to blame someone for disaster than to admit you are powerless against it.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
You don't find it at all odd that none of the footage of the event has been released? That the goverment has gone out of it's way (and ageanst the law) to make sure that no one could see what happened?
That the five frames that were released (ageanst orders) do not show the plane at all?
If there was nothing to hide, then why all the effort to do so?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
You should probably move until you're sure the American government isn't responsible.
I have trouble taking seriously people who say, "I don't necessarily think the American government is behind this, I just think there is a conspiracy of some sort," because the list of organizations which could pull something like this off under the nose of the US government is very short, and at the top is-you guessed it-the US government.
Posted by Risuena (Member # 2924) on :
We're talking about the Pentagon - the center of all things military in the US. So, no, I'm not surprised that none of the films have been released because I'm sure it falls under the heading of 'state security'. I don't necessarily agree with the decision but I understand it.
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Here's my response to one thing in that little video. The videos were confiscated immediately! We weren't even allowed to see them!
Oh goodness. Heaven forbid the government wants to get ahold of any evidence that may point them closer to finding out what happened. Come on people. This is standard procedure for any criminal investigation. Further, the government has seen no need to release these videos. This conspiracy theory is no more than a bunch of garbage to the government, and they refuse to acknowledge it. Releasing these videos, especially if they prove the theories wrong, would just be labeled as fake by the theorists. If you dig deep enough, you can find a conspiracy in any major event.
edit: Thought I'd add, yes there was a conspiracy. A conspiracy authored and pulled off by a terrorist organization. GET OVER IT! I can't believe how easilly people are falling for this propaganda.
Posted by mistaben (Member # 8721) on :
Personally, I openly mock most 9/11 conspiracy theories. A few months ago I read a mind-blowing article by Steven Jones, a physics professor at BYU. (It's lengthy, try and at least get a handle on the 17 points.)
Disclosure: I've taken a class from Steve, and my wife and I lived in his basement for 14 months. They'd have us up for Sunday dinner. He's an honest, intelligent, sincere man, and a good physicist.
The conservation of momentum argument about the falling floors of building WTC 7 is pretty strong evidence, in my mind. Of course, it's based off of a video account, so if the playback speed didn't match the original recording speed, it would mess things up. Anyway, there are also the "squibs," and the angular momentum of the top ~34 floors of the south tower. I won't even get into the twin towers.
In the end, Steve's conclusion is that the official investigation (by NIST, etc.) was flawed, and he offers 17 questions needing answers.
[Edited for spelling]
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I am getting tired of this discussion (mostly not a discussion). There are some who are convinced that there was no conspiracy by our government or any other, no matter the evidence or lack there of. There are some that will blame the government no mater what evidence or lack there off. And then the third group, who are disturbed, who know that the "official" story and the facts don't add up, and that there is something scary going on here.
I am not a member of the second group, I don't automatically assume that the government is behind everything that happens and bend the facts or lack there of to prove my point.
I have no agenda, I watched that video and it scared me. There are too many coincidences involved, too many things out of the norm.
For those of you who dismiss without examination all conspiracy theories, take a long hard look at -why-. If you are not open to new things, even scary things, you will never grow or find the whole truth.
I am not suggesting that if you do not agree with my assessment then you are not being "open". What I'm saying is that if you do not give this a fair chance and just dismiss this as "propaganda", "blame", "pure B.S." "completely ridiculous conspiracy theory garbage" or "sillies" then you are being just as close minded as the people who have a knee jerk reaction to any major event and bend facts to point fingers.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
There was a video all over the news of the plane passing by that hotel and crashing into the Pentagon. It was a short film, I think maybe even only a four or five second blip, but I distinctly remember seeing it. It wasn't video made by the hotel or any business, it was, I think a reporter, but anyway it was some random person who had his camera on and running for some reason and you can clearly see the plane flying by. I'll see if I can find it.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
quote:Originally posted by starLisa: I picked up the DVD of that movie a couple of years ago. When they're down in the desert and they each take something to use to help survive, one of the items is a long piece of glass that can be used as a knife. I yelped at the TV, "Don't give it to OJ!" But they did. <sigh>
They never learn, do they?
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:There are some who are convinced that there was no conspiracy by our government or any other, no matter the evidence or lack there of. There are some that will blame the government no mater what evidence or lack there off. And then the third group, who are disturbed, who know that the "official" story and the facts don't add up, and that there is something scary going on here.
So no one has an open mind and has examined the facts unless they acknowledge that the official story doesn't add up?
quote:I am not suggesting that if you do not agree with my assessment then you are not being "open".
Yes, in fact, you are. You gave us three options, and relegated all those who have reached a conclusion that no conspiracy was involved to the non-open mind group.
quote:What I'm saying is that if you do not give this a fair chance and just dismiss this as "propaganda", "blame", "pure B.S." "completely ridiculous conspiracy theory garbage" or "sillies" then you are being just as close minded as the people who have a knee jerk reaction to any major event and bend facts to point fingers.
Here, you do it again. Many people have given reasons why they think the video is pure B.S. It's possible to arive at such a conclusion and have thought it out.
quote:I have no agenda, I watched that video and it scared me. There are too many coincidences involved, too many things out of the norm.
The "coincidences" arise from behavior that happens almost every day. Pick any day in the last 5 years and pretend 9/11 happened on that day. Someone could easily come up with a seemingly similar set of coincidences that would support a conspiracy theory for the new day just as strongly as the coincidences that existed on 9/11.
If the government was controlling the conspiracy, why would anyone have had to cancel flights? If the government were controlling the experience, why wouldn't they have used an airplane? The alleged conspiracy makes no sense, contradicts the hard data we do have, and cherry picks a couple dozen events out of the millions of things that happen every day and calls them coincidences.
[ January 30, 2006, 06:48 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
quote: I am not suggesting that if you do not agree with my assessment then you are not being "open". What I'm saying is that if you do not give this a fair chance and just dismiss this as "propaganda", "blame", "pure B.S." "completely ridiculous conspiracy theory garbage" or "sillies" then you are being just as close minded as the people who have a knee jerk reaction to any major event and bend facts to point fingers.
Darling, do let's consider the possibility that some of us have watched the video with an open mind and reached the conclusion that it is nonsense. Dagonee is doing such a better job than I would rebutting the arguments made in the thread that all I felt qualified to say was that conspiracy theories are sillies. They are, you know. As soon as you say "conspiracy theory" it becomes impossible to take it seriously. It is in that regard (though in few others) like saying "platypus". If platypuses became an endangered species nobody would do anything about it because they'd be too busy giggling. In fact that is probably why dodo birds became extinct in the first place.
Jen
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:If platypuses became an endangered species nobody would do anything about it because they'd be too busy giggling.
I think people are already giggling!
Posted by Fyfe (Member # 937) on :
*giggles*
Posted by Boris (Member # 6935) on :
Serves em right! Crazy looking, animals that can't even decide if they're mammals or not! Laying EGGS of all things. And they're poisonous on top of that!
Posted by akhockey (Member # 8394) on :
Personally I don't think the Al-Qaeda are Muslim extremists at all. They are Satanists. LOOK AT THE FACTS.
Fact #1: Why would a Muslim-based group kill innocents? They wouldn't. They are just trying to undermine the Muslim religion.
Fact #2: There were THREE successful attacks. Reminiscent of the Holy Trinity to anybody else?
Fact #3: 6 is TWICE as good as 3, and everybody knows that 666 is the sign of the devil.
If you do the math, one 6 is twice as good as one 3. So THREE 6's are SIX times better than one 3.
Therefore, Satan is SIX times better than God Himself. The facts are frighteningly obvious. It scares me and I don't see why everyone else is so agaenst the Truth.
(That was the farthest I've ever stretched in my life....but I can't touch my toes so that's not saying much....)
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
I don't even know how to respond to that. Words keep catching in my throat as I try to form them.
Posted by Stone_Wolf_ (Member # 8299) on :
I promise this will be my last posting on this topic, heck, I should have clamed up a few posts ago, but I'm just stupid like that.
I have obviously offended a couple people, prolly more than a couple...I have difficulty when faced with as much evidence as in that video not wondering about what actually happened vs what we were told happened. But in the end, it will never get the investigation it deserves, if a highly independent, intellectual group like Hatrack scoff at the very idea then there is no hope of convincing the general public.
quote:As soon as you say "conspiracy theory" it becomes impossible to take it seriously.
Oh well, just chalk it up to another one of those things I can do nothing about and try and focus on things I can effect, like paying my rent and getting my degree.
quote: He beat the drum and lit the fires He sent the messages in vain But the sound of his philosophy Rose above the falling rain
And to you who find it difficult To believe in anything I praise you for the outrage At the horror you have seen
So I'm trying to remember I try to understand Every holocaust has meaning Not set in stone but drawn in sand
And in some cold and barren place He spoke the phrase and thus I heard With every small decision You change a heart You change the world
Duncan Sheik Nichiren
[ January 31, 2006, 02:18 AM: Message edited by: Stone_Wolf_ ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I promise this will be my last posting on this topic, heck, I should have clamed up a few posts ago, but I'm just stupid like that. I have obviously offended a couple people, prolly more than a couple...I have difficulty when faced with as much evidence as in that video not wondering about what actually happened vs what we were told happened
Then why haven't you at least acknowledged the wealth of information provided in response? The things that can be tested have been tested and shown to be wrong. The rest is hot air.
quote:But in the end, it will never get the investigation it deserves, if a highly independent, intellectual group like Hatrack scoff at the very idea then there is no hope of convincing the general public.
We haven't "scoffed at the very idea." We've presented specific responses that have basically been unanswered with anything other than mere repetition of the original charges.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
Okay, this is from the article mistaben posted, a much better source then the video.
quote:That’s correct – no steel-beam high-rise had ever before (or since) completely collapsed due to fires! However, such complete and nearly symmetrical collapses in tall steel-frame buildings have occurred many times before -- all of them due to pre-positioned explosives in a procedure called “implosion” or controlled demolition. What a surprise, then, for such an occurrence in downtown Manhattan— three skyscrapers completely collapsed on the same day, September 11, 2001, presumably without the use of explosives.
Thanks for posting that mistaben, very interesting.
Posted by Lyrhawn (Member # 7039) on :
How many high rises have ever been hit with a 757 fully loaded with jet fuel, and whose beams had faulty flame retardation protection?
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Early tests on steel beams from the World Trade Center show they generally met or were stronger than design requirements, ruling them out as a contributing cause of the collapse of the towers, federal investigators said yesterday.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Juxtapose, that link speaks only of the strength of the beams, not the flame retardent protection.
Posted by Puppy (Member # 6721) on :
Why is the video narrated by a 14-year-old boy?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I highly recommend www.Skeptic.com for everyone. They discuss such things as this conspiracy theory, the details, etc with an open mind and a scientific bent.
Their free newsletter always has something interesting in it. Last weeks had a critique of the current "Blame Bush for 9/11" book, and answers a lot of the questions this video brings up.
Posted by Ryan Hart (Member # 5513) on :
I never blamed Bush for 9-11. Even if this is true, he wouldn't have had the power or the cunning to pull it off.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I was going to say what Dag did. The flame retardant used in the Twin towers was a "blown on" type that, sadly, blew "off" readily when the explosion occurred.
The design of the tower was actually quite elegant, but it was never made to withstand the hit it took. Nor were the individual floors designed to support the weight of the floors above. All the weight was distributed in a very clever way using "hanging beams" (if I recall the terminology correctly). The hangers melted because the flame retardant was no longer present. They behaved exactly to specs for that kind of steel. It's just that it was supposed to have been better protected, and would have been if there hadn't been such a forceful explosion when the plane hit.
One thing the designer should be completely proud of, the towers did NOT topple over, even when they got hit with a lateral force much much larger than was specified in the design. The fact that they pancaked downward on themselves probably saved thousands of lives, if you think about the alternative.
Posted by ricree101 (Member # 7749) on :
quote:Originally posted by Ryan Hart: I never blamed Bush for 9-11. Even if this is true, he wouldn't have had the power or the cunning to pull it off.
If he really was doing some kind of massive conspiracy, would it really be in his best benefit to come off as brilliant. Inneptness can be a pretty convincing camouflage.
That said, I don't beleive that he is either stupid or engaged in this kind of conspiracy.
Posted by Chreese Sroup (Member # 8248) on :
I recommend watching "Why we Fight" from BBC4.
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
quote:If you dig deep enough, you can find a conspiracy in any major event.
Like white flour, white sugar, and fluoride? My mother is convinced - and has been since the early 1970s - that their prevalence in the rest of the world is a communist plot to take over the world.
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
At this entire discussion ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
thanks, I was confused.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
My mother is convinced - and has been since the early 1970s - that their prevalence in the rest of the world is a communist plot to take over the world.