9/11 Conspiracy

OFDM

What if there's a deeper conspiracy to be had here? What if hijackers did try to crash a 757 into the Pentagon but the plane was destroyed some sort of classified experimental defence system designed to protect the pentagon? This would explain why most of the plane was obliterated and why only one dodgy cctv shot has been revealed.

billy the squid

It would take a serious amount of energy to vaporize a 757.

miju

GerardKeating wrote:

Also planes are made of alumium, which burns well at high tempatures, most of the plane would have melted in the fire.

No dice on this one, when you look at wreckage from other crashes theres always wreckage (usually badly burned BUT still recognisable) I mean even at the WTC they found large chunks of the planes relatively intact.

GerardKeating wrote:

Not if the wings broke off when the plane hit the building. The main body of hte plane would have the weight to crash through the building, but the wing would have folded back and gotten draged in with the rest of the plane.

Again no dice, judging by the size of that hole in the pentagon 1 of 2 possible things could have happened:

1: The wings indeed got dragged in (however any internal photos of the pentagon immediatly after the crash / collapse show no wing or part of a wing and very little wreckage)

2: The plane (if it was one) penetrated the pentagon (fully I may add) and at that force/speed it wouldn't have dragged the wings in with the rest of it the wings would have just sheard straight off staying outside the building.

GerardKeating wrote:

The planes which hit the WTC hit high up, so the fire looks big as it is spead over several stories of the building, but the Pentagon plane hit at or near ground level, so the fire did not spead.

It hasn't got much to do with the size of the explosion in any of the footage, fuel fires spread quickly and burn at high temps scorching everything in the immediate vicinity however at the pentagon this was not the case with alot of parts inside the building free from even smoke damage and in one case there is a book left on a chair opened right beside the collapsed wall with no scorch marks SO if it wasn't hot enough in there to even scorch a book theres no way it melted the fuselage

OFDM

billy the squid wrote:

It would take a serious amount of energy to vaporize a 757.

The US Army had stealth bomber technology in the 50's. God only knows what they've gleamed from the Roswell space craft.

angry_fox

Wouldint the pentagon be a harder target to fly a plane into than the Twin Towers? These guys only took a few flying lessons.

The roswell spacecraft was probably a stealth bomber.

netwhizkid

The 9/11 theory makes no sense my own opinion is that bin-laden works for the cia and they got him to brainwash some phsyos to do it and they thought they were doing it for jihad or whatever. Then the yanks can use the public backlash against islam to easily invade arab countires like afghanistan/Irag for oil why they invaded afghanistan is besides me as they have no oil only goats. I figure they done it to get a base and to throw the public of the trail. I can see Iran been invaded soon tbh. I read on e time on a prophecy site that benedict would be pope and he will die in 2009 and a giant war between christians and muslims will erupt. I can see this happening tbh

SixShot

The Thing that was real freaky was the Pentagon & the No Plain Parts as if it was bombed from inside but who knows for sure & why did Osama Bin Ladden Take credit for it ? if it was a conspiracy

SixShot

funky penguin wrote:

Is that website taking the piss?

Holy Crap thats Freeky sh!t Sweet Baby Jeasus I must try that when i get hold of the American Doe

angry_fox

SixShot wrote:

The Thing that was real freaky was the Pentagon & the No Plain Parts as if it was bombed from inside but who knows for sure & why did Osama Bin Ladden Take credit for it ? if it was a conspiracy

The world needs some one to hate.

Bill Clinton had the chance to take out Bin Laden back in 1996 i think. But didint bother. Did some one advise Clinton that he was not a big enough threat.

SixShot

Dizzyblabla wrote:

yes, just like it was all predicted on their $20 bill!!
http://www.glennbeck.com/news/05172002.shtml


but here they're saying that there were bombs set off at the same time as the planes went in...
http://www.indybay.org/news/2002/12/1546945.php

that $20 bill one is Feckin Smart who ever figured that out must of had a lot of time on his hand em wonder what the 20 Euro has hidden in it Im still a little Amazed & shocked at that $20 its Bizzare actualy has any one actualy tryed it with a $20 note ?

OFDM

SixShot wrote:

that $20 bill one is Feckin Smart

That's seriously weird.

PiE

It's not really...

ic

I dont know if this has been raised but ....

What are the chances that the 9/11 attacks would occur on a date with the
digits 911 which is a emergency number (similiar to 999) in some countries
including the USA.

iregk

Well I actually did it with a $20 bill and it works exactly like the link says. Mad.

Couple of points though that do not add up: (and feel free to shoot me down here)

1. The twin towers were constructed with materials that had to be gotten rid of by 2015 anyway. In other words the towers were going to have to be demolished by then either way.

2. The very first insurance policy was placed on the twin towers a mere 2 months before "attacks". Would you not think to put one on it after the car bomb?

3. Ignoring any fire profing removed at the time of impact (well come back to it later) the support beams were designed to with stand temperatures in access of 600 degrees. Aviation fuel burns at a mere 300 so they could never have melted them. The only way they could have gotten to that temp was other matials used in an explosion.

4. Going on the pont that material was removed at point off impact, the fact that the impact was on one side of the building would have weakened one side. A fire then ensues and that point gets weaker and weaker, the building would have leaned over if it fell on its own accord.

5. The twin towers were actually designed to withstand an impact of a beoing 707 when they were built. A 707 weighs more than a 767 however it doesn't travel at the same speed so in retrospect the the force would have been ball park similar.

6. Now a friend of mine who is a pilot for a very large airline was talking to me about this and his thoughts were that a 767 is very difficult to fly for a fully trained pilot and flying it into a building is extremely difficult. Now throw in the fact that these guys learned how to fly after a few lessons in florida flying cesena aircrafts! A cesena is easy to fly but a 767 is completely different.

7. We are to believe that some chap from a cave in afghanastan with no email, no broadband internet connection, no mobile phone organised and orchestrated this whole thing.

8. Further on to number 6, flying a 767 into a building that is only 4-5 stories high that happens to be one of the countries most secured and protected buildings at that speed again after 2 weeks cesena training is impossible. The slightest mis calculation and you end up in the river or over shoot it completely.

9. Both buildings came down in perfect straight form. That is the work of perfectly opperated professional demolition. There are 9 buildings in total in the world trade center area, as well as the towers WTC Building 5 i think it was also collapsed, despite nothing hitting it and no fire or anything involved. But wait, Building 5 was used to hold all records of Enron, Chevron Texaco and numerous other energy companies under investigation. Who was running Chevron and Enron at the time, Bush's mates. Strange that isn't it?

Thats only a few points but good ones. Like i said take from them what you want, feel free to shoot me down if you like but me personally, this was one very well organised and planned event by the US Government. A lot of people may say oh why would they do such a thing. Lets be honest 3,000 people is collateral damage for the billions and billions of $ worth of contracts handed out on this and the war of which 80% went to Texan companies with ties to the Bush family.

Plus you honestly thing the us gov really care about a mere 3,000 people? Nope not a chance.

Daniel_109

Now a friend of mine who is a pilot for a very large airline was talking to me about this and his thoughts were that a 767 is very difficult to fly for a fully trained pilot and flying it into a building is extremely difficult. Now throw in the fact that these guys learned how to fly after a few lessons in florida flying cesena aircrafts! A cesena is easy to fly but a 767 is completely different

Firstly im not sure i would want to get into a 767 with a pilot who found it very difficult to fly the aircraft. Secondly last september, through knowing management at a large airport, i was givin an hour in a 767 simulator! Using the ILS approach i landed the aircraft several times successfully! At the time i was in the sim i had three hours in a cessna under my belt! But the reason i was able to make a successful landing was because i knew my way around the cockpit, through hours of using mircosoft's Flight Simulator! So surely if i could land a 767 with very little experiance it would be possible to fly the aircraft into a 1,362 ft high building?? Personally i would find that easier than landing it!!

Further on to number 6, flying a 767 into a building that is only 4-5 stories high that happens to be one of the countries most secured and protected buildings

Doesnt particularly matter how secured and protected the building is im sure its not gonna stop a 757 flying into it at 350 KIAS!!!

Fallschirmjager

i think, as with a lot of world events, everyone wants someone to be controlling them - but unfortunately it is not so.

with regards to the WTC attacks, there are a couple of things to be aware. you can find this in the review document as to why they fell but i will give you a summary as follows :

1. the collaspe
the WTC buildings used a very unique method of construction. The strength of the WTC buildings was in the external walls, and not as you might expect the central core. THat is how they managed to make them so tall. Keep in mind that they were built in the 70's. The central structure and the floors use a method of support called a truss. the truss is a bit like the horizontal parts of the cranes you see around dublin. the weakess of a truss is that it is very weak when heat is applied. the metal bends and buckles. to counteract this the truss is applied with fireproofing. all sounds so well, so far. 30 years have passed and what they found after the first WTC attach on the early 90's was that huge amounts of fireprrof foam had aged and fallen off exposing the trusses to the elements. a big issue the WTC owners were facing was the reproofing of this over the next few years (obviously before the attacks). when the planes hit, the ruptured the main design strength of the building, ie.e the outer walls. Yes, you are correct, they were designed to withstand a hit by the plane. the design was built to withstand a 1970 plane MINUS the fuel load, with a pilot trying to miss them...all of the issues the attack did not have..

the planes were travelling at max speed with full tanks (remember they had just taken off from boston), and were aimed at the buildings. the crash, as it happens did not make the building so weak it would fall..it was the crash + the fire....as a testiment to the original designer...the building apparently swayed nearly 6 feet after each hit...some people inside expected then to fall over they moved that much...anyways back to the internals...

what you have is an exteral wall supporting the building, that is badly damaged, trusses with no fireproofing, and thousdands of gallons of fuel. what made the WTC collaspe was a thing called pancaking...each floor when the truss gave way -- collasped onto the floor below. that is why initially it looked like nothing was happening, but if you hear the firefighters and people who survived they all kept hearing these terrible sounds of tearing metal-- that was the trusses, that held each floor giving way and pancaking the floor below.the reason it looks like explosives going off is there was a critical point reached when the weight of the floor compressed with other floors created such a weight that they collasped with such speed. the 'explosion' you see is not explosives but the sheep pressure if air blasting out of the floors as the weight of floor above collaspe downward....the reason they fell straight down...is exactly the same reason...the pancaking causes this...the floors fell straigth down (inside the structural walls) and then pulled the walls inward after they collasped...be aware that a lot of buildings close by collasped...people have this view that only 2 buildings fell..but that is just not true.

also that is why the WTC actaully left so little waste....it was hollow

the training
remember these guys learned how to steer, not fly a plane. all of their training (including of all things the microsoft flight simulator) was aimed at crashing not flying. incidently the school in florida where they learned to fly was more then 1 or 2 lessons-- thye had spend somethign like 30,000 dollars per pilot. it is also (altho i cant find the links now) that while in Afghanistan, some of the old pilots from the national airline were used to assist in their initial trainign. rememebr they removed the transponders from the planes as a way of gaining time. as for the pentagon, yes it is a no fly zone, but on sept 10 (theose lovely innocent pre 9/11 days!) the no fly zone was only 3-4 miles. no one imaged that a passenger jet would do such a thing. the commies were never that nutty! so suddenly you have an 'innocent' airliner travelling legally nearby -- that is diverted back to the city -- the US at that time, didnt even have armed jets flying over cities for gods sake. one pilot was actually ordered later in the morning...to RAM a plane that they suspected had been taken over...he had no missiles!!!

to be honest they did not do a good job of crashing the planes. remember osama had wanted (from his own words) to kill hundreds of thousands of infidels. if they had crashed lower and later in the day in both locations...we truly would have had a massive disaster...even bigger then it was.

as for the 'missile' attack on the pentagon..that is bogus as well..the issue people raise is where is the wreckage? for example where is the planes what hit the WTC? where are the engines, wings? the reason people question the pentagon so much is the limited footage -- something the conspiracly people cant do for the WTC attacks-- (its a bitch having so many cameras taking photos isnt it!!). what they dont play is the calls from people near the pentagon calling the police about the plane diving down the main street...

finally remeber the WTC was so big it had its own post code..this is not like the union building in dublin...it is 100's of floors high and about 1 mile or so square at the base....personally i find it difficult to imagine that size

anyways...hope that helps and if i got anythign wrong..sorry i dod this from memory...

iregk

Now thats a good solid argument, respect to the man that can put across all his points, counter act other points and not end up abusing or name calling as happens on so many boards here.

Sorry was about to type a response but work has come in to do. Will get back in a bit.

Fallschirmjager

iregk wrote:

Well I actually did it with a $20 bill and it works exactly like the link says. Mad.

Couple of points though that do not add up: (and feel free to shoot me down here)



7. We are to believe that some chap from a cave in afghanastan with no email, no broadband internet connection, no mobile phone organised and orchestrated this whole thing.

8. Further on to number 6, flying a 767 into a building that is only 4-5 stories high that happens to be one of the countries most secured and protected buildings at that speed again after 2 weeks cesena training is impossible. The slightest mis calculation and you end up in the river or over shoot it completely.

9. Both buildings came down in perfect straight form. That is the work of perfectly opperated professional demolition. There are 9 buildings in total in the world trade center area, as well as the towers WTC Building 5 i think it was also collapsed, despite nothing hitting it and no fire or anything involved. But wait, Building 5 was used to hold all records of Enron, Chevron Texaco and numerous other energy companies under investigation. Who was running Chevron and Enron at the time, Bush's mates. Strange that isn't it?

Thats only a few points but good ones. Like i said take from them what you want, feel free to shoot me down if you like but me personally, this was one very well organised and planned event by the US Government. A lot of people may say oh why would they do such a thing. Lets be honest 3,000 people is collateral damage for the billions and billions of $ worth of contracts handed out on this and the war of which 80% went to Texan companies with ties to the Bush family.

Plus you honestly thing the us gov really care about a mere 3,000 people? Nope not a chance.

sorry i forgot about these points....

on point 7
osama is an engineer by training. actually he never really fought at all in afghanistan, that is PR by alQ. he was a builder and routed Saudi cash to the battle against the Russians. he built bases in Pakistan for trainign and then southern Afghanistan. A common factoid you hear is that he got US money. This is actualy just not true. the US gave its money to Pakistan security services who were supossed to disperse it throughout Afghanistan but who delivered it primarly to their tribal cnnections in southern Afghanistan...which turned into the Taliban -- hindsight, i guess, is a wonderful thing. Osama was, even then, violently anti american. he would not accept any money from them. i cant remember the exact amounts but it is estimated that to get the russians out cost about 14 billion..the US ploughed in 7-8 billion and the rest came from Saudi etc...

Also remember he gaves a general plan about the planes. no communication was given using technology or only in limited terms because he know the US was listening to his satellite phone. each hijacker had a senior member that knows the plan and the only links was the cash flow. it is rumoured that each team was not even aware of the others existance, and most of the hijackers were not initially aware that it was a suicide mission...but i suspect we will never really know the real answer here. also Osama is not a partaker of these issues..he is more of a icon with limited structural control of the organisations. the guy in Iraq Al Zarqwari has bugger all relationship with Osama other then he calls himself ALQueda in Iraq.

point 8
targetting th twin towers is not difficult they were nearly a mile high and beside the river. if you look at the attack routes they used the river as a perverse guidance system. the same for the pentagon, the used the main street as its aiming point.

point 9
the guys who are currently Bubbas bitches in prison for the Enron disaster, along with the other people who were arrested for corporate goverance issues...might disagree with you on this point. What most people forget...the Enron disaster happended (as did the planning for 911) during a DEMOCRAT presidency under 'i love cigars' Clinton who was in the white house...not someone from Texas. Bush was only 9 months in the white house at the time. As for WTC 5 collasping...the effect of the 2 building collasping caused an earthquake....i cant remember the exact size but it was very large...you will have to google that fact...from memory it was a 6 point some thing on the older richter scaler.

as for the oil companies...the biggest election issue for the republicans withthe next elections is the price of oil....this is the one thing that will screw them up..now as conspiracy therories go...causing oil to go so high that bush invests billions in hydrogen fuel cells and wants nuclear power brought back, doesnt sound like a good starting point to keep our dependance on oil.yes they are earning millions, but if you check the history, even the Saudis agree the worst disaster for oil producing countries was the 1970's oil crisis. that forced better fuel economy on the US and world market. i think all comapnies would gladly swap once off high billion per quarter profits now for 100 years of billions per quater profits...personally i think the fuel issue is a good thing because it will break our dependance on one fuel once and for all....


on your final point 'Plus you honestly thing the us gov really care about a mere 3,000 people? Nope not a chance?'


actually i do...remember this is a country that spends millions each year repatriating toe bones from world war 2 battle sites to bring them home. This is a country that still is recovering MIA's in the shape of bones from Korea and Vietnam...one thing i think they are touchy on is issues like this as it happens..probably too touchy....

still thats just my opinion

Fallschirmjager

iregk wrote:

Now thats a good solid argument, respect to the man that can put across all his points, counter act other points and not end up abusing or name calling as happens on so many boards here.

Sorry was about to type a response but work has come in to do. Will get back in a bit.

LOL...no worries bro..its just a bit of friday bater anyways....

Fallschirmjager

iregk wrote:

Now thats a good solid argument, respect to the man that can put across all his points, counter act other points and not end up abusing or name calling as happens on so many boards here.

Sorry was about to type a response but work has come in to do. Will get back in a bit.

halfway down that page is a way better explaination....


http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html



this is what i read before....hope it helps

miju

Fallschirmjager wrote:

as for the 'missile' attack on the pentagon..that is bogus as well..the issue people raise is where is the wreckage? for example where is the planes what hit the WTC? where are the engines, wings? the reason people question the pentagon so much is the limited footage -- something the conspiracly people cant do for the WTC attacks-- (its a bitch having so many cameras taking photos isnt it!!). what they dont play is the calls from people near the pentagon calling the police about the plane diving down the main street...

1: WTC 1+2 weren't 100's of stories it was no more than 120 stories (if memory serves me)

2: There was actually a large proportion of the wreckage from both planes that hit WTC 1+2 found in the days following the collapse

3: Regarding the calls from people about a plane hitting the pentagon (ever heard of disinformation) plus see the last few lines of this post.

4: Again theres no way on earth that there was only one source of footage of the pentagon crash given what that buildings function actually is, so why hasn't footage been released with the rest of the tapes that were recently made public?

They cannot give security has an excuse as all it would show would be the outside of the building and theres a zillion pictures of the outside and even layout of that building.

They've something to hide because other footage from the hotel / garage and so on would probably show much clearer the projectile (I say projectile because i'm not sure if it was a missile it more than likely was a smaller aircraft)

miju

I must say that I fully accept the description/sequence of the WTC collapse (I always have) what I dispute is the actual planes themselves and they similiar fuel loads but very different explosions at the WTC

And I completely and utterly dispute the generally accepted facts given about the Pentagon

Redneck_Rebel

I hope you do realise that you are more than likely beening recorded.
20 years ago the pentagon could listen to most calls in the US and if there was a mention of particular words they would be recorded and later would be reviewed, that was the idea but as you can imagine not all of the calls could be listened to.
You can believe in the 20 years they have developed these techniques. When you mention conspiracy, 9/11 and pentagon, you are more than likely being monitered.
When the whole colinbine thing happened they had suspects identified before they had arrived by the books they read and the friends of this person.
The way I figure it would be easy to set this net of spys set up.

miju

I'm well aware that this thread could be monitored in fact the pentagon have a pet name for the software/hardware they use that goes something along the lines of Carnivore (i could be wrong on the name)

Kernel

Have a read of Operation Northwood, a plan to blow up a US ship in Guantanamo, killing the crew on board and blame it on Cuba - and other acts of terrorism against US civilians in order to give the go ahead for war.


http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2001/2839operation_northwds.html

OFDM

_raptor_ wrote:

They've something to hide because other footage from the hotel / garage and so on would probably show much clearer the projectile (I say projectile because i'm not sure if it was a missile it more than likely was a smaller aircraft)

Exactly what I said before - they used some sort of new weapon that destroyed most of the plane before it hit the Pentagon. This weapon was most likely developed in Area 51. That's the primary reason why they don't want the tapes released.

Remember before dismissing this idea, the reason why independent academia is 50 years behind the US military is because they don't get anywhere near the same funding that the military do.

angry_fox

What happend to the fighter jets and NORAD on 9/11. Click here

_raptor_ wrote:

I'm well aware that this thread could be monitored in fact the pentagon have a pet name for the software/hardware they use that goes something along the lines of Carnivore (i could be wrong on the name)

Theres a good chance that this thread has been listed, they now have all our names, address and what we have for breakfast in the morning

The FBI use something called Magic Lantern. But its probably been replaced by something better.

If you want to surf anonymously go to proxy4free.com
Proxy servers can change so if one doesint work try another one

Hobbes

iregk wrote:

3. Ignoring any fire profing removed at the time of impact (well come back to it later) the support beams were designed to with stand temperatures in access of 600 degrees. Aviation fuel burns at a mere 300 so they could never have melted them. The only way they could have gotten to that temp was other matials used in an explosion.

Not to mention there were people video'ed waving from the hole where the planes hit asking for help. Bit hard to do with all that heat?

IF we were to put a tinfoil hat on I'd go with that they were demolished to stop the structure collapsing sideways. The collapse was too controlled.

pwd

I'm surprised no one has mentioned Hunter S Thompson in this thread yet.
He was supposed to have been investigating a major conspiracy behind 911 just before his death.

tolosenc

A book on this which raised serious questions with me is:
"9/11 - The New Pearl Harbour" (maybe harbor as it is by an American)
I read it last summer but i am sure it is still on sale or available at libraries.