permalink for this thread : http://search.catflaporama.com/post/browse/531206481
boroproud Posted on 12/9 17:33
9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

watching this video got me thinking
where are the remains of the plane?
why such neat round holes?
why no 'leading in' marks from the plane towards the wall?
why no security film release and why confenscate them?

Link: have a butchers

smoggie4ever Posted on 12/9 17:48
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

creepy but true ...missile ? i think so now

Nisko Posted on 12/9 17:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

This is so 4 years and 11 months ago.

LiamO Posted on 12/9 17:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

These ridiculous and inaccurate conspiracy theories have been debunked many times.

Try the following link for a start.

Link: Urban Legends - Petagon rumour

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 17:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

It's a load of rubbish. Posted a zillion times.

Please someone, post the zidane joke again.

boroproud Posted on 12/9 17:54
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"This is so 4 years and 11 months ago."


SO WHAT?


why leave a comment if you've done it all before?

burydweller Posted on 12/9 17:54
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

There are many anomolies. The biggest? how the hell does a tower collapse on itself like it did? its as if explosives were placed throughout.

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 17:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

If you don't want comments, don't post on a public message board.

baldycrowe Posted on 12/9 17:59
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Have you seen this one?

Link: A bit more drama

Reizigers_Lips Posted on 12/9 17:59
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

every single month - without fail

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 18:01
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

bury, I'm no demolition expert but I suspect you aren't. How do you know it shouldn't fall that way? Each floor collapsed in a concertina effect so I'd expect that. I wouldn't expect it to snap-off and topple over.

scoea Posted on 12/9 18:04
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I have read many of the books on the conspiracy theories and seen many of the videos. I have to say that there is compelling evidence contained within many of them that not all was as it seemed in relation to many of the events of 9/11. There are elements of each crash that remain unexplained and many questions that remain unanswered.

The strike on the Pentagon does have various inconsistencies that simply have not been explained despite what the urban legends website says. The hole where the impact took place simply was not big enough to fit the width of a Boeing 757.

I do not believe that the events of 9/11 as perceived are the truth.

Neil - various demolition experts, structural engineers and the like have said that it was physically impossible for the tower to 9a) have collapsed because of the aircraft and (b) to have collapsed in the way that it did unless it was a controlled demolition.

--- Post edited by scoea on 12/9 18:05 ---

Boro_Owl Posted on 12/9 18:05
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"how the hell does a tower collapse on itself like it did? its as if explosives were placed throughout."

Its because the inner framework of the building was damaged and it could no longer hold up the building. Thus it fell down on itself, because it couldnt support the upper levels.

Stepper_T Posted on 12/9 18:05
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

George Dubya planned it all, ya know.

Bully_Boy Posted on 12/9 18:06
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

like neiltrodden said they collapsed floor onto floor...

Link: How the towers fell

Bully_Boy Posted on 12/9 18:10
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"various demolition experts, structural engineers and the like have said that it was physically impossible for the tower to 9a) have collapsed because of the aircraft and (b) to have collapsed in the way that it did unless it was a controlled demolition."

Whereas a reputable organisation say..

In a report produced by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), and other organizations, experts concluded that no skyscraper could have withstood the impact of the terrorist airplanes.

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 18:10
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

scoea, I've had this conversation with you before I seem to remember. I am sure at least one person at the WTC would have noticed people drilling the walls to fit them with explosives. Looking at how the building collapsed, one seemed to collapse very unlike a controlled demolition. The top seemed to 'pour' off it sideways as it went down.

mm40 Posted on 12/9 18:11
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

there are conspiracy theories about everything, look at the stories following the death of Princess Diana. 9/11 was the work of Bin Laden and al Queda.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 12/9 18:14
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Do I believe in a 9/11 conspiracy? No.

Do I believe man has set foot on the moon?..

scoea Posted on 12/9 18:15
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Not with me Neil. However, were you aware that the weekend before 9/11 the power was cut to each tower (nobody was therefore in the towers) and eye witnesses have independently said that numerous "engineers" were seen going in and out of the building?

The nature of such a conspiracy means that government can control the reports issued by such organisations Bully Boy. That does not mean that what they say is unquestionable. For example, did you know that it has been proven that photogrpahs of the "scars" on the twin towers were different in FEMA's report to ones that were taken by news crews at the time?

Have a look at this video which is quite interesting.

There are many, many more that show many inconsistencies that are not yet explained.

Link: 911

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 18:16
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Don't yoda, that's not funny.

Bully_Boy Posted on 12/9 18:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

and Paul McCartney died in 1966...

Link: Paul is Dead

green_beret20 Posted on 12/9 18:23
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

You have to look where some of these conspiracys come from, usually there is a religious slant to it.

In the Daily Mail a few days ago there was the headline
"Fury as academics claim 9/11 was 'inside job'".

What they failed to tell you is that Brigham Young Unversity is a Mormon establishment with very weird political views and a long and distinguished history of odd pronouncements. It's a completely religious school.

So really the headline should have read "Fury as religious people claim 9/11 was 'inside job'".

When I hear people say its impossible for the towers to have collapsed I take it they have flown some planes into buildings in order to test this theory out?

Link: link

BoroMutt Posted on 12/9 18:30
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I always find it amusing that people who espouse these theories avidly read every crackpot theory as to how "it could only be inside job / government / whatever" but (usually) they have not read the official report.

In the case of 911 the report is available to read on line and documents exactly what happened, who was doing what and when, were F16s scrambled, what did they do, etc., et bleedin cetera...

Link: Of course this is probably a whitewash..

BobUpndown Posted on 12/9 18:36
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

where did the pentagon plane and people go then?? if it wasn't a plane and it didn't crash.. anyone know where Barbara Olson is now?? the wife of The Solicitor General of the USA..

many theories and edited accounts of why it didn't happen as it is reported abound.. just like how the moon landings were fake.. erm OK.. all state evidence at the last moment of an event.. they never detail counter information to the offical events during the time prior.. sometimes several hours prior.. because they are mainly hocum.. interesting but hocum non the less..

just as you should look into the truth of the news source.. you have to look into the conspiracy news source too..

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf#search=%229%2F11%20official%20report%22

--- Post edited by BobUpndown on 12/9 18:38 ---

Boro66 Posted on 12/9 18:45
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I've a cracking video of a phantom jet simulating hitting the wall of nuclear bunker, with a Maggie Philbin (I think) commentary and the plane atomises on impact leaving only the wing tips which did not hit the concrete.

But don't let that get in the way of a conspiracy theory

scoea Posted on 12/9 18:55
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I have read the official report and seen the public forum. The inconsistencies remain.

BoroMutt Posted on 12/9 18:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Fair enough Scoea. Short of taking you back in time to watch the events unfold no-one is ever going to convince you of what happened.

Sometimes people just have to believe what they want to believe.

fatharrywhite Posted on 12/9 18:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

i think scoea could be right, one of the engineers is pictured here

Link: link

peako_from_the_boro Posted on 12/9 19:11
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Scoea

Conspiricy theories are just that - theories.

Consider this - In the Clinton and Lewinsky affair both parties wished to keep the thing secret yet it leaked. So if something as low intensity as an extramarital affair including POTUS leaks what are the odds on something as complicated and labour intensive as planning the secret planting of high explosives in two buildings and then organising 4 simultaneous real plane hijackings then standing back and watching the carnage unfold, and not one leak has emerged beyond hearsay and whispers.

Rubbish the lot of it.

number9point5 Posted on 12/9 19:18
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

are you my sister in disguise? FFS get a life.

number9point5 Posted on 12/9 19:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"How does a tower colapse like that".

Simple engineering mate. The floors in the middle were burning with the floors above colasping onto them. the compbined high temp/wieght will cause the structural integrity of the floor to colapse in on themselves. You never seen demolition experts colapse a tower/chimney.

moxzin Posted on 12/9 19:26
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

No don't buy the conspiracy theory at all, for many reasons, but just a few off the top of my head.

Re: that video - all the plane debris shown is probably from crashes where the planes were going a lot slower than full speed, which is probably why there is wreckage. I much more expect a fully laden plane travelling at top speed to hit the ground and disappear. And I am pretty sure that I could direct a plane towards Washington, pick out the Pentagon and crash it into it, flight training or no.

But the killer for me is this - if it really was an insider job, designed to further the American agenda in the Middle East - how come none of the hijackers were Iraqi, or Afghani? Which would have absolutely perfick for the War on Terror. Why instead were they from the, very embarassing, Saudi state?

If indeed it was organised, it was botched. If the US government was going to do something so underhand, they'd do it right. They wouldn't use cargo planes (ffs don't people understand what silhouettes are?) if cameras are on them, for instance. Or use missiles (and if it was a missile on the Pentagon, according to the first photograph, thats one big missile).

And how does the bringing down (or shooting down if you must) of Flight 93 fit in if it was an inside job, why take F93 out of the game?

This stuff ties itself in knots. I just wish the FBI would release the damn videos.

skeelo Posted on 12/9 19:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Listening to the radio today, there was a debate about the airlines not having the hijackers names on the official flight list of passengers, and when said airlines were contacted about this they offered no explanation. So were Mr Atta and his clan ever on the planes ?
I've also seen lots of articles and internet footage about the conspiracy and have to say loose change was the best. Saying that i'll keep an open mind, time will tell.

scoea Posted on 12/9 19:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

The Pentagon thing just doesn't make sense Mox. I could take you through all the evidence and argue with you point by point but it would be futile because your position is so entrenched.

It irritates me that anyone that doesn't believe the US' official line is deemed naive or inferior in some way. You see my starting point on this was not to believe a word of it. Up until about 6 months ago whenever a conspiracy was talked about I found it so abhorrent and unbelievable that I dismissed it. However, having read the offical US reports, listened to the public forums in New York and seen the videos for myself I am convinced that not all is as it seems.

I intelligent enough to make my own judgements and some things just do not add up.

moxzin Posted on 12/9 19:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

If you were entrenched 6 months ago and changed your mind, what makes you think that I won't get out of my own particular trench and join you? I don't think that I inferred any superiority/inferiority in the two views, I apologise if I did, but I'd love to have some real answers about the two main inconsistencies that I see (Flight 93 and the nationality of the hijackers) that are major stumbling blocks to make the whole thing add up.

scoea Posted on 12/9 20:09
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I wasn't referring particularly to you Mox. Unfortunately I don't have the answers. All I know is that there are real questions that need answering and simply haven't been.

boroproud Posted on 12/9 20:17
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

how about the good ol' U S of A knew in advance that the hijackings were going to take place.There was something on tv just the other night about an american bloke who was spying for both the yanks and al queda.
maybe they decided to sacrifice the world trade centre in order to justify their 'war on terrorism'.helping the wtc's collapse to further enhance it.
according to reports flight 77(the pentagon plane) went below the radar screen approx 500 miles from Florida.at about the same time,2 fully armed military jets were scrambled to look for the plane,these jets were apparently given the wrong co-ordinates and finished up out over the ocean.i cant believe that for 1 second,do you really think the co-ordinates were given to a completely different direction at such an important time?that first video suggests to me that the plane never reached Washington(or at least the pentagon)and the mis guided jets story is just a cover up.
flight 93 to me was probably a 'victory of circumstances' for the yank government,with the passengers unwittingly helping Bush rather more than trying to help themselves!

Bernard_Samson Posted on 12/9 20:31
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Check out the link and then read the book, then make up your own mind.

Link: debunking the myths

deganya Posted on 12/9 20:37
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

well I'm with scoea on this one. The bottom line is that there is lots of questions being asked and no real answers are forthcoming. When you have this scenario they will always be a view taken that its a conspiricy.

With regard to the twin towers I beleive that it was a controlled demolition. Why? well not only does it look like a controlled explosion, but the science behind it doesn't quite convince me that jet fuel burning for 10 mins could melt steel which in some cases was 3" thick. Jet fuel burns at a tempurature lower than what is needed to melt steel.

But the one peice of evidence that convinces me that all is not what it seems is the third building that fell, WTC 7.

This building collapsed in much the same way as the twin towers did, and for those that think a fire would weaken the structure and cause the towers to fall then explain to me why WTC 7 collasped and was NOT on fire? it looked like a controlled demolition - exactly like the twin towers. There was footage of this falling on one of the documentarys that were shown this week. The one with the rookie fireman. Needless to say they never asked the question of why it had fell, but they did report that several fireman in the lobby of the twin towers heard what was several explosions before they got the hell out of there.

Until these questions are answered then I shall keep an open mind, but scoea makes some strong points towards a conspiricy.


Its also interesting or maybe just a coincidence that the WTC was insured against terroist attack just six months before the attack.

Bernard_Samson Posted on 12/9 20:42
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 20:48
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I've never seen a controlled explosion look like they did. And you don't have to melt steel to make it structurally weak.

scoea Posted on 12/9 20:49
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

That doesn't really add anything that was not contained within the original reports and investigations. There are gaping holes in a lot of the "facts". I have read those same responses many times but there are fundamental inaccuracies and half truths on both sides of this argument. I don't have time to type my concerns now but maybe tomorrow.

Revol_Tees Posted on 12/9 20:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

You don't really need conspiracy theories to uncover the most shocking scandals, as they're all open secrets anyway, continually propounded and rationalised by the crazed neo-cons who openly admit to acting in their own best interests (and our interests too, naturally). Look at the declassified documents, or the websites for American Enterprise Institute or the New American Century. mox has mentioned one already - America (and Britain)'s massive and ongoing support for one of the most vicious "Islamofascist" (snigger) governments in the world, Saudi Arabia. We sold them a fresh consignment of weaponry only a few months ago apparently. Not to mention the US's previous backing of the Taliban, and training of the mujahideen etc. Orchestrated by the same men in the Whitehouse/Pentagon as now.

deganya Posted on 12/9 20:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Perhaps you should choose a more appropriate word than 'FACT' maybe..counter claim because those are not facts, but opinions.

And I would like my facts to come from an independent source please.

crisboro Posted on 12/9 21:09
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Haven't read too much about the conspiracy theories. Presumably if people say that 9/11 was not a terroist attack then what is said about the previous attack on WTC, Madrid and London ?

TheSmogMonster Posted on 12/9 21:12
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Its true those buildings couldn't have dropped like that unless there was a controlled explosion, working with big structures has taught me something, real life isn't as neat as that.

I heard that explosive used to be places in many large buildings such as the twin towers, previous to the Oklahoma city bombings (where they contributed to the explosion) for ease of demolition later in life.

As pure speculation maybe these were used to demolish the building rather then have it fall haphazard onto the crowd below, the death total would be more then halved from what it could have been. It would be a PR nightmare, even though it may have been the right thing to do, so they've never come clean, I saw a documentry in the states 2 or 3 years ago, with the designer of the towers and he mentioned it himself, that they "wouldn't have helped".

boroproud Posted on 12/9 21:13
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Chris,i think its the fact that the aftermath of this WTC is much elaborate(for want of a better word) that makes the conspiracy theories more authentic to me.plus as i said earlier,certain claims which dont make sense.

sperks Posted on 12/9 21:19
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Some of the conspiracies are absolutely crazy. The number of people that would need to be in the know to pull all this off would be astronomical (though the payoffs might go some way to explain how all these people can afford the house prices here in NY).

The idea that the US government could find enough technically proficent people to plant the explosive devices in the three buildings and then keep them quiet about it, is laughable.

I'd suggest that the reason there are unanswered questions is either due to, or to hide incompetence.

People put far too much faith in mans ability to organize stuff. Just look at the war - Bush even *and*^ed up parts he wasn't trying to hide.

And finally, the look on Bush's mug when they told him what was happening! If this was an inside job, then he certainly wasn't in the know.

scoea Posted on 12/9 21:36
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I think the opposite of Bush' reaction.

boroborob Posted on 12/9 21:41
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Only idiots believe this tripe.

Earlier in this thread somebody sais that there are plenty of questions but no answers.

Usually its the case that the answeres are already there and in the public domain, its just that conspiracy theorists choose to ignore fact.

--- Post edited by boroborob on 12/9 21:43 ---

neiltrodden Posted on 12/9 21:44
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I think if there is a conspiracy then it is to release theories like this into the public domain to occupy people when they should be asking why the fook we invaded afghanistan and iraq, and why we have started to abandon the very freedoms we are supposed to be protecting.

scoea Posted on 12/9 22:15
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Typical reaction from Boroborob. Just because you don't believe it does not mean that those that do are idiots. It is just that type of reaction that really annoys me.

Once you have read the 911 Commission Reports, listened to the public debates and read pretty many, many books on the subject and watched most of the documentaries then you can come and question whether I am ignoring fact or accuse me of being an idiot.

There are any number of contradictory statements, unexplained events and anomolies that require answers. The fact of the matter is that I would be delighted to read those answers because the alternative is appalling. At this moment though I have serious doubts about the validity of the explanation of events on 11/09/01 because of things that I have read first hand contained within official publications from the investigations made post 9/11.

boroborob Posted on 12/9 22:19
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Typical reaction from Boroborob. Just because you don't believe it does not mean that those that do are idiots. It is just that type of reaction that really annoys me."

Idiots? Possibly not. Fantasists? Definately

"Once you have read the 911 Commission Reports, listened to the public debates and read pretty many, many books on the subject and watched most of the documentaries then you can come and question whether I am ignoring fact or accuse me of being an idiot."

Have you honestly done all of this? Thoroughly?

And remember this: all these conspiracy books and websites don't exist to reveal some great hidden truth, they exist to make money out of gullible mugs.


I wasn't really addressing my original post to you, scoea, so don't take it too personally.

Take any well publicised event and there's always those looking for conspiracies where none exist. I think they must do it to fill up some other gap in their lives.

redz69 Posted on 12/9 22:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

dont forget they went to the moon.....................................................................................................righto.

boroborob Posted on 12/9 22:23
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

And to address a particular point about the collapse of the towers.

Do you genuinely believe that a team of professional demolition experts managed to wire up the top floors of two of the largest structures in the world, with tens of thousands of people working around them, with nobody noticing? Wiring up a smaller building for demolition must take days. To do it without anybody noticing the work, or the explosives themselves, is a laugable notion.

And then not one of the dozens of people who would have been required have come forward since, either for moral or economic reasons?

It just doesn't stand the test of common sense.

Also, check out http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=pubs-english&y=2006&m=August&x=20060828133846esnamfuaK0.2676355

--- Post edited by boroborob on 12/9 22:27 ---

BoroMutt Posted on 12/9 22:33
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

A point about steel melting/failing

Whilst it is true that steel becomes molten at around 1300°C the "critical temperature" for steel is around 540°C a temperature easily achived in a house fire let alone the conflagration in the WTC.

Notes

1. "critical temperature" refers to the temperature above which structural steel loses its strength and is no longer fully capable of loadbearing support

2. Melting and critical temperature will vary according to the grade of steel used, figures quoted a for a typical "structural steel"

Timboi Posted on 12/9 23:35
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I agree with sperks. How could they possibly keep such a huge conspiracy completely quiet? Or did alot of people involved just 'disappear'?
It's effectively impossible to keep something this big under wraps; all the 'theories' don't have any actual people stating they were in on it, so although it's not impossible, it's very unlikely there was any sort of conspiracy.
The other problem I find with this conspiracy theory is that there were far easier ways to get the same result and reaction from the public, with less damage/death caused and alot less people required to be 'in the know'.

scoea Posted on 12/9 23:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

What if the twin towers were shut down and the power was cut from them the weekend before 9/11 for the first time in their history without explanation?

What if many witnesses confirmed the presence of numerous engineers over that weekend?

What if witnesses in the WTC including fire fighters both saw and heard explosions as the towers collapsed like "firecrackers"?

What if the Pentagon were equipped with automatic anti-aircraft defence systems designed to engage any aircraft entering the restricted airspace above the Pentagon?

What if the US Government released only one security camera video of the plane hitting the Pentagon when there were literally dozens of others available as well?

What if several engineers from MIT reported that there was evidence that the steel within the centre of the towers had melted and that therefore the temperature had to have been higher than could have been possible if only the jet fuel were the cause?

What if the leaseholder of building number 7 confirmed that it had been demolished deliberately?

What if there was a small explosion underneath each plane just before it impacted the towers?

Now I'm not saying for one minute that there aren't plausible explanations for these events. They are just a sample of suggestions made by the various conspiracy theorists. My problem is the lack of reasonable response in the official reports.

borojap Posted on 13/9 1:36
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

With issues like this, some people can't see beyond either black or white - if you question the official version, that means you must believe all the conspiracy theories.

Undoubtedly, many of the conspiracy theories put forward are utter nonsense. However, it's still hard to deny that there are many, many aspects of the US official version that simply don't add up and many legitimate questions that remain unanswered.

Unfortunately, what always happens when there are so many unanswered questions is that some people make ridiculous assumptions and come out with the craziest of 2 plus 2 = 75.4534 kind of theories. Of course, many of us will tire of hearing these and become understandably reluctant to listen to anyone questioning anything. For that reason, it wouldn't actually surprise me if the US administration themselves had a hand in some of the more crackpot theories, so as to help discredit the more serious ones.

Personally, I can't believe that it was ALL a big conspiracy. However, I think it's feasible that the Bush administration did know of some impending attack and decided that to let it happen, and perhaps even add to its dramatic effect, might serve their long term interests better. That's not to say they intended or even anticipated the scale of death and destruction that occcured though.

TheYak87 Posted on 13/9 1:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

The way conspiracy theories work is that they just pick holes with the official version and go "woah, theres something going on there, CONSPIRACY!" You can point out unusual things about the 9/11 terrorist attacks and some inconsistancies and get some crackpot 'expert' to back you but none of us know how a building is supposed to collapse if a plane flies into it. Just because you've read official reports does not make you any more qualified to decide what happened.
Has anyone established a complete theory of "This was planned by the government and the buildings were deliberately demolished"? No, because such a theory would have more holes than the official version. Conspiracy theorists just stand around saying "That looked like a controlled explosion to me", "They never found any plane debris" and decide its a conspiracy.
I have absolutely no respect for complete fools who believe any conspiracy theories. Yeah scoea, you are an idiot.

--- Post edited by TheYak87 on 13/9 2:03 ---

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 7:07
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

scoea, what kind of clown lawyer are you?

Supporting "conspiracy theories" based on lack of knowledge. What next, flying a flag for McClaren? Civil cases are usually decided on the "balance of probabilities" and not "beyond all reasonable doubt" as in criminal cases.

Engineering investigations, when the vast majority of the evidence is lost, are similarly decided after thorough investigation by engineering experts and conclusions based on "balance of probabilities". As an engineer, I've read the full reports on the WTC collapses and there is no doubt in my mind that the conclusions valid.

Incomplete knowledge is behind most "conspiracy theories" and the arguments that debunk them are usually over the heads of non-specialists.

Your knowledge of engineering is at about the same level as your knowledge of football. I say Ballacks to you!

The_Commisar Posted on 13/9 7:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Looks like Inage is back in town.

BobUpndown Posted on 13/9 7:44
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

they say a rocket flew into the pentagon.. but the bloke who is uoted says he's sick of being misquoted.. he says his real comment was 'the plane flew into the building like a rocket'.. and just gets misquoted time and again..

of all the ones that have a whiff of conspiracy.. the pentagon strike is the most questionable.. still where are the people and where is the plane.. if they didn't crash into the building.. in a bunker in Area 51? nah..

br14 Posted on 13/9 7:50
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Aviation fuel max combustion temperature is 980C - Open air burning temperature (most likely scenario in the towers) is upto 315C.

Either way, the steel in high rise buildings is supposed to be protected with a layer of insulation.

While I can see it may have been possible for aviation fuel and other combustible materials to burn at temperatures high enough to cause structural weakness in the steel - it certainly seems unlikely.

More likely that someone cut corners either in the quality of steel or in the type and thickness of insulation.

Engineers are supposed to take the occasional fire into account when constructing these buildings. You would think this would be particularly true for buildings of that height.

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 7:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

THEORIES MY ARSE. Next time you're at an airprt have a look at the size of a 767 and just imagine it loaded with fuel hitting a building.

scoea Posted on 13/9 8:19
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

TheYak and Hailstorm - thank you for your highly intellectual responses. It is often the weapon of the wek minded to simply insult someone with whom they disagree rather than enter into a reasonable debate. There is absolutely no justification for it and it is actually quite pathetic.

As I say when you have read the official reports into the disaster there ARE inconsistencies there and it is important in any democracy that such things are challenged, examined and investigated.

hailstorm/inage - I don't see what my knowledge of engineering (which I agree is basic at best) has to do with any of this. I simply stated that I have read engineering reports that raise various questions that require answers.

I also don't see the relevance of your reference to the standard of proof in civil/criminal cases. Perhaps you would enlighten me?

I am not (and have not) for one minute saying that the whole thing is a cover up and that the US Govt were behind it all. All I am saying is that there are various elements that still require explanation and yet they continue to be ignored by the powers that be. If that upsets you to the extent that you feel the need to come on here and insult people then tough.

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 8:25
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Lets just say I haven't seen any crash test dummies in a 767 loaded with avgas flying into a skyscraper, so my question would be; how can any engineer say with any degree of accuracy how a building would react in such cicumstances.
The engineer that built the WTC has said on camera it was designed to withstand a plane hitting it, but there wasn't any plane anywhere near to the size of a 767 when they were designed.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 8:40
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"dont forget they went to the moon.....righto.

Thank you redz69, finally someone agrees with me. That's why the US Government conspired to bring about 9/11. Those planes were all carrying people who had first hand evidence that the moon landings were faked.

I fooking told you!

Link: Moonfaker!

fatharrywhite Posted on 13/9 9:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"What if the twin towers were shut down and the power was cut from them the weekend before 9/11 for the first time in their history without explanation? What if many witnesses confirmed the presence of numerous engineers over that weekend?"

give me a break, the idea that these guys went in and hooked X amount of explosives is ludicrous beyond belief.

I've watched programmes on the demolition of buildings and it takes weeks of preparation, not one weekend

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 9:03
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

scoea: Of course there are questions. How can anything so complex as a fire situation in a high rise building that subsequently collapsed be answered so that "fools" don't pick on one minor point and then expand it into some justification for expounding theories of conspiracy and cover up? That's why I "insulted" you.

br14: The temperatures only have to rise above about 250 degrees before structural weakening takes place. In fact, kerosene vapours inside the building would first have ignited into a fire ball, then with air being drawn in from below through the lift shafts would set off "jet fires" as kerosene from the planes (almost fully fuelled) spread. It was established in the investigation that some of the structural fireproofing (insulation) was badly installed and some had become detached over time. Hence, the total structural collapse. I don't want to go into building codes and why such a building's steelwork fireproofing would not be designed to withstand hydrocarbon jet fires.

Does anybody remember Piper Alpha? This also, in theory, could not have happened. Most "educated" people would agree that "the more you know (about some subject), the more you realise you don't know (about that subject).

On some issues, I'm sufficiently cynical (or paranoid enough) to believe there are cover-ups at the highest level of government. This is not one of them.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 9:05
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"it takes weeks of preparation"

correction: it takes weeks of [extremely careful] preparation [so you don't accidentally blow yourself into tiny pieces]

It only takes a few hours of set decoration to fake a moon landing!

scoea Posted on 13/9 9:14
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Hailstorm, you seem familiar. I think that Commissar is on the money. Why do you change your username so frequently? Is it because you embarrass yourself to the extent that you have to?

I am not picking up on one minor point and expanding it, that appears to be your job. I have raised several questions that have gone unanswered (only one of which is that several independent and well respsected engineers have questioned the validity of the very argument that you put forward).

Once again you resort to insults. Out of interest (and this is a genuine question given that you are an engineer) - how do you explain that the steel was examined in the aftermath and was found to have melted significantly?

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 9:25
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Could it be that the shallowness of any official response to the theorists is because the officials view them with contempt and don't feel the need to respond to these people.

The_Commisar Posted on 13/9 9:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

People love conspiracies, they always have they always will.
Personnaly I think the mystery of Allens West is much more intriguing.

mtbnutcase Posted on 13/9 9:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Examples of progressive building collapse ? Have a search for Ronan Point during the early 80's in London, a gas blast took out a key column on the corner causing the entire building to fall down. Thats the example always used by Structural Design lecturers at uni.

Yes skyscrapers have a much tougher building code to follow but given the loss of numerous columns and the reduction in the yield strength of the steel it was always going to collapse. Have you ever seen prestressed concrete beams fail ? They literally explode firing concrete debris everywhere...

Once part of the floor collapsed either at the point of plane impact or as the columns above failed, the loads were transferred onto other parts of the structure that could support them temporarily but not long term, and once one floor collapses the loads drop onto the next floor which in turn fails hence the term progressive collapse.

Fire resistance in buildings is not permanent and only works for so long - the resistance is quoted in hours. Its mainly there to allow people to escape, not completely protect the structure.

Structural design lecture over...

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 9:37
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

-double-

--- Post edited by hailstorm on 13/9 9:43 ---

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 9:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

scoea: I've changed my user name twice, each time after a lengthy "debate" with you and the other "clown", Commi.

The reason I changed is that your partner in crime, yes Commi, has had my IP address blocked.

Commisar: A true Freudian slip picking that for a user name. Maybe, you think it's ironic, but I think it's a true reflection on your personality. True control freak.

--- Post edited by hailstorm on 13/9 9:38 ---

scoea Posted on 13/9 9:46
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

My partner in crime simply because we both have the same opinion of you? Hardly.

It was hardly debate on your part either.

Why was your IP blocked?

--- Post edited by scoea on 13/9 9:47 ---

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 9:48
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"The reason I changed is that your partner in crime, yes Commi, has had my IP address blocked."

Changing your username doesn't change your IP address. Just so you know.

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 9:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Yes I know that too. The reason I know it was my IP being blocked is I couldn't re-register. Is that OK?

Yes scoea: You're another control freak. That's why you respond in they way you do. You're just a know all who actually knows F... All. See my previous thread.

--- Post edited by hailstorm on 13/9 9:52 ---

red_rebel2 Posted on 13/9 9:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

9-11 conspiracies are the new UFO cover-ups.

It has become a massive worldwide industry, selling these fantasies about shape shifting lizard zionists and illuminati running a secret world government and orchestrating acts of terror to push forward their plans for a military slave economy. Look, you've seen V. You know how it works.

There are always gaps in information when it comes to government, security and military issues. But it astounds me that otherwise educated and respectable people jump into these gaps are suspend all normal levels of critical facility.

David Shayler (celebrity spy and alleged alter-ego of yours truely) is fast becoming the new David Icke. This week he has been on The Heaven and Earth Show and James Whale pushing his new money-making venture the London 9/11 Truth Campaign.

Basically his meetings - which allege a grand cover-up up of teh fact that the CIA/MI5/Zionists carried out 9/11 and 7/7 - are the forum to sell nutters books and DVDs from the whole sprectrum of right wing conspiraloonacy.

Shayler believes zionists helped organise the attack on the WTC, that it was carried out with missiles surrounded by holograms to look like planes and that it was an excuse for Israel to drag the US to a war on Islam (like they need an excuse!)

There are a lot of unanswered questions about 9/11, the relationship of the various intelligence agencies to Bin Laden and the way politicians have hijacked theissue to push other agendas. But to wed those questions to anti-semitic sci-fi lizard gobbledy-gook is lunacy.

Besides, if the plot is so grand and so ruthless and Shayler is bravely revealing it in his crusade for truth .. why haven't they bumped him off? I think it suits the state to have the real questions lost in a fog of stupidity.

The_Commisar Posted on 13/9 9:55
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Interesting use of the word clown, obviously in Inage speak it means "anyone who disagrees with Inage"

Just for the record, I never asked for your IP address to be blocked, nor would I. So, try again. Sure you can come up with some other allegations.
Looks like your conspiracy is wrong (give the bloke his due, he's consitent (consitently wrong))

neiltrodden Posted on 13/9 9:57
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

We landed on the moon, so fook off yoda! Anything to the contrary is just lunacy

"Either way, the steel in high rise buildings is supposed to be protected with a layer of insulation." - read a bit about the new building and they have changed the design as in the impact, large amounts of this was damaged so removing a lot of the protection.

Holograms around planes? Lunacy again.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 9:59
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"The reason I know it was my IP being blocked is I couldn't re-register. Is that OK?"

Chill out dude. I was just trying to make sure there was at least one FACT in this thread.


Also it's obvious that "The Man" has gotten to Trodden!

--- Post edited by YodaTheCoder on 13/9 10:01 ---

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 10:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

So Commi, it was just coincidence and you still can't spell "big words". Actually after the first time, I emailed Rob Nicholls and Rivals and had my "IP" unblocked. The second time, I just couldn't be bothered.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 10:01
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

And so begins the sad, spastic dance of the die-hard conspiracy theorist, where each time a cause for doubt is logically explained, another more ludicrous claim pops up to take its place.

Please, scoea, link to a site that shows proof that the World Trade Centre was actually closed for long enough for a demolitions team to rig it to perfection. I bet you can't, because you're talking rubbish.

Even if they're was some kind of 'conspiracy', you and your ilk do the truth no favours by spouting so much unmitigated balls. In fact, you'd be aiding whoever wanted a coverup by adding to the FUD.

The_Commisar Posted on 13/9 10:05
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Inage
a) I have never asked you to be banned in any way or form from this or any other site (that I am aware of) feel free to mail Rob, Rivals or anyone else you can think of, then again, you probably have it maked down as a conspiracy already so WTF.
b) keep the insults coming, I'm laughing at your bluster.

hailstorm Posted on 13/9 10:08
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

What bluster?

Big_Shot Posted on 13/9 10:09
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Wouldn't a lot of the fireproofing have been destroyed on the floors where the planes hit?

Guisboro Posted on 13/9 10:11
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Scoea, I'm interested in reading more about the conspiracy theories.

Which books would you recommend I read ?

For the record, I will also buy the book recommended by Bernard_Samson "Debunking 9/11 myths"

Has anyone read the book on the link below - I think it is very new on the market. As I understand, it is an illustrative version of the full report Scoea previously referred to (a lazy boys version !)

Link: any good ?

scoea Posted on 13/9 10:15
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I am sorry that this thread has degenerated into posters simply insulting those with whom they disagree - that means you boroborob and hailstorm. People are allowed to have independent thoughts you know!

boroborob - I could link you to interviews with several leasholders of office space in the WTC at the time of the attacks that confirmed that they received advance warning 3 months prior to the attacks that the towers were going to be shut down for the weekend but what would that prove? You wouldn't believe that it were true.

You all seem to be giving me this label of conspiracy nut without really reading what I am saying. I am not saying that the WTC was demolished. I do think that the US Govt had advance knowledge of the attacks, chose to do nothing at best or actively encouraged it at worst and haven't explained various things that happened on that day that I think merit explanation. That is based on reading the official reports into the disaster and listening to the various public forums in NYC. I am not simply believing propoganda (such as Michael Moore's efforts) but rather making my own judgement on events.

Red_Rebel actually has it spot on - there is not enough transparency regarding the agencies involved in 9/11 and entirely too many unexplained events. I should be able to say that without it being interpreted as me saying that the US instigated the attacks and demolished the WTC towers to justify a war and then covered it up.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 10:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I asked for a link. You haven't given me one. It's not for you to decide what I will or won't believe. If the evidence is strong, I'll have no choice but to be convinced.

I want a link showing that the towers were shut down for long enough to plant explosives for a controlled demolition.

You need to be able to seperate my verdict on your opinion with my opinion of you. You take this far too personally and I think it clouds your judgement.

If you're saying that the towers were closed so that demolitions teams could plant explosives then you *are* saying that the US government demolished the towers. And you're saying theyre in cahoots with Al Qaeda. And you're saying that they killed thousands of their own civilians on live TV.

--- Post edited by boroborob on 13/9 10:22 ---

--- Post edited by boroborob on 13/9 10:23 ---

scoea Posted on 13/9 10:35
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I am not taking anything personally at all, this is only a messageboard after all. I simply disagree with anybody resorting to that type of post.

Have a look on google video and type in 911. That will give you all the links you need. The towers were powered down and closed the weekend before 9/11 for the first time in their history. My wanting an answer as to why is not the same as me accusing the US Govt of laying detonation charges and then setting them off. It is just one on many occurrences that continues to be unexplained.

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 10:36
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Scocea,
These public forums in NYC you mention, surely they are just a group of people giving their opinions, they're not not necessarily dealing in facts are they.

scoea Posted on 13/9 10:46
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Well, kind of. The particular one that I remember watching was after the release of the Commission Report where members of the public got the chance to ask questions. Mayor Giuliani was present and it was very heated and people were ejected etc. Some of the more pertinent questions were asked but no satisfactory answers were given.

fatharrywhite Posted on 13/9 10:46
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

admittedly entering 'world trade center closed one week before 9/11' into google is slightly vague but not one link has come up with anything about this.

have you got a link - not having a go, genuinely interested if this was the case

mf_c Posted on 13/9 10:49
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Several questions to add to the pot :

1. The documentary shown on the 1st anniversary showed the 1st plane hitting the 1st tower. This was the first time I'd seen the first bit and there was no explosion, small or otherwise, before the plane hit.

2. We know GWB is crazy but is he really crazy enough to murder 3,000 of his own people ?

3. Money talks in America. Why have none of these "engineers" sold their story about what they were doing that weekend ?

4. Surely the engineers were not that stupid as to question why they were placing explosives in New York's best known landmark.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 10:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I asked for links and you give me advice on how to use google video.

You've fallen at the first hurdle.

Next time you make wild claims, make sure you have evidence to back it up. Forget planting explosives, you haven't even been able to demonstrate that the towers were closed for a couple of days.

You're not able to prove anything, all you're able to do is cast doubt on the official version of events by asking spurious questions and ignoring the answers. You're a perfect example of why conspiracy theorists are held with such low regard outside of their own circles.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 11:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Ton-up for the crazy thread. w00t!

scoea Posted on 13/9 11:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Of course I can't prove anything because I have no first hand evidence. Neither do you. Watch these videos which contain interviews with workers based in the WTC.

There are many documents and statements that I have read confirming the shut down so try and ignore the propoganda within the videos and concentrate solely on the witnesses giving their version of events.

Link: Link

Juventus2 Posted on 13/9 11:01
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

mf_c, your first point is a valid one but from as an objective point of view as a I can muster your others have already been answered. No one is saying GWB murdered 3,000 of his own citizens, they're saying , basically, something fishy went on. No one on this thread has said at any point that they believe it was all planned by America or anything as ludicrous. And as for the two points about the engineers, I doubt, if it were true, that the CIA or whatever would just go up to a private firm and hire them to do it. It would be the very agency's insiders - I think they'd have one or two experts on engineering and explosives in the American Secret Services (and high enough up for them to be serving their own interests by keeping quiet).

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 11:04
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Links are not that hard to find.

This one was top of the list in Google. There are dozens more

Link: WTC powered down and closed

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:08
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Of course I can't prove anything because I have no first hand evidence. Neither do you."

I believe that the burden of proof falls on you.

The whole stance of the conspiracy theorist is that the official line can be proven to be a lie.

Don't ask me to prove something that has already been agreed upon. Instead, provide evidence or at least something beyond 'what if' 'what if' 'what if...'


I managed to find some pages referring to this 'power down', and it only seems to have occured in the south tower. For one weekend. What about the north tower? Did it collapse out of sympathy. This wasn't a closing of the tower as you suggested with the phrase 'shut down', rather the electrical supply was interrupted.

And I'm no demolitions expert, but I strongly doubt that a weekend is long enough to rig up a building that size.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 11:11
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I'm no demolitions expert either, but if I wanted to make a tower fall over I'd wire the bottom floors.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:11
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Links are not that hard to find."

Not when you search for 'powered down'. But scoea claimed they were shut down and closed, so I was basing my search on that.

One tower had its power cut, for one weekend, for about half the building.

neiltrodden Posted on 13/9 11:15
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Did it collapse out of sympathy"


Maybe, just maybe it fell down because of the massive fireball caused by two jet airliners hitting it. Anyone who thinks this was a conspiracy needs to remember how outraged the whole us was by this and how 'any' shred of evidence that anything was underhand would have brought down the us government.

red_rebel2 Posted on 13/9 11:17
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Loremipsum:

thetruthseeker is the home all kinds of freaks. I would be very wary of any claim of truth on there as they also state as unequivocally true that the Queen of England is the current leader of the Illuminati, that all the world's leaders are shape shifting lizards and that zionism runs the global drugs trade.

moxzin Posted on 13/9 11:17
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

red_rebel - isn't it slightly discouraging, in light of your good post that I agree with, that most of the material linked to on this thread isn't from the far-right but instead from places like Indymedia and "Progressive Review"? To a few it seems, its the next logical step from being anti-war and anti-George Bush - not just remove the casus belli, but turn it into a casus belli itself against the American government.

I think its extreme to imagine that the American government conducted this attack as a "False Flag" operation. But I also think its extreme to think that the American government "let this happen".

Call me crazy, but I think it was an attack by 19 terrorists who used elements of surprise and their host's arrogance as well as boxcutters to, really, only carry out two of their objectives out of the 4. It wasn't really "too perfect" to disbelieve that it could be done.

Guisboro Posted on 13/9 11:20
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

sorry, posting this again as everyone seems to be bickering amongst themselves and not helping

Scoea, I'm interested in reading more about the conspiracy theories.

Which books would you recommend I read ? Not that interested in links as I dont have any major time to read the net.

For the record, I will also buy the book recommended by Bernard_Samson "Debunking 9/11 myths"

Has anyone read the book on the link below - I think it is very new on the market. As I understand, it is an illustrative version of the full report Scoea previously referred to (a lazy boys version !)

Link: anyone ??

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 11:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

The phrase "Conspiracy Theorist" is an insult in itself these days - and the witch-hunting and ridicule directed at those who do not accept official stories at face-value is somewhat akin to that directed at the likes of Galileo for promoting the heresy that the earth orbited the sun.

I would interested to know, from people who believe the official line about the WTC attacks, if they also believe the following - which are part of the official story:

1. A car, belonging to the hijackers, was found at the airport with a copy of the Koran and a book about learning to fly on the seat
2. The passport of Mohammed Atta was found on top of the pile of rubble that was the World Trade Center
3. Mohammed Atta was the leader of the group and died in one of the planes (this contradicts his father who maintains that his son is alive and well in Saudi Arabia)
4. Passengers on Flight 93 made mobile phone calls to their "loved ones"

I prefer to keep an open mind on all things, but to blindly follow without questioning is surely a mistake.

fatharrywhite Posted on 13/9 11:24
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

looking at the link it appears that we have gone from 'the towers were closed down for the weekend' to the 'floors above 50 clsoed down in the south tower only'. a big difference there for a start

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 11:25
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

red_rebel2 - I don't read Truthseeker

I posted the link because it was at the top of the list when I Googled.

99% of the stuff on the net, including this BBS, is not worth the pixels it's written with

scoea Posted on 13/9 11:25
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

You're missing the point entirely. I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am pointing out suspicious circumstances that require explanation.

"I believe that the burden of proof falls on you.

The whole stance of the conspiracy theorist is that the official line can be proven to be a lie"

I am not trying to prove that the official version is a lie. I am pointng out matters that I think require explanation.

If you watch those videos and read the statements it was very unusual activity on the weekend that was ignored despite people like Mr Forbes bringing it to the commission's attnetion several times.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Yes I can believe all of those.

They'd been taking flying lessons, why wouldn't they have a book on the subject? And of course they'd have a Koran.

Did you know that a pair of bound hands, believed to belong to an air hostess, was found in the rubble?

A father won't accept his son is dead? Show me Mohammed Atta alive and well and maybe I'll doubt that he was blown up on the plane.

And people did make calls from Flight 93. I don't get this one. Even if it was Lee Harvey Oswald flying the plane in the employ of a cyrogenically frozen Walt Disney, they still made those calls. Why is this even being questioned?

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:31
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"You're missing the point entirely. I am not trying to "prove" anything. I am pointing out suspicious circumstances that require explanation."

Ok. So did you know the people that hijacked any of the aeroplanes?

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 11:34
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

About the mobile phone calls from Flight 93

Apparently, it's impossible.

Well, not impossible, but extremely unlikely. The chance of getting a connection is very low. I saw a graph, produced by some professor at, I think, Stamford University, demonstrating this and I seem to recall that the odds of getting a connection (which depends on location and altitude) were something like 3 in a hundred thousand.

Nowadays, some airlines make a big thing that they're introducing planes from which calls can be made.

I am no scientist and I'm not trying to prove any points - it's just that some aspects of certain things do not seem very credible.

green_beret20 Posted on 13/9 11:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I wouldn't describe the call that it was an impossibility for the towers to collapse, as suspicious circumstance.

Its been explained time and again. Personally I'm willing to believe what I physically saw for myself rather than some untested theory by some complete stranger on the net.

Im sure there are some small inconsistancies but I'm willing to believe some evidennce has been withheld for on going security measures, rather than some claim its one big cover up.

scoea Posted on 13/9 11:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

What?

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:41
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Apparently, it's impossible."

No, its not impossible.

The plane companies dont let you fly because it causes too much strain on the cellular phone network, with each call being passed from cell to cell too rapidly which would bring it down if everyone did it.

The plane was flying low enough for people to be in contact with the mobile phone stations.

I'm sure plenty of americans have taken cell phone son board planes in the US over the last ten years. Don't you think a bit more would have been said when they saw the recently released movie that showed these calls taking place?

And are you suggesting that actors phoned the families of these people? Or the families are lying? Or that they weren't on a plane?

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:42
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

scoea - are you denying you knew anybody involved in the hijacking? Your refusal to answer my question intrigues me.

--- Post edited by boroborob on 13/9 11:43 ---

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 11:45
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I am suggesting nothing. It is not my place to suggest things. I ask.

One of the transcripts of the "calls" reads rather strangely - it is (and I cannot recall the guy's name, so I'll call him Fred Bloggs):

"Hello Mom, this is Fred Bloggs, your son ..."

Apart from the name, that is verbatim. Does that not seem strange to you? It does to me. I offer no explanations or suggestions, just questions.

--- Post edited by LoremIpsum on 13/9 11:46 ---

scoea Posted on 13/9 11:45
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Of course I didn't know anyone involved. Your question intrigues me.

boroborob Posted on 13/9 11:50
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Of course, you would say that. ;)

I'm off to the Lakes now. Been a fun debate.

If my car breaks down, I'll be expecting answers.

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 11:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"The plane was flying low enough for people to be in contact with the mobile phone stations."

An interesting notion, in that the absolute cut-off threshold for making a call from an aeroplane is 3000 feet.

Interesting also is that it was flying over very open countryside where one can assume there are fewer masts.

Interesting also in that this was not one of the modern "we'll relay calls" planes.

CrazyL Posted on 13/9 11:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Israel have justified going in hard in Lebanon on the basis of Hezbollah killing 3 soldiers and kidnapping another 2.The USA wouldnt need to plan something on the scale of 9/11 to justify an invasion of Iraq or Afganistan.A coachload of American weapons inspectors kidnapped by Al Qaeda / The Taliban would have been quite sufficient.

red_rebel2 Posted on 13/9 11:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Mox:

Why discouraging? Are you trying to score cheap points by pushing conspiraloons to the left? I have never come across any such ideas on in almost 30 years on the left. We believe in a different conspiracy altogether. Called capitalism.

Besides, IndyMedia in the USA is run by greens, ecos and peace corp radicals. In England it is run by anarchos. The Progressive Review is not particularly left leaning either. It is government/security tittle-tattle, a bit like Private Eye.

You should not draw any conclusions from truthseeker. Most of the stuff that is linked is to things that only tenuously can be claimed to support the idea of a cover-up. They throw a confetti storm of links and quotes at you. It sounds like evidence but when you actually examine it they lack substance.

More disturbibg I think is that they claim John Pilger and Robert Fisk as columnists just because they link to particular pieces written elsewhere.

For what it is worth, I agree with your assessment: terrrorists done it. I do think there are still a lot of questions unanswered but that the silence on them is because of standard paranoid security reasons rather than because George and Ariel ordered the attack.

--- Post edited by red_rebel2 on 13/9 11:56 ---

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 12:04
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"An interesting notion, in that the absolute cut-off threshold for making a call from an aeroplane is 3000 feet."

What is the source for this information?

As I understand it a mobile phone is capable of communicating with a cell site up to 8 miles away (~42,000 feet).

edit: Having looked again it appears that GSM has a maximum range of 35km, and given that a plane in the air is unlikely to have many obstacles between it and the cell mast why wouldn't it be able to achieve that maximum (maybe the aircraft itself would add some shielding).

--- Post edited by YodaTheCoder on 13/9 12:12 ---

zoec Posted on 13/9 12:10
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

The new "we'll relay" planes are to make sure the mobiles use the network on the plane and not look for ground networks, which does imply that they must be able to as it stands at the moment.

Trestu Posted on 13/9 12:18
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

It's 11/9 not 9/11, when will people realise we render the date differebtky from the yanks?

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 12:26
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

My opinion on the consipracy debate is that yes there are missing answers to questions (the main one for me being the relationship of the US administration with Bin Laden and his family, and the Saudi state (hope they enjoy the new Eurofighters they've bought by the way)).

I can't believe a cover-up on this scale can have survived this long, it was mental enough expecting everyone involved with alleged fake moon landings to have kept schtum that long, but not this, far far too many people and massive organisations involved.

On my favourite subject of pedantry I'd be extremely impressed if Mox could fly a 757 onto a particular spot on the ground untrained. What you're effectively saying there is you could land a 757 with no training and surely that's not a viable claim now is it?

Trestu Posted on 13/9 12:30
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I don't believe in conspiracy theories, I think the're all made up by a secret government organisation to supress the masses.

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 12:37
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Yoda - my source was the Stamford chappie I mentioned earlier. I don't know if it's right or not and I can't be bothered to look for it again - mainly because I only stumbled on it last time, from a link in the Grauniad, I think.

As for conspiracy theories; here's one:

In the early 1960s, a few people doubted the official version of events surrounding the Gulf of Tonkin incident. This was, apparently, an unprovoked attack on US warships by North Vietnamese gunboats. It provided the pretext for large-scale bombing of North Vietnam and for the US intervention in what was, until then, a civil war.

The conspiracy theorists were labelled as idiots.

Lo and behold. The Gulf of Tonkin incident never actually happened. It was invented by the US administration. This is an admitted historical fact - apparently.

So, it sometimes pays to question, methinx



--- Post edited by LoremIpsum on 13/9 12:43 ---

green_beret20 Posted on 13/9 12:39
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I know, I half expect Elvis to walk in right now.

neiltrodden Posted on 13/9 12:42
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"The Gulf of Tonkin incident never actually happened - or the second one didn't - something like that. It was invented by the US administration. This is an admitted historical fact"

Or maybe, or something, or was it...no..yes.. I mean FACT!!!!

Trestu Posted on 13/9 12:43
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

HMMM maybe 11/9 never actually happened? And the World trade centre towers are still there hidden by an SEP field?

Ready for America to bring back when the believe the have world domination?

Tin foil hats at the ready everyone!

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 12:44
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Why do people write books - To make lots of money.
What sells loads of a particular book - being controversial.

deganya Posted on 13/9 12:44
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

its sad that people on here can not enter into a a decent debate on something that affects all our lives. Instead have to resort to insults and childish name calling.

I will ask again - would someone please tell me why WTC 7 collapsed even though it wasnt attacked nor was it on fire?

deganya Posted on 13/9 12:46
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

its sad that people on here can not enter into a a decent debate on something that affects all our lives. Instead have to resort to insults and childish name calling. When you resort to that level I'm afraid your arguments dont have any merit otherwise you would use the strength of your argument rather that name calling.

I will ask again - would someone please tell me why WTC 7 collapsed even though it wasnt attacked nor was it on fire?

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 12:48
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I don't suppose the structural integrity of the WTC7 might have been damaged/weakened by the collapse of 1 and 2.

green_beret20 Posted on 13/9 12:48
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Did you miss the 1.2 million tons of falling debris part?

Trestu Posted on 13/9 12:49
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Because it was built shodily? Because there was lots of vibrations around to take it down?

Or maybe the FBI had it destroyed because it contains "those" pictures of lee harvey oswald?

Hmmm Call the police? only you can't because they may be run by the freemasons who could be in on it all? abandon planet earth!!!!

--- Post edited by Trestu on 13/9 12:50 ---

fatharrywhite Posted on 13/9 12:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

it was on fire

Link: link

Trestu Posted on 13/9 12:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

No it wasn't Wikipedia is ran by a combination of the american secret service and SPECTRE in order to dis-inform and confuse everyone.

I thought this was common knowledge?

Bernard_Samson Posted on 13/9 12:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Just for the record Mohammad Atta's passport was not found on Vesey Street a couple of blocks away from the world trade centre, however Satam al-Suqami was.

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 12:55
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

OK Deganya is that good enough?

scoea Posted on 13/9 12:55
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Read that link in full harry.

green_beret20 Posted on 13/9 12:59
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Just to jog your memory.

Yep looks pretty deadly, you know, people running for their lives.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 13/9 13:00 ---

Link: link

fatharrywhite Posted on 13/9 13:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

i have done, and all the reports say it was caused by fire, debris from the other 2 towers, and the original design of the building

deganya Posted on 13/9 13:07
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Read it properly fat harry, and dont go quoting stuff when you havnt done your homework. Thats doesnt supply any facts or explanations based on facts.

Would you also like to tell me why all the steel structure from the twin towers, was taken away at the first opportunity and melted down at scrap yards all over the world? And every bit of scrap that left new york was fitted with GPS so that it was known where it was.
You have to remember this was a forensic investigation yet they allowed all the evidence to disappear. If it didnt need to be used for forensic reasons to find out exactely why the towers collapsed then it most certainly was needed for the future build of all sky scrapers. Seems strange to me and no one has ever produced answers.

Guisboro Posted on 13/9 13:07
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Bernard_Samson you seem very well versed on a lot of the conspiracy/truths on 9/11

What did you read - can you recommend me anything ?

Towell Posted on 13/9 13:10
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Money Deganya, the company getting paid to clear the site won't have wanted tons of scrap metal laying around when they can get loads of $$$ for it besides only a small quantity would be needed for tests on its properties.

LoremIpsum Posted on 13/9 13:13
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Surely the basic point of this thread - and of Scoea's arguments - is that there are unanswered questions surrounding the events of September 11th?

To deny that there are unanswered questions seems to be a triumph of gullibility over intelligence.

We cannot expect to be told everything - for whatever reason, stuff is always kept secret. This in itself gives rise to questions.

But it is certain that governments do tell lies (or distort the truth, to be kind) to further their ends. This includes the invention of pretexts to go to war.

CrazyL Posted on 13/9 13:13
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Why would WT7 need to be blown up too?Why would so many people have to die to justify a 'war on terror'? The argument that the Americans orchestrated the whole thing in order to precipitate a strike on Iraq or Afganistan doesn't stand up to any sort of scrutiny.A bomb in the US embassy in Kabul would have done just the same job.

moxzin Posted on 13/9 13:16
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"On my favourite subject of pedantry I'd be extremely impressed if Mox could fly a 757 onto a particular spot on the ground untrained. What you're effectively saying there is you could land a 757 with no training and surely that's not a viable claim now is it?"

So all of a sudden, I said I could land a plane? Not at all. I couldn't land a plane or take off a plane or do anything in a plane remotely safe. I wouldn't want to be on a plane I was flying. But get a plane that is already in the air and crash it into a highly visible landmark? Easy. I think people are putting too much store in the supposed skill of these hijackers. Supposedly picking out the Trade Centers first time, for instance, was aeronautical genius. How about the fact they would have been visible for miles on approach on that brilliantly clear September morning? Maybe I'm exaggerating, saying I could do it today. But with a bit of research, some rudimentary flight lessons and some all night sesh's on Flight Simulator which these fella's had, it suddenly doesn't seem so hard to crash a plane where you want it to crash. So I discount that from any conspiracy theory, personally.

red_rebel - the only reason I mentioned what I did, was because from the nature of your post, you were suggesting that these things only emanate from the anti-semitic or anti-government Right (which is what you'd expect). I was merely suggesting that there are leftists who believe this stuff too, because it fits neatly into their worldview at the moment. That is all. Cindy Sheehan started by opposing the war, and was soon blaming Jewish cabals and that her son died for Israel. Just an example of how extreme opposition to something can push you into extreme places (if, of course, we agree that Iraq being a Likudnik war is indeed extreme).

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 13:23
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Can somebody tell me then who left the aircraft engine and part of a undercarriage on Broadway.

Bernard_Samson Posted on 13/9 13:27
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Think I posted this earlier, if not this is the best one.

Link: Linky clicky

Towell Posted on 13/9 13:30
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

yer sorry about that Kendal, i'd forget my head if it wasn't screwed on right.

fatharrywhite Posted on 13/9 13:31
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

ok, you got me. i wont believe the National Institute of Standards and Technology, American Society of Civil Engineers, Society of Fire Protection Engineers, National Fire Protection Association, American Institute of Steel Construction, Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat and Structural Engineers Association of New York and will instead go along with conspirasists (sp).

in fact, i'll even believe that if their theory is a smokescreen that not one employee has come forward to say so.

There are many theories that are believable (i can actually go along with flight 93 being shot down) but nothing is going to convince me that anything other than two planes caused the towers to fall and subsequently that this building fell as a result of it.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 13:34
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Kendal that was a hologram. Wise up man!

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 13:51
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Can somebody also tell me who got the grisly job of scattering body parts on the plaza between the two buildings, and where did they manage to find so many decapitated bodies a such short notice.

Towell Posted on 13/9 13:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Tescos had an offer on.

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 14:04
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Maybe the whole of the civilised world was transported to a hologram deck just like on Star Trek Voyager,just for the day like.

scoea Posted on 13/9 14:06
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

is there a point to your previous posts Kendal because if there is I am clearly missing it.

KENDAL Posted on 13/9 14:32
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Can somebody tell me what shape an aeroplane makes in a building when it enters it at 500kts.

TheYak87 Posted on 13/9 14:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Ask scoea, he's probably read a couple of reports on that subject qualifying him as on Official Conspiracy Crackpot Expert.
Has there ever been a complete conspiracy theory including all the events of 9/11 that has less inconsistancies than the official version? ...............no

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 15:13
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Mox, the act of making an aircraft hit a specific point on the ground is a skilled activity, or rather it isn't an unskilled activity put it that way. It is the same skills required of a landing in terms of spatial accuracy and vertical navigation, that's what I was getting at. In unskilled hands you will overshoot or undershoot, or in trying to recover from either will render the aircraft uncontrollable. I know you're not fiddling with landing gear etc but then again at the speeds those chaps were going you haven't got the benefit of slower flight with the aid of devices like flaps and slats. So to get that 757 where they got it was either ridiculously lucky, or they'd practiced well and were skillful, but most likely a bit of both. Your average joe's in the Potomac mate, or 5 blocks the other way.

As for the WTC, that's a bit easier although the second aircraft was brought in on a curved approach at 30 degrees of bank. Again, a non-trivial exercise.

Unless you're playing in a toy simulator like that Microsoft thing....."Not as real as it gets".

scoea Posted on 13/9 15:16
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Yak you are making yourself look foolish, nobody else. I suggest you read my posts again and try and understand the points being made.

--- Post edited by scoea on 13/9 15:18 ---

neiltrodden Posted on 13/9 15:20
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"As for the WTC, that's a bit easier although the second aircraft was brought in on a curved approach at 30 degrees of bank."

I don't think they were showboating, they had made an error and had to bank very, very hard to get it to hit. Were they more skillful, they wouldn't have had to do as much correction surely.

green_beret20 Posted on 13/9 15:23
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Ive just found Scoeas wet dream.

UFO's and the World Trade Center combined.

--- Post edited by green_beret20 on 13/9 15:24 ---

Link: ;ink

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 15:24
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Oh yeah I agree Neil, I wasn't making them out to be display pilots, I was (badly) trying to say they had the nous to get it in from where they approached from. They could have missed, they really could, at their 500kts they were at.

scoea Posted on 13/9 15:25
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Grow up. The UFO was a plane sent by the US Government for surveillance.

--- Post edited by scoea on 13/9 15:26 ---

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 15:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"It is the same skills required of a landing in terms of spatial accuracy and vertical navigation"

Not quite. When you are landing you care about your approach speed and angle, when you are crashing you can make violent last-minute(seconds) adjustments.

OnAMission5 Posted on 13/9 15:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Surely this is a conspiracy!

Link: "Ghostly Projections of Twin Towers"

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 16:22
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Not quite" - I can live with that, Yoda.

My point is, it's not as easy as it's made out. When you see people try to park a f ckin car it seems a bit rich that all of a sudden they're experts on, and well capable of, driving a jet airliner onto a building!

moxzin Posted on 13/9 16:24
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Unless you're playing in a toy simulator like that Microsoft thing....."Not as real as it gets". "

Ironically I think thats what they did practice on. And its what a lot of pilots practice on. I can take off and (just about) land on FS2002, but it doesn't mean I think I could do that in real life. But, it has introduced me to the fairly obvious idea that its far easier to take control of an already flying jet and crash it somewhere (as I've found while trying to sightsee in Manhattan, thats my excuse anyway) than land it on pinpoint runway at no discomfort or danger to passengers.


Some more difficult questions for the theorists include - why choose the WTC as the target, a very expensive (both in terms of its value and its value within the world economy) one? And why use aeroplanes, grounding air fleets for days, again affecting millions and millions of dollars lost? All these people care about is $$$ right?

It just seems too much like inconvenient weapons, hitting inconvenient buildings, by inconvenient (in terms of nationality) people. If you really wanted to construct a false flag operation on this scale, I think you'd want it to be slightly more...convenient.

--- Post edited by moxzin on 13/9 16:25 ---

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 16:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Plenty of kamikaze pilots missed those massive carriers though Mox... (yeah I know they were getting shot at, but hey, it's eeeeeeeeeeeasy, innit?)

CrazyL Posted on 13/9 16:34
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I was talking about this with someone in the know only on Sunday and he told me that car racing simulators are now so accurate, in terms of their comparison with the real life experience, that drivers are now using them to practice for real races.In fact they took a champion games player, stuck him in an indi car, and within a couple of hours he was posting lap times within 2 seconds of the world champion, even though he had never driven a real race car before.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 16:44
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

CrazyL, I call shenanigans on the champion games player story. I doubt he'd be physically fit enough to handle the stress of driving those type of cars (or even fit in the thing :)

The modern games might look ultra-real, but they don't feel it. Good for learning the course though (didn't Top Gear do something like this at Laguna Seca?)

--- Post edited by YodaTheCoder on 13/9 16:45 ---

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 17:07
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I agree Yoda, Flight Simulator is great for learning instrument procedures, for example, but gets nowhere near the "feel" of the experience especially of the controls themselves (even posh joysticks aren't the same).

CrazyL Posted on 13/9 17:17
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Nothing to do with the physical feel-it took the guy a while to get used to driving the car.However the breaking points,speeds into corners,angles into corners,angle out,acceleration points (where to be on the track and at what speed basically)are almost perfect in simulation to what they are in real life.Therefore he was able to transpose the performance and make good times.

Derby_Red Posted on 13/9 17:22
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Looking it at it like that it sounds more like the sims the airlines use to train their pilots (no, not FS 2002), for example.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 17:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Sorry, but until I see that with my own eyes I don't believe someone who had no previous experience IN the car could handle the G-forces nor get over what must be the pant-wetting realisation that they're not playing a game and could kill themselves if they stuff it into a wall.

neiltrodden Posted on 13/9 17:33
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

That was the conclusion of Clarkson on Laguna Seca. The zero-fear to "I'm going to die!!" transition stops you pushing yourself.

Towell Posted on 13/9 17:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Clarkson is a big girls blouse though

YodaTheCoder Posted on 13/9 18:01
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

And I still maintain most gamers couldn;t fit their sofa-sized arses into the seat (myself, most definitely, included).

I'm also bitter my Sensible Soccer skillz haven't translated into 5-a-side glory.

riverboat_captain Posted on 13/9 18:15
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Regardless of the merits of this particular conspiracy theory, isn't it remarkable how many serious commentators now find it difficult to accept anything that the Blair/Bush partnership tell us, at face value.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/9 8:22
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Hoof for Mark cos it looks like we're about to go around again...

the_sphine Posted on 14/9 9:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Actually, the racing game to real car thing has an element of truth to it, I forget the names/dates/game but there was a guy who was given the opportunity to drive a WRX off the back of his gaming ability - I believe it started as a gimmick but he turned out to be so talented that he was given the car to race in a few rallies and did reasonably well.

It might have been Fifth gear, but I'm not sure. Still a long way from 'quickly lapping within a couple of seconds of the champion' though.

deganya Posted on 14/9 9:26
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

'Money Deganya, the company getting paid to clear the site won't have wanted tons of scrap metal laying around when they can get loads of $$$ for it besides only a small quantity would be needed for tests on its properties'

Sorry but i cant accept that as a valid reason. This was an attack on the USA, a massive murder inquiry! nearly 3000 dead.
The evidence was needed for forensics to try and discover why the buidings collapsed. If only for future construction of sky scrapers.
To say the scrap men had control over the evidence in nonsense, if someone was murdered in say a car, then the car was set on fire, would the police carrying out the murder investigation, just tell the local scrapman to take it away before forensics have scrutinised every detail of it...........dont think so.

Someone will have to give me a better explanation why all the evidence was allowed to disappear. not one official has given a proper explanation so far.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/9 9:29
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"The evidence was needed for forensics to try and discover why the buidings collapsed."

Because until all the conspiracy theorists weighed in it was fairly obvious why they collapsed. Two fooking great planes flew into them!


"If only for future construction of sky scrapers."

Giant airbags. /nod

deganya Posted on 14/9 9:32
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

They were designed not to collapse when a plane flew into them. the question was why they collapsed because of a fire that only burned for ten minutes which is not enough to melt steel.

green_beret20 Posted on 14/9 10:11
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"The evidence was needed for forensics to try and discover why the buidings collapsed. If only for future construction of sky scrapers".

Where are you getting this from deganya?

According to the programme on Channel 4 last night, following the people whom faked their deaths for the insurance, they hand shifted through every piece of debris twice. Every piece was taken across the river to a disused qurry. Any human remains found were then taken to memorial park. The man telling us this was by a man whom actually worked there.

It was this operation that stopped some of the farud insurance claims. About a third of some human remains have yet to be matched.

green_beret20 Posted on 14/9 10:23
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Sorry my mistake, it wasn't a quarry. It was Fresh Kills Landfill on Staten Island. Any scrap sold from their had already been searched twice before any of it was sold.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/9 10:36
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"a fire that only burned for ten minutes"

Come on.

The south tower (2 WTC) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 58 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175 at 9:03 a.m.. The north tower (1 WTC) fell at 10:28 a.m., after burning approximately 103 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of American Airlines Flight 11 at 8:45 a.m.

green_beret20 Posted on 14/9 10:40
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

No No No Yoda.

A temporal time portal from Area 51 altered every clock on the globe, but really it was only ten minutes FFS.

neiltrodden Posted on 14/9 11:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"They were designed not to collapse when a plane flew into them."

My car is designed not to burst into flames when crashed. Designed to is not the same as guaranteed not to. Buildings are designed not to collapse - full stop but they do.

And steel does not have to melt for it to collapse FFS!!!!

KENDAL Posted on 14/9 11:16
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

You're right in saying they were designed not to collapse if a plane flew into them. But if you also listen further to the Engineer that did the design he also said back in the early seventies when he did the design there were no planes as large as a 767 so he could not add that to the process.

LiamO Posted on 14/9 13:16
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I have two words for all you conspiracy theorists: Occam's razor.

Occam's razor is a principle attributed to the 14th-century English logician and Franciscan friar William of Ockham. The principle is often expressed in Latin as: entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem, which means: entities should not be multiplied beyond necessity

It was paraphrased by Sir Isaac Newton as: “We are to admit no more causes of […] things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances.”

Occam's razor has become a basic tool for those who follow the scientific method. The primary activity of science — formulating theories and selecting the most promising ones — is impossible without a way of choosing from among various competing theories.

Applying the principle of Occam’s razor means that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible. When given two explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

For instance, it is possible that explosives were planted in the World Trade Centre towers to bring them down. But this is not necessary in order to explain their collapse and a simpler explanation fitting the observable facts is that the fire caused by the planes crashing into them weakened the structural steel sufficiently to bring the buildings down.

Another theory might be that invisible space aliens ran around the building after the crash spraying a flame accelerant which is undetectable by our primitive level of science. I can’t prove that this didn’t happen but if you start allowing for every possible theoretical explanation for a particular phenomenon or event, you’ll never be able to reach a satisfactory conclusion.

Applying the scientific method which has been the bedrock of science for the last 7 centuries leads me to the conclusion that since the vast majority of conspiracy theories fail the test of Occam’s razor, they should therefore be discounted by any rational, scientific mind.

--- Post edited by LiamO on 14/9 13:23 ---

scoea Posted on 14/9 13:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

So basically, if it sounds about right then it is! Brilliant.

It is important that there are questions asked for certain parts of this that remain unanswered. I want to repeat that i do not consider myself a conspiracy theorist. I don't know what happened on 9/11 and would prefer it if the offical explanation were true. However, I have read and seen inconsistencies that have not been addressed and consider it important that there be more transparency on both those issues and, perhaps more importantly, the intertwining relationships of all the potential players in the disaster.

It is simply not enough to say that it sounds about right.

SuperRav Posted on 14/9 13:38
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

there is a theory going bout that a prominent FMTTMer is a homo...

...can any body lend any truth to this?

LiamO Posted on 14/9 13:47
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

No, scoea, Occam's razor does NOT mean "if it sounds about right then it is."

You have obviously not understood the principle at all.

scoea Posted on 14/9 13:50
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I disagree but perhaps you would care to explain where I go wrong. As I understand it is effectively the law of succinctness i.e. the simplest and most obvious explanation is usually the right one.

LiamO Posted on 14/9 13:58
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Sir Isaac Newton's words explain the principle much better than I ever could.

scoea Posted on 14/9 14:02
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I have read the quote and still maintain that it essentially means that where there are a number of possibilities the one with the least number of assumptions and the least complicated is the correct one. In other words if it sounds about right then it usually is.

sperks Posted on 14/9 14:56
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

scoea,

I accept that you're not a consiracy theorist. I understand that you're only asking for transparency following the events, but you're not saying what you are willing to accept as probably truths. At some point it becomes impossible to 'prove' even the most obvious facts to someone with too many questions (try having a conversation with a 5 year old who's just learned the sentence 'Why?').

Do you honestly think that there are answers to the unanswered questions you mention that would remove your scepticism?

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 15:06
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

LiamO:
This Occrams razor thing, if applied in a scientific situation is fine, but it doesn't seem to cover a situation where a lie has been told or results have been tampered with, so it can't be used to disprove conspiracy theorys.

For instance, if I hold up a ball bearing and ask you which way it will move when I let go, you will say down. If, when I release the ball it travels up, and I then refuse you permission to inspect the ceiling for hidden magnets, would you still believe the results?

KENDAL Posted on 14/9 15:08
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Surely a ceiling would collapse under the weight of the magnet.

sperks Posted on 14/9 15:13
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

The evidence would suggest that you might have had a magnet in the ceiling. Alternatively, you might be a magician and actually be able to make objects act against the laws of physics. That blokes razor laws still hold when you're looking at the facts.

scoea Posted on 14/9 15:14
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Good question sperks, despite comparing me to a five year old child

Any sort of answer would be a start. For example, why was only one security film from the Pentagon released and why were there two seconds missing from it?

sperks Posted on 14/9 15:24
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

The head of the CIA was driving by with his mistress sat next to him and he got to take a look at the footage before releasing it?

I know you'd accept that answer (if they showed you it), but you aren't going to get it.

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 15:27
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

No, the theory only holds in a purely scientific situation. My ballbearing analogy was obviously simplified to explain a point. The point being that if the results of a test are misrepresented or tampered with by a third party, then acting upon those results in accordance with Occram, will send you off in the wrong direction.

Another example using balls again. Imagine that you go to the doctors with suspected testicular cancer. the doctor sends you for tests and when the results come back somebody at the lab has mistakenly sent you somebody elses negative results. Now, you still have a big painful lump on your peb' but to accept the results and not seek a second opinion would be wrong.

Something beyond science, (human error) has interfered.

moxzin Posted on 14/9 15:28
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I think as few as possible pictures of The Pentagon strike have been released due to the fact that its still standing, ie, therefore is still a target. I guess that any video release would give some pointers for any future terrorists who fancied another pop. Obviously this doesn't go for the WTC, which is no longer a target for obvious reasons.

sperks Posted on 14/9 15:31
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

mox, so you're poopooing my idea that the head of the CIA has a bit on the side?

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 15:32
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Mox, I don't think that witholding photographs of a building would prevent terrorists from attacking it. The plan of the building is laid out for all to see in one of those links.

green_beret20 Posted on 14/9 15:40
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I'll hazard a guess in that they don't want movies of planes striking the headquarters of the United States Department of Defense.

It is a military structure none the less so I can see the significance of withholding the tapes, even if it is out of mere procedure.

You saw two of the four crashing, must you see the rest before you believe it?

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/9 16:01
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

riverboat_captain I disagree.

We saw a plane strike the towers. We watched the towers burn, then fall down. Simplest explanation, the damage caused by the crash and fire caused the collapse.

In your example. We watched you let go of a metal ball. We watched the ball travel up to the ceiling. Simplest explanation, magnet in the ceiling.

It's about observation and theorising. Not about guessing beforehand.

scoea Posted on 14/9 16:30
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Why release any video then? Why remove frames from it?

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 16:33
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Yoda, why do you disagree. Occrams razor is only useful for selecting the best "scientific" explanation.

By your assumption, if I plant explosives in a building that is designed to withstand an aircraft, and then I crash an aircraft into the building and then blow the building up, the aircraft appeared to knock the building down so therefore it did.

I am not saying that the conspiracy theorists are right, just that an outside influence cancells out Occrams razor.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/9 16:47
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

In an ideal scientific world we'd have many perfect copies of the towers and crash lots of planes into them and observe the results. Obviously we can't do this so we base our theories on what we can observe and what we know to be true.

If I know for 100% fact that you planted explosives in the building AND and aircraft crashed into it, then that would insert an element of doubt as to which factor caused the collapse. If I don't know you planted explosives then the simplest explanation is the plane caused it.

We know for a fact the planes crashed.
We know the towers caught fire.
We know for a fact the towers collapsed.
The simplest explanation is that the crash and fire caused the collapse.

"Occrams razor is only useful for selecting the best "scientific" explanation."

What explanation other than a "scientific" one is there?


"I am not saying that the conspiracy theorists are right, just that an outside influence cancells out Occrams razor."

Who other than the conspiracy theorists are suggesting there is an outside influence? The simplest explanation does not require the added element of outside influence.

--- Post edited by YodaTheCoder on 14/9 16:49 ---

sperks Posted on 14/9 16:48
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

If there became evidence that there were explosives in the towers then that would become part of the evidence.

I heard that a very pominent executive on the 12th floor found a technical device that has yet to be explained (well it was explained, several times, but the guy who worked in the fax room found employment in another company shortly afterwards and the FBI haven't got around to talking to him yet).

I propose that there's a good chance they turned off the power over the weekend in the to 50 levels of one of the tower so that they could fix an electrical problem and this is just one of the infinate questions that have got ballack all to do with why two planes flew into the twin towers.

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 16:53
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Using my example, you have just used Occrams razor to reach the wrong conclusion because I blew the building up.

And we don't "base our theories on what we can observe and what we know to be true" because truth replaces theory.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 14/9 17:02
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"Using my example, you have just used Occrams razor to reach the wrong conclusion because I blew the building up."

Based on the available evidence, yes. Do you have evidence that there were explosives in the WT towers? No. Is the simplest explanation that the crash caused the collapse?


"And we don't "base our theories on what we can observe and what we know to be true" because truth replaces theory."

Eh? The word "theory" is derived from the Greek meaning "to observe".

I observe a plane crashing into a building.
I observe the building collapse.
I theorise that the crash caused the collapse.
If possible I test this theory, by crashing many planes into many buildings.

--- Post edited by YodaTheCoder on 14/9 17:05 ---

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 17:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

All I am saying is that "Occams" assumes no third party interference, but to investigate a possible crime you must. Therefore Occams is the wrong tool for the job.

What seems true is not necessarily so.

Theory:
A supposition or a system of ideas intended to explain something,

Truth:
The quality or state of being true.

sperks Posted on 14/9 17:36
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

When you're investigating a crime all you can ever use is the evidence available to you. What you hide from me and what I can't find can't be brought into it.

If you let go of a ball and it floats up to the ceiling while refusing me the option to inspect the ball. Then I'm going assume that there's a magnet in the ceiling. If I do my job properly and inspect the ceiling to find nothing I'll conclude that you're a witch and have you burned at the stake. Let me have a little peeky at the ball and I'll laugh along with you for my stupidity in neglecting the think that helium might have been involved.

riverboat_captain Posted on 14/9 17:55
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Occams is mearly a tool for simplifying the investigation of scientific theorys, it is useless for crime investigation because it leads one to accept that the most obvious explanation is true.

gatenby Posted on 14/9 18:12
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Im not sure what to think. All i do know is there is something not quite right about the government the way they have went around it all. It IS like they have something to hide. I know a few americans who think it was set up, and theres a lot of evidence to sway to that verdict. But would a government really kill its own? .....

My answer, is yes... because of what they though, and have got out of it.

Dodgy very dodgy!...

Watch these videos.. and see what you think...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fcUQg3DadaAandmode=relatedandsearch=

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yr-BRjSWxLgandmode=relatedandsearch=


But the link below is the main one. These people are experts in these fields.. and know what they are talking about!

Link: TAKE A GOOD LISTEN AND WATCH..

gatenby Posted on 14/9 18:20
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

WTC 7 aswell. Watch the collapse.. and you cant say a building should fall like that. One which is near to the WTC yes, but not damaged that much.

The landlord of WTC7 is actually on a interview (somewhere on youtube) saying that he said to the firefighters that the outside is that damanged they mayaswell pull it down and demolish it.

The building looks like a normal demolision...

but how could they organise explosives that quickly?!

Link: linky

TheSmogMonster Posted on 14/9 19:01
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

As I said ages ago, the explosives were built into the building, as they were in many large buildings of this size prior to 1994 in the states..

that MIT bloke vids very interesting pretty much bedunks the official view of the collapse and is in line with what i know.

boroproud Posted on 14/9 22:47
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

fooking ell


a double ton


gerrin there

amelvg1 Posted on 15/9 9:46
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

watched a video on this very interesting. especially flight 93 which supposibly crashed in the forrest. there was no plane parts anywhere just a huge hole, no bodies. and an airport nearby cant remember which 1 reported in a flight 188 (maybe not the exact flight number) twice with the 2nd 1 having the exact same amount of people on as flight 93. the 1st 188 flight had 60 people on and due to all planes been scheduled 2 land anywhere safely, they were sat on that plane for 2 hours where as the 2nd flight 188 had 200 odd passengers on and were taken off the plain in 25 minutes and into a nasa station on that site. and the phone calls if they were possible to make that high up were very suspicious and sounded fake.

YodaTheCoder Posted on 15/9 10:04
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

"supposibly" "planes been scheduled" "into a nasa station"

Link: mmmmkay

RobbieHuth2006 Posted on 25/9 16:06
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

There's eveidence to clearly convince everyone on the conspiracy theory , if you think about it its all good solid evidence for example how do you explane the fact hat the hole left at the pentagon was far to small for a 757 wich has been proved,plus there was wheeles found in the rubble and to every none belivers amazement boieng clearly stated there were not the wheels of a 757 and they arre not from there company.so really unless you bring up evidence wich is proven these things to be rong or an answer to them i do belive that this isnt all it seems to be

craig_pancrack Posted on 25/9 17:09
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Hanni Hanjour the alledged hijacker pilot would couldn't fly a Cessna would have surely wanted to aim for the centre of the roof for maximum damage and as it would harder to miss being a wide flat building?! Instead he flew 10 foot off the ground at 500 mph. and the building side he hit didn't contain too many personnel as it had just been renovated...convenient for wiring up with explosives too???

YodaTheCoder Posted on 25/9 17:13
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

You're right

Link: I am convinced

trodbitch Posted on 25/9 17:19
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Are you fooking nutters STILL on about this? The ability of some on here to still harp on when EVERY question has been answered is amazing.

Craig, flying at 10 feet sounds so much harder than crashing at 10 feet. Remember which he did!

deganya Posted on 25/9 17:30
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Don't be so condesending trodbitch, the questions have NOT been answered and thats why there is an ongoing debate both here and in the USA about why those buildings collapsed.

Before you get on your high horse and accuse everyone of being nutters, do your homework first. Then join in the debate with some constructive criticism if you still beleive the official 911 commission report.

trodbitch Posted on 25/9 17:42
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Sorry but I'm past constructive criticism. The same arguments are coming up again and again. The bottom line is that the arguments against seem to all be along the lines of "this wouldn't have happened", "surely that wouldn't happen" and "that doesn't look right".

These arguments are put across by people with no expert knowledge on the subjects they are spouting about and the truth is that they just don't understand the concepts well enough to be able to understand them. If these theories had any credibility, the mainstream press would be all over it. The reason they aren't is because they have none.

If you want to have the right to believe some far-fetched theory despite all the evidence presented to the contrary, I reserve the right to call you a nutter for sticking with it.

RobbieHuth2006 Posted on 25/9 17:46
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

well coem oin thne if your so confident answer the questions: why has the hole been proven to be to small,why is there wheels in the reckage wich arnt made by boieng,whyare there windows intact at the wall the plane smashed threw,why were the videos immediately consfiscated.

boro_exile99 Posted on 25/9 17:52
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

This thread is pointless. Know one on this thread knows what the evidence is. It the same sort of rubbish that is spouted about UFO's etc.

Entirely pointless, complete waste of time and has no practical implications for anyone.

Those that know the truth are those that need to know. The rest of us may as well find better things to worry about.

trodbitch Posted on 25/9 17:55
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Easy, you've made all those claims up. Or at least you are repeating ones someone else made up.

"why has the hole been proven to be to small"

It hasn't been. They'd have to fly a plane into the pentagon to prove how big a hole would be. guess what? They already have. Or were all those witnesses lying?

"why is there wheels in the reckage wich arnt made by boieng"

You have no evidence for this. Show me the statement by boeing saying this and I'll bother to respond.

"whyare there windows intact at the wall the plane smashed threw"

Which wall? The one that isn't there anymore???? I wouldn't expect the re-inforced, bullet-proof windows on the part of the wall it DIDN'T hit to break especially when you consider that most of the windows on the WTC did the same and are not bullet-proof.

"why were the videos immediately consfiscated."

You'll find that in any criminal investigation, the police will confiscate cctv footage. Why should the largest criminal investigation in the world be any different?

mickymac Posted on 25/9 18:03
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I wouln't trust the present administration in America but Al queda have never denied they did it,(I know it may suit them to raise jihad)But obviously Bushe's cronies have taken full advantage to carry out their (pre-planned?)policies.

craig_pancrack Posted on 25/9 19:00
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Troddy - what you on about...the 'thing' crashed but i never said he flew it. and where it hit and its trajectory meant it was it flying in extremely close to the ground on the level.

This isn't pointless, asking questions and not blindly trusting the establishment is good sense if you ask me.

watch 911 mysteries, you cannot believe every aspect of the official story surely...

Link: watch video

YodaTheCoder Posted on 25/9 19:21
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

They took out that particular part of the Pentagon because that's where they kept the proof that the moon landings were faked. FACT®


FACT is a registered trademark of FMTTM Made Up Crap Corp. All rights reserved.

trodbitch Posted on 25/9 19:45
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I agree it is a good thing to question governments and official versions of events but this conspiracy draws attention AWAY from the real issues that need looking at. Secret prisons, torture and (IMO) war crimes by soldiers.

As for it being low to the ground, from what I understand, the plane hit the lawn and the building. I don't really see it as some airliner flying incredibly low for a long distance, more a airliner hitting the ground roughly at that point.

Question how ill-prepared the US was. Question the fact that the response was against afghanistan and iraq despite the terrorist being mostly Saudis. Question how the removal of Saddam Hussain has not had an improvement in the middle-east. Question all the motives but people really are wasting their time on this conspiracy.

I have to say I always come back to the point that if the US were going to fake a plane hitting something, they would have the resources to do it with a plane. In fact, it would have been cheaper and easier than to do it with a missile.

deganya Posted on 26/9 12:22
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Quote trodbitch "These arguments are put across by people with no expert knowledge on the subjects they are spouting about and the truth is that they just don't understand the concepts well enough to be able to understand them."

ARe you refering to the scientests, the engineers from the American socieity of Engineers, and all those constructions experts who are asking questions? Its you that doesnt know what your talking about saying stupid things like that. These people are not conspiricy theorists but engineers who are saying buildings just dont collapse like that. But I assume with your doctorate in mechanical engineering your views might hold some sway on here.

smoggie_moggie Posted on 26/9 12:52
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

I've got a question about the Pentagon conspiracy. Excuse me if this has been previously covered, or explained. They claim a plane hit the Pentagon, but this is being disputed. Was this plan full? If so, have the people on board been identified? If it wasn't a plane, but they say it was, then what about the passengers they would've had to have declared dead?

trodbitch Posted on 26/9 14:19
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Well point me in the direction of scientists who are saying that because I dispute that they really ALL are.

There's whole world of difference between being surprised at how something collapsed and then concluding that it was done by an army of cia demolition experts. I remember reading about that suspension bridge in the US that started to vibrate violently in certain wind conditions and actually fell apart. I'd like to bet that whoever built-it, built it to withstand wind. I'd also like to bet that afterwards, the same engineers couldn't believe or understand why it collapsed until further research.

To answer your question, I am not referring to scientists when I said that anyway. You just decided to quote what I said out of context. Typical bending of the facts to support a delusional paranoid conspiracy theory. Here's the full quote:

"The same arguments are coming up again and again. The bottom line is that the arguments against seem to all be along the lines of "this wouldn't have happened", "surely that wouldn't happen" and "that doesn't look right".

These arguments are put across by people with no expert knowledge on the subjects they are spouting about and the truth is that they just don't understand the concepts well enough to be able to understand them."

See? I'm referring to this debate in this thread and comments such as:

"There are many anomolies. The biggest? how the hell does a tower collapse on itself like it did? its as if explosives were placed throughout."

Hardly scientific and proves nothing.

scoea Posted on 26/9 14:42
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

trod - it is very easy to post on here and pour scorn on the questions being raised. I am not a conspiracy theorist and came from the same place that you are right now but after reading official reports and seeing various anomolies there are genuine questions that remain unanswered.

craig_pancrack Posted on 26/9 16:33
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

TROD - I don't believe the so-called conspiracy theories 100%, it would be naive. I was no witness and I am no expert. It would also be just as naive to believe the official theory which is full of holes. Plus why would we trust a government who stole the 2000 election, fabricated Iraq's WMD and links to al Qaeda and waged an illegal war and that is just for starters...

For a more indepth scientific / scholars viewpoint, check out the following video of the 911 Scholars For Truth convention. This was aired in July on the non-commercial US politics channel C-Span.

scroll down to bottom of page and click 911,VP Cheney (7.29.06)

Link: C-Span

RobbieHuth2006 Posted on 26/9 16:44
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Trod,if your just gunna come on here and call us stupid for investigating this theorie then dont post its simple your the one argfuing with everyone and callin people stupid because you disagree with there opinions.If america are beihind this i do believe the reason was to invade iraqs oil resources,wich they are still planning to do (opinion).

YodaTheCoder Posted on 26/9 17:06
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

1) no-one on here has actually investigated any of these conspiracy theories, they have merely reposted the same old crap that's been online since about a month after 9-11.

2) people might take you a little more seriously if you took the time to check your spelling.

Link: Oh really? Ya really!

Boromart Posted on 26/9 17:09
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

Scoea said: "There are gaping holes in a lot of the "facts"."

There are far bigger gapping holes in the conspiracy theories.

I understand why and beleive that one or two of the minor details are either being held back, or 'spun'. But the towers fell due to the plane crashes, a plane hit the pentagon, and flight 93 was downed either by fighter jets or as a part of an on-board struggle. The last is the only conspiracy theory that has ANY ring of truth about it.

The number of agents, involved in trying to setup a controlled explosion in the 3 WTC buildings, the manufacturing facilities to create drone planes and the ability to manufacture such explosives would have been detected.

I can't beleive that any sane person really thinks the WTC buildings were brought down because the american government thought this would further there needs. By now someone involved in such a plot would have come out and admitted it due to the guilt. There would be thousands of people required to setup something like this. No one has, and no one will ever come forward, because its a terribly stupid theory.

The whole theory sounds like people having an agenda, and trying to fit the 'evidance' around this 'crime' by the US government.

--- Post edited by Boromart on 26/9 17:21 ---

YodaTheCoder Posted on 12/2 18:33
re: 9-11 pentagon conspiracy theory

/skip to the end