posted
One never knows. It's hard to see the whole story, so even the most radical ideas can help to put things in perspective.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 326 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hey, did you fellas hear about that moon landing that was faked? Boy, those guys sure are crazy.
Posts: 4753 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
posted
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
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.
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 1209 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
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>
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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?
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 959 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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]
Posts: 105 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 6683 | Registered: Jun 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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?
Posts: 9945 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
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.
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.
posted
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!
Posts: 3003 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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....)
Posts: 193 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't even know how to respond to that. Words keep catching in my throat as I try to form them.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
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
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.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 2907 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
How many high rises have ever been hit with a 757 fully loaded with jet fuel, and whose beams had faulty flame retardation protection?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
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
Juxtapose, that link speaks only of the strength of the beams, not the flame retardent protection.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 650 | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
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.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
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.
Posts: 2437 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
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.
No doubt she still believes it. Posts: 8355 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[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.![[Smile]](smile.gif)
