The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

SpitfireIV

I heard that too HelterSkelter, the FBI arrived pretty quick on the scene to take the tapes and leave a nice little warning for the employees not to discuss what they had seen, I think it was the Sheridan Hotel.

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

Donald Rumsfeld interview with Parade Magazine.

Missile?? :rolleyes:

civdef

Here are some more simple facts.

burning temperature of jet fuel
http://worldaerodata.com/mb/msg/606.html

Jet fuel versus melting point of steel
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/14715/jet_...l_and_concrete

Some more stuff on jet fuel.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm

See, there it is is again, this melting steel nonsense just won't go away. Buildings don't fall because the steel melts - they fall because the steel loses the strength needed to support the weight of the building and this happens around 550deg C. I'm not making this up, feel free to check.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

That sounds to me like they're discussing going from an offensive firefighting strategy to a defensive one (again feel free to look these terms up). This means not attacking the fire, and concentrating on avoiding spread to other buildings. It's safer for firefighters because it means not having them in the building, and is usually done when there's a risk of collapse. To support this, firefighters don't demolish buildings, don't train for it, and don't have the necessary equipment- so why would they be discussing demolishing it - as you say, a professional demolition takes weeks to set-up.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Anyway back on topic

Great idea.

1- What is so bloody secret about that picture that it couldn't have been released before?

Nothing.

The official version was that release of the tape was denied under the FoI request on the grounds that it could prejudice the trial of Moussaoui. Bear in mind that the original frames we've seen from this tape were unofficially released (a euphemism for being leaked, perhaps?). So the stance of the Administration was that they didn't want the tape seen at all by the public until after the trial, and weren't going to release the whole thing just because someone went behind their backs and released part of it prematurely.

We could argue whether or not the prejudice in the trial would have been for or against Moussaoui, given the poor quality of the video, but in either case....the witholding of information is par for the course for the current administration. In one sense, it makes sense. If you want to hide anything, then there's no point in just refusing to hand out that one thing...then everyone knows where to look, right? But if you refuse to release as much of everything as possible....then stuff may or may not be important, and people get more worked up about irrelevant bits and so on....its a sound strategy (even if distasteful)

2- Does anybody believe that those are the only camera's monitoring that side of the Pentagon?

You can believe what you like.

Personally, I'd imagine that if there were, you're once again reliant on a cover-up of massive proportions to suppress just that information. I'm not entirely sure what you'd need cameras there for, other than perhaps roof-mounted mostly-downward-facing ones, which wouldn't necessarily be of any use.

3- Why are they releasing it? Surely they could drag out a silly Freedom of Information order for another year or more.

The government requseted that teh FoI be refused on the grounds that it would prejudice the Moussaoui trial. They were subsequently taken to court (by Judicial Watch) saying that this excuse was unnacceptable grounds. I'm not sure of the details of said court-case, but once the trial ended (which it did in the past week-ish) there was no stated grounds to continue to refuse to release, and so the court ordered it to be released.

In other words, the FoI was not spun out, nor could it have been. It was refused outright shortly after being made. What was at issue here was the subsequent court case, and given the line of reasoning the administration took, they didn't have a leg to stand on should they wish to continue to retain the tape.

What is more interesting is the follwoing...

The original FoI request also included the other tapes alleged to have information. I don't know if these were included in teh subsequent court-case, but I don't think so based on the writing I've read so far.

From what I can gather, the DoD appears to have said "we have smoe tapes which show the impact, but you can't have them cause of the trial" at which point the court case began over these tapes. The implication here is that the DoD either claimes it doesn't have these other tapes (possibly true - it could be another dept/agency who does), or that it has the tapes and claims they don't show anything. This latter possibility shouldn't exempt them from the FoI request, so I'm inclined not to put too much weight behind it.

However....again from what I can gather....the entire FoI was refused on the grounds of the witheld tapes, but teh subsequent court case was not to enforce the FoI, but rather to require the release of the spefically mentioned tapes.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Justice Watch's own site confirms what the original request was for, and it isn't just those gate cameras....whereas everything I can find about the court-case thus far suggests that it was only about what those cameras saw.

Again, in keeping with its "don't tell anything until you're forced to" approach to things, I could understand the administration's willingness to not release the other tapes regardless of whats on them.

At the end of the day, though, I'd eb very surprised if JW dropped the whole issue at this point, rather than following up on the remaining evidence it sought in that FoI request.

RedPlanet

bonkey wrote:

Personally, I'd imagine that if there were, you're once again reliant on a cover-up of massive proportions to suppress just that information. I'm not entirely sure what you'd need cameras there for, other than perhaps roof-mounted mostly-downward-facing ones, which wouldn't necessarily be of any use.

I for one, do not believe that because after the bombing of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, there was a review of American assets and security was upgraded. I'd expect the Pentagon as well as any US military site to be properly assessed. In fact, i'd expect people to be held accoutable if there were any oversights in this regard. Particularly after the USS Cole incident.

bonkey wrote:

In other words, the FoI was not spun out, nor could it have been. It was refused outright shortly after being made. What was at issue here was the subsequent court case, and given the line of reasoning the administration took, they didn't have a leg to stand on should they wish to continue to retain the tape.

Oh i really don't buy that. I'm sure an appeal could be lodged for one. Or the order could just be ignored. You know like Guantanamo Bay.
Or they could exercise some Presidential order or some such nonsense if they wanted.

I suspect there may be more darker motives here.
By releasing this minimal and poor quality picture they are flushing out (of the ms media) who are the patriots and who are the traitors.
We do not see a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon in any of these pictures. This is about who will stand up and challenge or who will be cowed.

Manic Moran

I'd expect the Pentagon as well as any US military site to be properly assessed. In fact, i'd expect people to be held accoutable if there were any oversights in this regard. Particularly after the USS Cole incident.

The response to USS Cole was not more CCTV cameras on the ships, it was more sailors on deck with Mk1 Eyeballs and rifles. (and 25mm cannon) A camera cannot have any effect on the outcome of anything, it's just a passive observer. Guards can have an effect and can cover as much as a camera (if not more, since they can walk around). Why install a cheap CCTV system when you can have a nice top-of-the-line human system?

Go to the important government buildings in DC, you won't see cameras, you'll see snipers. Well, some of them, anyway.

I believe the 'pull it' comment was later explained by the person in question as 'pull the plug on the operation.', i.e. it was hopeless so not to risk further life on trying to save the unsaveable.

NTM

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

We do not see a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon in any of these pictures.

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.

Where are they?

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

....A camera cannot have any effect on the outcome of anything, it's just a passive observer.

A camera is not going to stop a rubber dingy laden with explosives from blowing up US destroyer in broad daylight, this is true.
Neither will it stop a jet airliner from crashing into a building.
But for a fairly inexpensive device, it can record invaluable information and be used as evidence, both of which could be put to use afterwards. I'm quite sure the planners at the Pentagon are aware of that.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.
Where are they?

They probably repainted the plane and either scrapped it or sold it to some other country. The passengers were probably shot in the back of the head or gassed then cremated.
That's my guess.
We ARE talking about the US governement afterall.
You know, the ones that lied to the UN about WMD in Iraq and used phosphorus rounds as a weapon against a predominately civilian popluation not too long ago.

Boggles

2 points

1. If that was an airliner flying into the pentagon because from the video they released it could be anything from the titanic to an icecream van, it's not clear enough. But if it was a plane, that is some flying, fecking hell, credit where credit is due, Buck Rogers or what!

2. A simple question, why would the government kill there own citizens, blow up planes and destroy buildings. Can't think of one reason, but then again I haven't thought much about it.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

I for one, do not believe that

You've made your disbelief of so many things abundantly clear. What you've failed to do in almost every case is offer anything more than your belief that it is otherwise as grounds.

I'd expect the Pentagon as well as any US military site to be properly assessed. In fact, i'd expect people to be held accoutable if there were any oversights in this regard. Particularly after the USS Cole incident.

None of which shows that cameras must have been mounted in such a position as to see an incoming passenger jet....it just suggests that the Pentagon had what they believed was adequate security.

Given that its not an open facility, where you can wander up to the walls from the sidewalk, I'd be more of hte opinion that if you were going to increase security, you'd put more people on the perimiter, rather than put more cameras inside the perimeter.

Having said that, I wouldn't go any furher than to consider my perspective an uninformed opinion. I certainly wouldn't suggest that a government is lying because I think they might have had a different security system to the one they claim they have, when no-one has come forward to say they have seen/installed/viewed feed from these cameras that you think should exist.

Oh i really don't buy that.

I'd suggest its possibly because you don't want to buy it.

I'm sure an appeal could be lodged for one.

Nothing to gain.

Or the order could just be ignored.

Nothing to gain.

Or they could exercise some Presidential order or some such nonsense if they wanted.

Nothing to gain.

I suspect there may be more darker motives here.

What a surprise.

By releasing this minimal and poor quality picture they are flushing out (of the ms media) who are the patriots and who are the traitors.

Brilliant!!! That must be it!!!!

I mean...there hasn't been a single possible event where one could see who was and was not onside with the administration since it took office. No...they put a 5-year-plan into effect based around this one tape, which they had to doctor, and rely on a third party to first request it, and then fight the refusal...all to figure out who is with them and who is against them in the media.

Jeez man...couldn't they, like, just have read the papers once or twice in those 5 years to get the same picture?

We do not see a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon in any of these pictures.

I've never once suggested that we do.

This is about who will stand up and challenge or who will be cowed.

Repeating yoruself doesn't make it any less likely.

Here's a challenge. Show me one person who's pro- or anti- administration stance (patriot/traitor) has been brought to light by their response to this release, and I'll concede you may have a point.

Someone who has hithertofore remained silent and/or has suddenly changed stance based on this release......anyone.....

I mean....seriously....this isn't even today's top story....how the hell could it be the culimnation of 5 years of planning to determine who's with them and who's against them?

SpitfireIV

Page 13 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 10 of Pentagon report)

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.


You see the Americans had figured this stuff out before, them plans are from the Pentegon and were presented to the Secretary of Defence, Robert Macnamara in the 60's in try and justify miltary intervention in Cuba. So it gives an idea of the mindset and what they were contemplating doing, even back then.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

They probably repainted the plane and either scrapped it or sold it to some other country. The passengers were probably shot in the back of the head or gassed then cremated.
That's my guess.
We ARE talking about the US governement afterall.
.

Its a big leap from having dodgy intelligence on WMD to the mass murder of you own citizens. I am truly amazed that you believe this as the likely alternative reality when there is no evidence to support any such belief yet when shown evidence that supports a likely scenario you reject it out of hand.
Boggles.

Untense

civdef wrote:

See, there it is is again, this melting steel nonsense just won't go away. Buildings don't fall because the steel melts - they fall because the steel loses the strength needed to support the weight of the building and this happens around 550deg C. I'm not making this up, feel free to check.

I can understand that alright, but I can't see how weakened steel could cause a series of powerful detonations in sequence at free fall speed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/tower-explosions.htm





Back to topic,

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.

Where are they?

We don't know, nobody is making any guesses either. Unlike the US goverment who started an entire war based on the idea that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction based on Iraq, normal people make decisions based on the evidence and facts at hand.

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pentagon-Hole.shtml

If you look at the pictures on the above link you can see that if the plane were to hit as it did, would have left debris. There is no debris whatsoever in any of the photos.


http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm#Damage_and_Debris
In one of the photos you can see a stool in one of the broken away rooms, the stool has a book on it perfectly intact.

If the jet fuel is enough to cause steel to melt, or lose structure civdev [;)], then why is it not hot enough to burn a book on a wooden stool a few mere feet from the hole where the plane hit ?

civdef

I can understand that alright, but I can't see how weakened steel could cause a series of powerful detonations in sequence at free fall speed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...explosions.htm

What detonations? "Detonation" means combustion where the shockwave propogates at greater than the speed of sound. I see dust being pushed from the building by the pancake collapse as the floors fail progressively.

If the jet fuel is enough to cause steel to melt, or lose structure civdev [], then why is it not hot enough to burn a book on a wooden stool a few mere feet from the hole where the plane hit ?

Eh, the collapse in that area was caused by the whole fast object/vs fixed object collision business, rather than a fire.

RedPlanet

bonkey wrote:

I mean...there hasn't been a single possible event where one could see who was and was not onside with the administration since it took office. No...they put a 5-year-plan into effect based around this one tape, which they had to doctor, and rely on a third party to first request it, and then fight the refusal...all to figure out who is with them and who is against them in the media.

No, it's not like that at all.
Times change, their plans have went to pot, the Iraq war turned into a quagmire not a walk in the park like they believed it would. This fact changed the global and the internal (national) picture for the neocons and now they are just reacting to events.
They're still pressing for more war however (Iran) cause that was/is their plan, and even if things go astray, always stick to the plan.
We knew they'd invade Iraq before 911, that (911) was just the catalyst event to galvanise the American public, as well as international (western at least) opinion to launch their crusade.
Besides they have to maintain the status-quo whereby the oil men and military industrial complex get what they want. How can they keep sacrificing social programs for military budget without having really dangerous foes to frighten the American public with?
But like i said things have gone astray and they need to do a headcount coming up to the next war and that's where this tape is handy.
Obviously there was never anything on the tape to be of much use to anybody but they kept it hidden so to have another card up their sleeves.
It's not even a ACE or TRUMP but that doesn't matter.
The press isn't marching in tune today as they were a couple of years ago and they're starting to snipe.
Now they release this tape and you get loads of articles like that WashingtonPost one "Videotapes Dispel Conspiracy". Of course it doesn't but at least certain hawks at the Pentagon in charge of domestic spying and/or proganda disemination know that that journalist will tow the line. And that will be handy.
The ones that don't probably get put on the wiretapping shortlist.

bonkey wrote:

Jeez man...couldn't they, like, just have read the papers once or twice in those 5 years to get the same picture?

They sure could but what fun would that be?

bonkey wrote:

Here's a challenge. Show me one person who's pro- or anti- administration stance (patriot/traitor) has been brought to light by their response to this release, and I'll concede you may have a point.

Sorry i'd have to do more homework to provide that.
It's only my off-the-wall theory since i'm a nutcase conspiracy theorist right?

bonkey wrote:

Someone who has hithertofore remained silent and/or has suddenly changed stance based on this release......anyone.....

i'll have a think about it, but i never claimed this tape changed anybody's stance on it.

bonkey wrote:

I mean....seriously....this isn't even today's top story....how the hell could it be the culimnation of 5 years of planning to determine who's with them and who's against them?

It's not. It's just their latest reaction to events on the ground.

Manic Moran

Untense wrote:

I can understand that alright, but I can't see how weakened steel could cause a series of powerful detonations in sequence at free fall speed.

Good God almighty.. if there's any one part of the conspiracy theory that we have refuted with simple physics on this board in other threads, its the fact that the building was going to come down, it would have done so coming straight down with approximately the acceleration of gravity. And they weren't powerful detonations, watch the video.

NTM

RedPlanet

So Bonkey:

Why were 5 frames of that tape released (leaked?) before, and why the omission ("nose cone") What purpose does leaking the tape yet omitting a particular frame or two serve?

solas

I'm pissed off with all this propaganda about whether it was a plane or not, not only is it insulting to the memory and relatives of those killed in the attacks, it detracts from the real issue of the matter. There is more evidence to support the fact that the US admin did nothing to prevent the attacks from happening and are as guilty as hell of manslaughter, if nothing less.

RedPlanet

solas wrote:

I'm pissed off with all this propaganda about whether it was a plane or not, not only is it insulting to the memory and relatives of those killed in the attacks, it detracts from the real issue of the matter. There is more evidence to support the fact that the US admin did nothing to prevent the attacks from happening and are as guilty as hell of manslaughter, if nothing less.

What is so insulting to the memory of these people allegedly on the plane?
What exactly insults them?
That they may have been killed by their own?
That evil terrorists might have killed them?
That GWB is complicit in it?

Untense

civdef wrote:

What detonations? "Detonation" means combustion where the shockwave propogates at greater than the speed of sound. I see dust being pushed from the building by the pancake collapse as the floors fail progressively.

Well done, you've defined 'detonation'. But if you look at the debris on the video I provided, even from the very beginning of the so-called 'pancake theory', debris is not only being 'propogated' outwards at a very high velocity, it's also being 'propogated' upwards.
My point is, where is that force coming from?

Eh, the collapse in that area was caused by the whole fast object/vs fixed object collision business, rather than a fire.

Oh, you're selectively choosing when a plane's jet fuel causes a fire and when it doesn't?
If there wasn't a fire to destroy the plane, where did it go? If there was no incineration, where are the hundreds of bodies, wreckage and the luggage ? If there is no fire all of these things should be intact and visible.


I mean, you're all belly laughing at the completely off the wall nutter notion of something other than 757 hitting the pentagon, yet nobody can show one bit of wreckage (except the one flake of fusilage found on the green).

Show me the proof and I'll gladly change my mind.

solas wrote:

I'm pissed off with all this propaganda about whether it was a plane or not, not only is it insulting to the memory and relatives of those killed in the attacks, it detracts from the real issue of the matter. There is more evidence to support the fact that the US admin did nothing to prevent the attacks from happening and are as guilty as hell of manslaughter, if nothing less.

They were planes that hit the twin towers, nobody is disputing that. But the hole left in the pentagon is not the correct size for a 757.
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pentagon-Hole.shtml

Even if it did manage to fit in there there would be massive amounts of wreckage left on the green and around the building.

The point being made by the implications of this being something other than a 757 is that it may have been a much smaller unmanned craft. (The US Government has lots of these to play with.)

civdef

But if you look at the debris on the video I provided, even from the very beginning of the so-called 'pancake theory', debris is not only being 'propogated' outwards at a very high velocity, it's also being 'propogated' upwards.

You desperately want to see a demolition, so that's what you're seeing, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. What's the point arguing with that?

My point is, where is that force coming from?

Gravity is a bitch.

Oh, you're selectively choosing when a plane's jet fuel causes a fire and when it doesn't?

FFS, that part of the building collapsed due to the direct impact of the 757. Fire didnt make that part come down.

If there wasn't a fire to destroy the plane, where did it go? If there was no incineration, where are the hundreds of bodies, wreckage and the luggage ? If there is no fire all of these things should be intact and visible.[/

Do these help (from the first pages of a google image search)?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/pentagonplanetire.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/aedrive6.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/insert.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/landinggear002.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/Damage9.jpg

legologic

Oscar Bravo wrote:

Pulling off an impossible turn would be pretty stupid, alright. Maybe he pulled off a possible turn instead?

At 9.38 flight77 apparently turns 330 degress at 530 mph descending 7000 feet in 2 and a half minutes.

"[flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall"
"The plane wont go that fast when you pull those high G maneuvres. that plane would have fallen out of the sky"
Russ wittenburg, commercial and Air Force pilot who flew 2 of the planes used in 9/11

Growler wrote:

I find the "expert" analysis regarding the collapse of the buildings quite funny, the "i've never seen a steel enforced building collpase due to fire" line seems to discount the effect of having a large plane impact on said building, there isn't much precedent for that type of event to the best of my knowledge.

July 28th 1945 a B2 bomber hits the empire state 79th floor fire burns for a few hours.
feb 14th 1975 three alarm fire between 9th and 14th floor of WTC north tower before sprinklers are even installed.
may 4th 1988 fire in 62 story in LA burns for 3 hours across 4 floors
Feb 23rd 1991 38 story in philidelphia built in 1973 burns for over 19 hours over 8 floors
Oct 17th 2004 56 storey in venezuela built in 1976 burns for 17 hours over 26 floors reaching the roof.
2005 the winchester building in madrid burns for 24 hours.

none of these collapsed

sept 11th 2001 two 110 story skyscrapers burn for 53 and 106 minutes over 4 floors before becoming the first two buildings in history to collapse due to fire the third of the three in history being WTC 7

Utense wrote:

Even if it did manage to fit in there there would be massive amounts of wreckage left on the green and around the building.

Also the small bits of wreckage that were found have been stated as being definately not part of the boeing plane that is said to have crashed into the pentagon. By whom... Honeywell's aerospace division who manufacture the APU for boeing for one. Also the diffuser case seen in photo's from the pentagon is completely different to the design a 747 diffuser case which has surrounding triangular bessels on the openings. Apparently flight77 vaporized including 2 9ft diameter engines made from titanium with a melting point above that of the burning temperature of aviation fuel. If it vaporized it's the first time in aviation history.

This here is loose change 911. Its the most conclusive tape i've found on 911 inconcistencies. nothing it states is unfounded... it doesent blame the secret society of jews. It does point the finger at government conspiracy and while i'm slow to give that too much creedance I would say it at least raises a lot of questions to which answers should be (though more than likely wont be) provided.

solas

redplanet wrote:

What is so insulting to the memory of these people allegedly on the plane?
What exactly insults them?
That they may have been killed by their own?
That evil terrorists might have killed them?
That GWB is complicit in it?

for what it's worth I have no doubt the US admin is complicit in the murder of innocent civilians, however suggesting that they didn't die in those planes is insulting.
The tinfoil conspiracy theories have little substance and are more likely to be dismissed than gathering actual evidence of the crimes that were (and continue to be) comitted against the citizens of the US.
It would be more helpful if people were to focus on the issues at hand.

While all this horseh!t is being played out on TV, the plame affair has conveniently been sideswept under the carpet, an instance where the legitimacy of the the Bush admin can be challenged.

growler

legologic wrote:

At

July 28th 1945 a B2 bomber hits the empire state 79th floor fire burns for a few hours.
feb 14th 1975 three alarm fire between 9th and 14th floor of WTC north tower before sprinklers are even installed.
may 4th 1988 fire in 62 story in LA burns for 3 hours across 4 floors
Feb 23rd 1991 38 story in philidelphia built in 1973 burns for over 19 hours over 8 floors
Oct 17th 2004 56 storey in venezuela built in 1976 burns for 17 hours over 26 floors reaching the roof.
2005 the winchester building in madrid burns for 24 hours.

none of these collapsed

.

so one of the examples you give involved a plane hitting a building, which as I pointed out seemed to be a fairly major factor in the subsequent collapse. Are you choosing to ignore the fact that a B25 weighs about 12% of a 767 , carries about 9500 less gallons of fuel, and would be travelling at less than a 1/3 of the speed ?

Hey, why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way !

ReefBreak

HelterSkelter wrote:

If you have to resort to slagging someone's spelling then you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

I'm not normally one that pulls people up on spelling & grammar, but in this case I make an exception because:
a) The writer is calling someone thick and
b) The writer's spelling & grammar was so terrible as to render point (a) irrelevant.

Basically don't question someone's intelligence if you've got the spelling capacity of a 5 year old.

Time Magazine

Somebody who doesn't blindly accept the evidence that this is all a conspiracy is simply a sheep that is afraid to rebel. FACT.

ReefBreak

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.

Where are they?

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

bobbyjoe

When I saw this news I was expecting something new or more of the footage that was released. This film looks exactly like what was released already. It definetly doesn't clear up the all the questions about what happened.

Does anybody believe 911 was properly investigated? The commission had a budget of $5 million. $60 million was spent investigating Clintons bj, $50 million on the spaceshuttle challenger disaster. The official story as reported by the 911 commission report is full of holes, important factors were not investigated, evidence was scrapped large section of the 911 report were censored. Questioning it is the only rational thing to do. Theories range from they let it happen to demolition and remote controled planes so you can't lug everyone who doubts the official line as a conspiracy nut.

Maybe this thread should just concentrate on what was released and why instead of going into every theory going?

SpitfireIV

civdef wrote:

What detonations? "Detonation" means combustion where the shockwave propogates at greater than the speed of sound. I see dust being pushed from the building by the pancake collapse as the floors fail progressively.

Eh, the collapse in that area was caused by the whole fast object/vs fixed object collision business, rather than a fire.

Civdef, I've heard that pancake theory, and it is the 'official' explanation as to why the towers fell. But how can that hold through, whem for example the North tower was struck on the south east corner, therefore the most damage was confined to this area and logic would tell you that if there was failure of the floors causing pancaking, that it would fail first at this corner causing the building to fall to this side, not straight down on itself. Not to mention the 47 main central support columns which all but dissapeared, you'd imagine they would be left to some digree with the floors falling around them.

What about the plumes of smoke shooting from the building 9 to 10 stories below the falling tower? Alledged to be demolition explosions.

What about the number of explosion that were confirmed by both firefighters and civilains in the building. Not to mention the firefighter radio transmission stating that there were only two isolated pockets of fire and they were sure they could deal with it.

The damage to the lobby area, how did that happen? The alleged explosions in the basement area. The same area's where, during the clean up process molten metal was found where the main support beams were coupled to the bedrock. Explosins to weaken the main structure? These were picked up on a seismograph and measure between a force 1 and 2 earthquake.....something which wasnt picked up by with the earlier terrorist truck bomb.

It doesnt add up nor does it make sence, far too many conflicting stories.

HelterSkelter

ReefBreak wrote:

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

Reefbreak, read this account here of plans they had in store for cuba: http://aq.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51389075&postcount=74

bobbyjoe

Shouldn't the footage look something like this?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/may2006/170506doctored.gif

If a 747 flew over a highway would it not lift cars off it or deafen the people in the cars?

Untense

Reefbreak wrote:

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

Did you ever stop and consider that the 'conspiracy nuts' are acting on evidence? There is no evidence to point where the plane went.

RedPlanet

solas wrote:

.... however suggesting that they didn't die in those planes is insulting.

I hear you Solas.
It's just your choice of words i am not getting.
I don't understand why one or other manner of death would be "insulting", unless we are talking about some sort of honor in death like some Japanese thing. But even then...

Anyway i don't see how this affects the Valerie Plame leak investigation.
There's no reason the Justice Dept or whomever can't press charges when there is a lot of chatter going on about the Pentagon.

oscarBravo

Untense wrote:

We don't know, nobody is making any guesses either.

That indicates a lack of critical thinking to me. If the plane had to be disposed of, and the crew and passengers eliminated - wouldn't the simplest approach be to simply fly the thing into the Pentagon?

oscarBravo

legologic wrote:

At 9.38 flight77 apparently turns 330 degress at 530 mph descending 7000 feet in 2 and a half minutes.

What's the source for this?

legologic wrote:

...the first two buildings in history to collapse due to fire...

You're not serious, are you?

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

wouldn't the simplest approach be to simply fly the thing into the Pentagon?

Not necessarily at all.
For one, we don't know the reasons why they struck the Pentagon.
Probably personal vendettas here, maybe to wipe out certain pentagon personalities, destroy an entire department or what have you.
We don't know if a commercial airplane (which crumples very easily) could even penetrate that fortress enough.
Also the Pentagon is meant to have it's own air defenses and in order to get round this it required flying something very low to the ground.
Thus a precision guided missle is ideal.

oscarBravo

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States... The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday... arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

That doesn't explain anything. In the scenario described, the plane, crew and students would still be around.

growler

ReefBreak wrote:

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

one theory given earlier was that the passengers were all shot / gassed and the plane sold on (presumably with false numberplates).

See all the answers are out there ..... particularly if you're paranoid and anti american.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

Not necessarily at all.
For one, we don't know the reasons why they struck the Pentagon.
Probably personal vendettas here, maybe to wipe out certain pentagon personalities, destroy an entire department or what have you.
We don't know if a commercial airplane (which crumples very easily) could even penetrate that fortress enough.

It's still not making any sense to me. You're suggesting a conspiracy to make it look like terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon. To accomplish this, a plane and a lot of people vanish - where and how, we're not going to bother speculating on - and a missile is fired - from where? - at the Pentagon.

RedPlanet wrote:

Also the Pentagon is meant to have it's own air defenses...

As I understand it, it doesn't. Feel free to produce some evidence to the contrary.

SpitfireIV

oscarBravo wrote:

That doesn't explain anything. In the scenario described, the plane, crew and students would still be around.

No, doesnt really explain 'much', but its a clear example of the US military minds of the 60's and what they were capable of, add another 40 years worth of thinking, plus the neo-conservative goverment to that and things might get creative.

As for the matter of where could a missle have been fired from....after the 'incedent' a white unmarked jumbo jet was spotted in the air over the pentagon even after the grounding order was issued, this is reported in news footage. Some claim they also seen a C-130, while there is also speculation of a helicopter being in the area then disapearing, so why all the conflicting reports?? Motorists on the highway couldnt even agree, I think I'd have a fair idea if a 757 flew a couple of feet above my car. Some said they seen a 757, some claim it was a small corporate jet while some claim it was a missile.

I'm not making up these stories, nor would I have vivid enough of an imagination, I'm just relating the stories I have heard.

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

Donald Rumsfeld interview from within the Pentegon with Parade Magazine.

oscarBravo

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

No, doesnt really explain 'much', but its a clear example of the US military minds of the 60's and what they were capable of...

During the cold war, with the imminent likelihood of nuclear war, those military minds balked at the idea of disposing of a planeload of passengers.

Another question for the theorists: nobody seems to be disputing the fact that two passenger jets were hijacked and flown into the WTC. Why is it so unlikely that another jet was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon?

bonkey

Untense (regarding where the missing passengers are) wrote:

We don't know, nobody is making any guesses either.

Why is that?

Why is it ok to not answer the tough questions in one theory, but to criticise another severely for leaving important questions unanswered?

cooperguy

Conspiracy nuts click here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Manic Moran

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

logic would tell you that if there was failure of the floors causing pancaking, that it would fail first at this corner causing the building to fall to this side, not straight down on itself.

Physics 101, as has already been explained in a previous thread. Please indicate to me the source of a force which would push the top of the building outwards, and not down.

Please bear in mind also that whilst the impact occured in one corner, the damage appears to have been spread around throughout the entire floor, witness the fireball emitting from all sides. Ergo, pretty much any part of the structure is vulnerable to being weakened by fire.

Interesting show on National Geographic channel last week, explaining how the unusual lattice cored structure of the WTC actually kept it up a lot longer than would have been expected of a conventionally designed skyscraper.

NTM

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

So Bonkey:

Why were 5 frames of that tape released (leaked?) before,

Without knowing who leaked them, the why is effectively impossible to ascertain.

What purpose does leaking the tape yet omitting a particular frame or two serve?

Thats a subquestion of why, isn't it?

jc

SpitfireIV

Interesting site cooperguy, I found this of interest though:

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Thats the official theory as to why WTC7 collapsed, but as I stated in a previous post, Larry Silverstein, whom owned this building admitted to giving the order to 'pull it', ie bring it down by controlled demolition.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

Straight from Larry's mouth.

civdef

Great link, but wasted on the true believers. By believing that they alone understand the real "truth" about the tragedy of 9/11, they've built themselves up as cleverer than the rest of us. They're not too keen on being shown up for the gullible straw-clutchers they probably are.

bonkey

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

therefore the most damage was confined to this area and logic would tell you that if there was failure of the floors causing pancaking, that it would fail first at this corner causing the building to fall to this side, not straight down on itself.

Logic doesn't tell me that at all. Logic tells me that to fall to one side, the supports on the opposite side would either have to stretch or fail due to vertical-seperation stress. At this point, there would be failure at both sides of the centre, which would result in rotational movement during the downwards collapse (which, surprise surprise, is seen in one tower) and not in what you refer to as sideways.

Alternately, its possible that there would be a compressive-collapse travelling from the damaged side inwards and onwards. This would, again logically, lead to rotational movement during collapse, and not a fall to the side.

jc

solas

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg
thought this was funny, I dunno why but apparantly this is what a 757 hitting the pentagon would look like.

Time Magazine

Not what a 757 parked outside the Pentagon would look like, no? .