If it was a conspiracy how come no one on the inside has come forward yet...It would have taken hundreds if not thousands to set something like this up,
have the knowledge of where to plant explosives, plant explosives at exactly the right spots, rig the charges, (all of this with no one seeing this happening) set them off, have the planes hit the targets as required on and on...in an enterprise that large someone some where would feel remorse, get p/o ed over lack of credit, slip up when drunk...any number of things but you don't hear of that...
Honestly maybe there was knowledge something was going to happen and someone didn't act whether they lacked full intel or were ignored but sometimes SH*T happens.


hat's why it's called a conspiracy. something within the gorvernment that is kept secret.

why would it take hundreds or thousands? the official story only calls for 19 people and a ringleader. with well-placed insiders in the government you could do it with far less.

besides, people HAVE come forward. no one listens to them. there are plenty of people out there who claim to know something about 9/11 or have participated in something they later found suspicious. some of them are crazy. some others may not be/



yeah. thing is, unless bushie boy himself (or cheyney) comes out and says it, the republicans will never accept the evidence!

this whole "why hasn't someone come forward" thing is such a lame argument on so many levels. you threaten them with death. you pick true zealots and true believers. you get something on them to blackmail them. i don't get why this is so hard to get one's head around.

the whole "it would be too big to pull off" argument is boilerplate. you hear it all the time but it's rarely that well-considered. you hear it from people who heard it somewhere else and they like the sound of it.

as i'm fond of saying, this current government has the most power of any government or institution in human history. they really have a chance to take over the entire world, and they're quite clear about their intention to establish complete control. their national security directives call for not only being prepared for any military power that might come to rival the united states -- they actually call for preventing any such military from arising, pre-emptively, anywhere in the world. that policy was in place before 9/11. the military wants to establish "full spectrum dominance," the complete military surveillance and control of every conceivable battlespace from the sea to the air to outer space to the information environment. they're close to owning everything and they can taste it. would they stop short of turning a blind eye to something like 9/11 to get that? i dunno, maybe. but once it had already happened, and with all that at stake, can i believe the tiny cabal responsible for it would be able to keep silent? hell yes i do. your choice is, on the one hand, grab control of the most power that has ever been accessible to humans on earth. on the other, run the risk of getting hanged for treason.

seems like a bit of a no-brainer, yes? and particularly given this administration's preference for loyalty over all, including the constitution and the rule of law, and that clinches it even more.

okay, cue max power. time for you to say something irrelevant about space aliens or the loch ness monster. *yawn*

Celine's Laws explain all.

And there are no real spoilers from the novel, as long as you don't click on any of the links. 

this whole "why hasn't someone come forward" thing is such a lame argument on so many levels. you threaten them with death. you pick true zealots and true believers. you get something on them to blackmail them. i don't get why this is so hard to get one's head around.

the whole "it would be too big to pull off" argument is boilerplate. you hear it all the time but it's rarely that well-considered. you hear it from people who heard it somewhere else and they like the sound of it.

as i'm fond of saying, this current government has the most power of any government or institution in human history. they really have a chance to take over the entire world, and they're quite clear about their intention to establish complete control. their national security directives call for not only being prepared for any military power that might come to rival the united states -- they actually call for preventing any such military from arising, pre-emptively, anywhere in the world. that policy was in place before 9/11. the military wants to establish "full spectrum dominance," the complete military surveillance and control of every conceivable battlespace from the sea to the air to outer space to the information environment. they're close to owning everything and they can taste it. would they stop short of turning a blind eye to something like 9/11 to get that? i dunno, maybe. but once it had already happened, and with all that at stake, can i believe the tiny cabal responsible for it would be able to keep silent? hell yes i do. your choice is, on the one hand, grab control of the most power that has ever been accessible to humans on earth. on the other, run the risk of getting hanged for treason.

seems like a bit of a no-brainer, yes? and particularly given this administration's preference for loyalty over all, including the constitution and the rule of law, and that clinches it even more.

okay, cue max power. time for you to say something irrelevant about space aliens or the loch ness monster. *yawn*



you raise the exact point for which i created this thread. keep an open mind. watch some videos, read some articles. don't just dismiss it because it's such a big deal.

karma +1

I've read through a lot of what the "The Center for an Informed America" site says, and there are a lot of things that simply don't tally or simply aren't explained in the official accounts.. things like only three steel-framed skyscrapers have ever pancaked like that without being demolished - those were all on the same day (WTC7 didn't even have a plane in it - it just burned for a bit then collapsed); flight 93 wreckage was strewn over eight miles (with no recognizeable plane parts above ground at the official crash site) - that shouts "blew up in mid-air" to me. 

Now, after two planes had been crashed into skyscrapers, if this one had been hijacked, then shooting it down is probably what the authorities should have done - so why didn't they say so?  Why invent the myth of plucky passengers?

As for the official story at the Pentagon - a whole plane got hot enough to vapourise on impact, leaving no bodies and minimal wreckage?  Has that *ever* happened anywhere before?  After most plane crashes, they manage to get enough bits to reassemble nearly all the plane to find out what happened, yet we're seriously being asked to believe that at the Pentagon different rules apply...

It seems a bit like the Kennedy assassination: the "official" story is obviously concocted, but that doesn't lead one very far in finding out what actually did happen.

We're all forgetting history again, it repeats itself don't you know.

Just like the Roosevelt administration ignored the prior warnings of Pearl Harbor so that the United States could enter the second world war, the Bush administration ignored the prior warnings of 9/11 so that the "United States" could smite a few of the Christian Coalition's selected enemies.

Or Maggie letting the Argentines invade the Falklands.. (bearing in mind that before that invasion, she was the most unpopular prime minister in recorded history, and without it, she'd not have won a second term, let alone a third)

But it's not the warnings that may or may not have been known about and ignored that get me: it's how the official version of events simply don't come close to explaining the physical evidence - like they're intentionally muddying the waters so that everything else looks like a tin-hatted conspiracy theory, no matter how good an explanation it is.  If you see what I mean.

Michael Moore is an optimist.  He gives the portrays the powers that be as far more benevolent than they really are.
:o

Now, after two planes had been crashed into skyscrapers, if this one had been hijacked, then shooting it down is probably what the authorities should have done - so why didn't they say so?  Why invent the myth of plucky passengers?



well, flight control, as well as the airforce tried to get in there, but the FAA wouldn't give them clearance. i suppose the better word would be REFUSED!

     

Now, after two planes had been crashed into skyscrapers, if this one had been hijacked, then shooting it down is probably what the authorities should have done - so why didn't they say so?  Why invent the myth of plucky passengers?


Any site that disputes the wreckage at the WTC and Pentagon is either lying or written by someone who has know knowledge of engineering.

But your point is interesting.  The real answer is probably pretty close to the official answer:  The US wasn't expecting an attack by real hijacked aircraft that day.  There was a NORAD exercise involving fake hijacked aircraft scheduled that day.  Even without the exercise, however, the overwhelming majority of US fighter aircraft at continental US airbases were (and may well still be) unarmed.  Let's get real -- since the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of Alaska, did we really have every airbase within 100 miles of the coastline staffed with "alert" fighters capable of taking off and shooting down encroaching Soviet bombers and spyplanes with five minutes' warning?  Hell, no.  We sent up whoever happened to be in anything with wings that day, and we'd already lost the war -- whether we engaged flight 93 or not.   

The most plausible 9/11 speculation is that a Bad Guy found out about the exercises scheduled for that particular day, and leaked the information to the bad guys.  Another Bad Guy figured that would fit in very nicely with plans that were already afoot.  19 Bad Guys got told to do a Bad Thing on a Certain Date, and the rest is history.

The reason the aforementioned theory hasn't gotten any press is because proving it would reveal things (the least of which would include how our air defense exercises are scheduled and organized, how many people know about them in advance, and how good a job our spies do on monitoring our own military) that the American public, myself included, really doesn't have a need to know.

Finally, I'm of no opinion one way or another on flight 93.  I'll say this, however:  100 unarmed and untrained passengers will be enough to defeat 4 armed and trained Bad Guys.  Even if flight 93 was a myth, that myth has done more for airline security than the TSA could ever hope to accomplish.  To that end, I'm happy to spread the myth.

^well, as to the idea of, hey, the cold war was over so why would we have armed planes protecting america... we pay more money into our military than virtually the rest of the world combined. so, when it mattered, where was that protection we've been paying for? nowhere. why is that? why did the military, whom we pay to be paranoid, never consider the possibility that we'd ever be attacked on native soil by non-state actors? and especially considering that we HAD been thusly attacked, and at the exact same target, in 1993. i'm sorry, but this idea that all the air force planes CONUS were unarmed because we had good reason to be sanguine just doesn't hold water to me.

something funny happened that day. you're gonna tell me that all that time the military had just been leaving washington d.c. and manhattan completely without air defense? i don't believe that.

^well, as to the idea of, hey, the cold war was over so why would we have armed planes protecting america... we pay more money into our military than virtually the rest of the world combined. so, when it mattered, where was that protection we've been paying for? nowhere. why is that? why did the military, whom we pay to be paranoid, never consider the possibility that we'd ever be attacked on native soil by non-state actors? and especially considering that we HAD been thusly attacked, and at the exact same target, in 1993. i'm sorry, but this idea that all the air force planes CONUS were unarmed because we had good reason to be sanguine just doesn't hold water to me.

something funny happened that day. you're gonna tell me that all that time the military had just been leaving washington d.c. and manhattan completely without air defense? i don't believe that.


If a plane flys over a no-fly zone in London and the RAF has gone through the necessary procedures to ensure it's not an accident, they shoot the plane down, they have missiles and they get a direct kill, that's the procedure. Why is such a procedure not in effect over New York or DC, I'm curious?

Michael Moore is an optimist.  He gives the portrays the powers that be as far more benevolent than they really are.
:o


Um...okay.

Um...okay.
hey! another flippant and dismissive post that says nothing!

man, i sure didn't see that coming. :P

Any site that disputes the wreckage at the WTC and Pentagon is either lying or written by someone who has know knowledge of engineering.

But your point is interesting.  The real answer is probably pretty close to the official answer:  The US wasn't expecting an attack by real hijacked aircraft that day.  There was a NORAD exercise involving fake hijacked aircraft scheduled that day.  Even without the exercise, however, the overwhelming majority of US fighter aircraft at continental US airbases were (and may well still be) unarmed.  Let's get real -- since the end of the Cold War, and with the exception of Alaska, did we really have every airbase within 100 miles of the coastline staffed with "alert" fighters capable of taking off and shooting down encroaching Soviet bombers and spyplanes with five minutes' warning?  Hell, no.  We sent up whoever happened to be in anything with wings that day, and we'd already lost the war -- whether we engaged flight 93 or not.   

The most plausible 9/11 speculation is that a Bad Guy found out about the exercises scheduled for that particular day, and leaked the information to the bad guys.  Another Bad Guy figured that would fit in very nicely with plans that were already afoot.  19 Bad Guys got told to do a Bad Thing on a Certain Date, and the rest is history.

The reason the aforementioned theory hasn't gotten any press is because proving it would reveal things (the least of which would include how our air defense exercises are scheduled and organized, how many people know about them in advance, and how good a job our spies do on monitoring our own military) that the American public, myself included, really doesn't have a need to know.

Finally, I'm of no opinion one way or another on flight 93.  I'll say this, however:  100 unarmed and untrained passengers will be enough to defeat 4 armed and trained Bad Guys.  Even if flight 93 was a myth, that myth has done more for airline security than the TSA could ever hope to accomplish.  To that end, I'm happy to spread the myth.


how about all of the evidence that states that the wtc could not have possibly gone down in such a matter? what about all of the firefighters, proffesional demolition experts who claim to have heard multiple explosions? what about wtc 7? why the hell did it topple? it wasn't even hit! and what about all of the eyewitnesses at the pentagon stating that before impact, they heard what sounded like a small double engined jet, or the guys at aircontrol that say that the munueverability of the plane that crashed into the pentagon was such that it COULD NOT have been a boeing 757? what do you say to that?

how about all of the evidence that states that the wtc could not have possibly gone down in such a matter? what about all of the firefighters, proffesional demolition experts who claim to have heard multiple explosions? what about wtc 7? why the hell did it topple? it wasn't even hit! and what about all of the eyewitnesses at the pentagon stating that before impact, they heard what sounded like a small double engined jet, or the guys at aircontrol that say that the munueverability of the plane that crashed into the pentagon was such that it COULD NOT have been a boeing 757? what do you say to that?


"Multiple explosions" are precisely what you'd hear if you were in floor 1 of a 100-storey building that was having floors 70-100 dropping down on floors 1-68.  One per pancaked floor, as air from floors 68, 67, 66, and so on, are blasted out for the first second or two, until the pancaking sections gained momentum to sound like a continuous rush of collapsing crap.

"WTC7" - you're looking at the wrong side of WTC7.  WTC7 was heavily damaged by falling debris by WTC1 and 2 hours before its collapse.

"ATC comments on something that was more manoeuverable than a 757" - ATC was also seeing something being flown way the hell harder than any commercial pilot would ever fly a transport aircraft. The limits to the performance of aircraft are placed there to make sure that (a) the plane lands in one piece, and (b) isn't so overstressed that if by some miracle it lands in one piece, it doesn't have so many cracks and stretches in its structural elements that no mechanic will sign off on letting it take off again.

Commercial pilots want to land it in one piece and hand it over to someone else so that it's fit to fly again.  Test pilots are sometimes willing to settle for landing it in one piece and $10M in repairs. The guys who flew the planes on 9/11 had no such constraints.

Don't believe me?  Get a copy of MS Flight Sim or XPilot and try it yourself.  It wasn't that hard.  Sure as hell was a lot easier than lobbing a missile into the Pentagon, then following up my making a 757 full of people disappear into thin air, only to use the Asgard transporter technology aboard the Daedalus to teleport a bunch of char-broiled and banged-up 757 engine parts into the smoldering wreckage so that  the photographers would have something to take pictures of.

The only evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy is that if there was a 9/11 conspiracy beyond the official story, these kind of wacky stories are exactly what I'd expect the conspirators to put out.  As Pynchon reminded us:  If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

"Multiple explosions" are precisely what you'd hear if you were in floor 1 of a 100-storey building that was having floors 70-100 dropping down on floors 1-68.  One per pancaked floor, as air from floors 68, 67, 66, and so on, are blasted out for the first second or two, until the pancaking sections gained momentum to sound like a continuous rush of collapsing crap.

"WTC7" - you're looking at the wrong side of WTC7.  WTC7 was heavily damaged by falling debris by WTC1 and 2 hours before its collapse.

"ATC comments on something that was more manoeuverable than a 757" - ATC was also seeing something being flown way the hell harder than any commercial pilot would ever fly a transport aircraft. The limits to the performance of aircraft are placed there to make sure that (a) the plane lands in one piece, and (b) isn't so overstressed that if by some miracle it lands in one piece, it doesn't have so many cracks and stretches in its structural elements that no mechanic will sign off on letting it take off again.

Commercial pilots want to land it in one piece and hand it over to someone else so that it's fit to fly again.  Test pilots are sometimes willing to settle for landing it in one piece and $10M in repairs. The guys who flew the planes on 9/11 had no such constraints.

Don't believe me?  Get a copy of MS Flight Sim or XPilot and try it yourself.  It wasn't that hard.  Sure as hell was a lot easier than lobbing a missile into the Pentagon, then following up my making a 757 full of people disappear into thin air, only to use the Asgard transporter technology aboard the Daedalus to teleport a bunch of char-broiled and banged-up 757 engine parts into the smoldering wreckage so that  the photographers would have something to take pictures of.

The only evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy is that if there was a 9/11 conspiracy beyond the official story, these kind of wacky stories are exactly what I'd expect the conspirators to put out.  As Pynchon reminded us:  If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.


Yeah, normally a 757 wouldn't be flying .5 mach approaching a major metropolitan area!
I still think some bogus crap went on on 9/11.

The wreckage that was spread over 8 miles was caused by the fake bomb the terrorists had.  Planes usually start breaking up in the sky before the crash.  It is known.  ???

Wreckage just disappears.  The secret flight attendent expert.  Wow.  Discrediting other peoples accounts but accepting others.

There are plenty of holes in the 9/11 story that I think alot of us just shake our heads at.  It is too hard to comprehend an government conspiracy causing something this huge.  The thing that was interesting to me was stuff that we hadn't ever seen before just started happening.  Airplanes in buildings.  2 majorsky scrapers coming down within minutes of each other.

Whether they be wrong or right, there are some interesting points that were brought up.   

"Multiple explosions" are precisely what you'd hear if you were in floor 1 of a 100-storey building that was having floors 70-100 dropping down on floors 1-68.  One per pancaked floor, as air from floors 68, 67, 66, and so on, are blasted out for the first second or two, until the pancaking sections gained momentum to sound like a continuous rush of collapsing crap.

"WTC7" - you're looking at the wrong side of WTC7.  WTC7 was heavily damaged by falling debris by WTC1 and 2 hours before its collapse.

"ATC comments on something that was more manoeuverable than a 757" - ATC was also seeing something being flown way the hell harder than any commercial pilot would ever fly a transport aircraft. The limits to the performance of aircraft are placed there to make sure that (a) the plane lands in one piece, and (b) isn't so overstressed that if by some miracle it lands in one piece, it doesn't have so many cracks and stretches in its structural elements that no mechanic will sign off on letting it take off again.

Commercial pilots want to land it in one piece and hand it over to someone else so that it's fit to fly again.  Test pilots are sometimes willing to settle for landing it in one piece and $10M in repairs. The guys who flew the planes on 9/11 had no such constraints.

Don't believe me?  Get a copy of MS Flight Sim or XPilot and try it yourself.  It wasn't that hard.  Sure as hell was a lot easier than lobbing a missile into the Pentagon, then following up my making a 757 full of people disappear into thin air, only to use the Asgard transporter technology aboard the Daedalus to teleport a bunch of char-broiled and banged-up 757 engine parts into the smoldering wreckage so that  the photographers would have something to take pictures of.

The only evidence for a 9/11 conspiracy is that if there was a 9/11 conspiracy beyond the official story, these kind of wacky stories are exactly what I'd expect the conspirators to put out.  As Pynchon reminded us:  If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.



are you trying to tell me that a boeing 757 has as much menueverability as som airforce jet?

are you trying to tell me that a boeing 757 has as much menueverability as som airforce jet?

Or that some terrorist stooges who only took a few flying lessons could nail the WTC at sub-supersonic speeds with such precision?
???

Or that some terrorist stooges who only took a few flying lessons could nail the WTC at sub-supersonic speeds with such precision?
???
nailing the pentagon was the real feat. although i'm not big on the cruise missile theory the idea that some strip-club-frequenting pinhead who did "tucks" with the pages of the koran would the next day be able to execute that extraordinary low-flying attack on a really quite short building... after flunking his flying lessons... that's the biggest thing that makes me go, "hmm."

nailing the pentagon was the real feat. although i'm not big on the cruise missile theory the idea that some strip-club-frequenting pinhead who did "tucks" with the pages of the koran would the next day be able to execute that extraordinary low-flying attack on a really quite short building... after flunking his flying lessons... that's the biggest thing that makes me go, "hmm."

What happened at the Pentagon was not just difficult.  It was impossible.  Flying a jet six feet above terra firma is one thing, leaving no burn marks is another!

after flunking his flying lessons..


They flunked out of flight school because they couldn't be bothered to learn how to land.  Nor to communicate properly with ground control.  Nor to pay attention to things like VNE or other basic rules of airmanship. 

Again, an hour or two (if not a few minutes) with any off-the-shelf flight simulator will demonstrate that anyone could have done it.  If you treat the cockpit as nothing more than a giant video game, you're going to accomplish two things:  First, you're going to fail to get your pilot's license, and second, you're going to make a smoldering hole in whatever you point the plane at.

Commercial and transport aircraft are capable of lots of manoeuvres that are rarely, if ever, attempted anywhere other than a simulator.

Flying a commercial jet is comparable to driving a Corvette at 55 miles an hour on a straightaway.  Flying a fighter is comparable to driving a Ferrari at 120 miles per hour on a racetrack.  Just because the Ferrari can beat the Corvette, doesn't mean that you can't have an exciting time in a 'vette on a windy back road.  Just because the Corvette can give you an exciting time on a windy back road, doesn't mean it's a particularly smart idea, either.  Ideally, you never use all of the performance envelope of your vehicle, whether it's wheeled or winged.

They flunked out of flight school because they couldn't be bothered to learn how to land.  Nor to communicate properly with ground control.  Nor to pay attention to things like VNE or other basic rules of airmanship. 

Again, an hour or two (if not a few minutes) with any off-the-shelf flight simulator will demonstrate that anyone could have done it.  If you treat the cockpit as nothing more than a giant video game, you're going to accomplish two things:  First, you're going to fail to get your pilot's license, and second, you're going to make a smoldering hole in whatever you point the plane at.

Commercial and transport aircraft are capable of lots of manoeuvres that are rarely, if ever, attempted anywhere other than a simulator.

Flying a commercial jet is comparable to driving a Corvette at 55 miles an hour on a straightaway.  Flying a fighter is comparable to driving a Ferrari at 120 miles per hour on a racetrack.  Just because the Ferrari can beat the Corvette, doesn't mean that you can't have an exciting time in a 'vette on a windy back road.  Just because the Corvette can give you an exciting time on a windy back road, doesn't mean it's a particularly smart idea, either.  Ideally, you never use all of the performance envelope of your vehicle, whether it's wheeled or winged.

Go hauling azz in a 'vette on the back roads of New England and there wouldn't be much of a 'vette left, and if you hit one of those giant potholes Cowtown never fixed, maybe not much of you left either!

But of course it makes all the sense in the world for a commercial jet to be capable of far more than its routine.  The pilot's got 150 lives on his hands.  If there's an emergency, and he's got to swerve, dive, or greatly accelerate, the craft has to be able to let him do it.  I just wouldn't want to have to clean up the passenger cabin afterwards!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/pukeface.gif

But of course it makes all the sense in the world for a commercial jet to be capable of far more than its routine.  The pilot's got 150 lives on his hands.  If there's an emergency, and he's got to swerve, dive, or greatly accelerate, the craft has to be able to let him do it.  I just wouldn't want to have to clean up the passenger cabin afterwards!


And now for something completely different:  If your driver's education course didn't include emergency manoeuvers, it wasn't complete.  Find your local high performance driving education school, ask them about emergency manoeuvering / highway survival / or "whatever their buzzword is for not getting killed during that one-in-a-million chance when someone spins out directly in front of you, not for people who want to learn to race, just for people who want to learn how to drive better than the rest of the people on the road".

That applies to both adult drivers and new drivers.  It'll cost you between  $500-1000.  You'll have $500-1000 worth fun in a safe environment learning just what a car is capable of doing.  As a fringe benefit, there's a one in ten chance it'll save your life.  There's a one in 100 chance that there'll be someone else in your car when you do it, and they'll wonder how the hell you pulled it off.

If drivers were educated like pilots, it would probably only cost around $1000 per driver (once, so if you spend 50 years, it's like $20/year), and we'd probably save 10,000 lives a year (every year) out of the ~50,000/year we kill on our roads.

Obligatory Conspiracy Theory:  50,000 per year in traffic accidents alone.  A Vietnam every year. 

"Multiple explosions" are precisely what you'd hear if you were in floor 1 of a 100-storey building that was having floors 70-100 dropping down on floors 1-68.
I'd agree that people hearing "multiple explosions" does not necessarily mean that multiple sets of explosives were triggered, and what you're saying would explain the observations.  But...


"WTC7" - you're looking at the wrong side of WTC7.  WTC7 was heavily damaged by falling debris by WTC1 and 2 hours before its collapse.

OK, so what's your view on the fact that only three steel-framed skyscrapers have ever collapsed in that fashion, and by a strange coincidence all on the same day?

Have you seen any of the reports about the Madrid skyscraper which withstood two days of serious fire, rather than the comparatively small ones seen in the WTC buildings?  Doesn't this make you just a teensy-weensy bit suspicious?


The wreckage that was spread over 8 miles was caused by the fake bomb the terrorists had.  Planes usually start breaking up in the sky before the crash.  It is known.   ???

er... if the plane was breaking up, what kind of "fake" bomb was that?  Eight miles separating the bits of wreckage means that the plane *definitely* wasn't in one piece when it hit the ground.  Yet the official story says it was - so why the lies?


Obligatory Conspiracy Theory:  50,000 per year in traffic accidents alone.  A Vietnam every year. 

Or 16xWTC every year... yet for some reason that statistic doesn't spark off a couple of invasions.

er... if the plane was breaking up, what kind of "fake" bomb was that?  Eight miles separating the bits of wreckage means that the plane *definitely* wasn't in one piece when it hit the ground.  Yet the official story says it was - so why the lies?



I was actually being sarcastic.  I was saying that the terrorists fake bomb blew up the plane.  I actually think that the plane was shot down.   

Have you seen any of the reports about the Madrid skyscraper which withstood two days of serious fire, rather than the comparatively small ones seen in the WTC buildings?  Doesn't this make you just a teensy-weensy bit suspicious?


Serious answer:  The aircraft that hit WTC were carrying a lot more fuel than the one that hit the building in Madrid.  And what on earth was "tiny" about the WTC fires?  The footprints of the WTC buildings are huge.  There's no engineering precedent for it.

Funny answer:  And you forgot to mention 429truth.org, which tears the lid off the notion that fuel fires can ever heat steel structures to the point that they lose structural integrity and collapse.

Gentle reminder:  If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.

Gentle reminder:  If they can get you asking the wrong questions, they don't have to worry about answers.
qft

Serious answer:  The aircraft that hit WTC were carrying a lot more fuel than the one that hit the building in Madrid.  And what on earth was "tiny" about the WTC fires?  The footprints of the WTC buildings are huge.  There's no engineering precedent for it.


  so what? steel melts at 2500 degrees.  jet fuel burns at around 1796 degrees now that's a pretty big gap. looks  alot like a gap of 704 degrees! so 1796 (which is the MAXIMUM burning temperature, temp. in open air can be much lower) degrees might be just a bit to low. it would have made sense if all of the floors themselves collapsed. instead, the fire somehow managed to take down the steel frame with it. c'mon man!

  so what? steel melts at 2500 degrees.  jet fuel burns at around 1796 degrees now that's a pretty big gap. looks  alot like a gap of 704 degrees! so 1796 (which is the MAXIMUM burning temperature, temp. in open air can be much lower) degrees might be just a bit to low. it would have made sense if all of the floors themselves collapsed. instead, the fire somehow managed to take down the steel frame with it. c'mon man!

AND...for the umpty-umpth time...even if the fuel combustion DID melt the steel girders, it is still mechanically impossible for the melting to be so immediate and thorough as to cause the towers to collapse demolition-style in under one minute! That's waaaay frikkin' different from an overpass in Oakland!
::)

Because... of course.. it's impossible that planes.. planes.. PLANES!! (Ever been on one, they're fu*king huge!) hitting a building could weaken or even destroy said steel girders which would then in turn collapse.. etc..etc..etc.

Here's the big thing. I laugh at the feeble minded souls who think that planes hitting the WTC towers wouldn't bring them down. They're office blocks essentially.. those are planes.. several hundred MPH missiles laden with fuel that are f**kin huge! That's not the question that's important.. the question is, why were they ever allowed anywhere near Manhattan, why were they not shot down as soon as it became known that they'd been hijacked? That's the correct procedure, shoot down the plane.

  so what? steel melts at 2500 degrees.  jet fuel burns at around 1796 degrees now that's a pretty big gap\


*smack*  Structural Engineering 201.  You == the fail.  Remedial homework:  What is the tensile strength of steel as a function of temperature?

Everyone else:  Re-read Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, specifically the Proverb for Paranoids that I've quoted numerous times, and cross-reference against Principia Discordia's "Law of Fives", which states that given sufficient time and persistence, any phenomenon can be related to the number "five".

Everyone not paying attention:  If you're arguing "airplanes vs. explosives", you're asking precisely the sort of wrong question that They'd want you to ask, as per Pynchon's Gravity's Rainbow. And if you're arguing any other conspiracy, see the reference to the Law of Fives, as per Principia Discordia.  The Pentagon had five sides, did it not? :)

Davey:  Shush.  If you're asking the wrong questions, They don't have to worry about answers, but you just asked the right sort of question!  If there's no conspiracy beyond the official story in the 9/11 report, you're fine, but if there is a conspiracy (LIHOP or MIHOP, and yes I'm using those buzzwords to point the Conspiracy's radar at everyone in this thread, myself included), it's the sort of line of questioning that will get you in very deep trouble someday. So stop doing that or you'll put someone's eye out! 

Davey:  Shush.  If you're asking the wrong questions, They don't have to worry about answers, but you just asked the right sort of question!  If there's no conspiracy beyond the official story in the 9/11 report, you're fine, but if there is a conspiracy (LIHOP or MIHOP, and yes I'm using those buzzwords to point the Conspiracy's radar at everyone in this thread, myself included), it's the sort of line of questioning that will get you in very deep trouble someday. So stop doing that or you'll put someone's eye out! 


I very much come down on the LIHOP side of things. Think Pearl Harbor and replace Japanese with 'Everybody who looks a bit Arabic'.

Haven't you heard? I have a file!  ;D

I very much come down on the LIHOP side of things. 


You've got a secondary-order problem that's presently intractable: 

Secondary-1:  Assume a LIHOP conspiracy.  The 9/11 conspiracies are precisely what you'd release to the masses to get them asking the Wrong Questions -- to throw them off the scent and get everyone with half a brain sucked into interminable discussions of metallurgy and structural engineering.

Secondary-2:  Assume no LIHOP conspiracy.  Assume merely the overactive imaginations of 300,000,000 Americans.  The 9/11 conspiracies are... precisely what you'd expect a very small minority of the 300,000,000 Americans to come up with, and a few of the more easily-swayed 300,000,000 Americans to believe because "hey, I saw it in someone's 'blog, man!  It must be true!"

There's no way -- within the clearance level of anyone reading this post -- to distinguish the two secondary options. 

Thus, Occam's Razor unfortunately demands that you stick with #2, lest ye be found guilty of short-changing the creativity of your fellow Americans.  I want to believe in one of at least three LIHOP theories -- they're (even more fun than the MIHOP ones!) fun universes to hop into -- but I don't have a need to know, and based on the evidence  availabable to me, I'm stuck with the theory that requires fewer assumptions:  that a bunch of Chucks found out about an air defense exercise involving faked hijaked aircraft and decided that it'd give them an extra hour or two to carry out their plans before we figured it out. And tht another bunch of Chucks figured that as long as the dust was still settling, one might as well take advantage of the  opportunity to consolidate power.  It's not every day one is offered ten trillion dollars and permanent power on the proverbial silver platter.

So it goes.

You've got a secondary-order problem that's presently intractable: 

Secondary-1:  Assume a LIHOP conspiracy.  The 9/11 conspiracies are precisely what you'd release to the masses to get them asking the Wrong Questions -- to throw them off the scent and get everyone with half a brain sucked into interminable discussions of metallurgy and structural engineering.

Secondary-2:  Assume no LIHOP conspiracy.  Assume merely the overactive imaginations of 300,000,000 Americans.  The 9/11 conspiracies are... precisely what you'd expect a very small minority of the 300,000,000 Americans to come up with, and a few of the more easily-swayed 300,000,000 Americans to believe because "hey, I saw it in someone's 'blog, man!  It must be true!"

There's no way -- within the clearance level of anyone reading this post -- to distinguish the two secondary options. 

Thus, Occam's Razor unfortunately demands that you stick with #2, lest ye be found guilty of short-changing the creativity of your fellow Americans.  I want to believe in one of at least three LIHOP theories -- they're (even more fun than the MIHOP ones!) fun universes to hop into -- but I don't have a need to know, and based on the evidence  availabable to me, I'm stuck with the theory that requires fewer assumptions:  that a bunch of Chucks found out about an air defense exercise involving faked hijaked aircraft and decided that it'd give them an extra hour or two to carry out their plans before we figured it out. And tht another bunch of Chucks figured that as long as the dust was still settling, one might as well take advantage of the  opportunity to consolidate power.  It's not every day one is offered ten trillion dollars and permanent power on the proverbial silver platter.

So it goes.



First point - Exactly correct.

If I've discoverd a plot that's going to allow me to do exactly what I've wanted to do for a decade (read up on the PINAC website.) I'm going to allow it to happen, no questions asked. I may even shuffle things around to make it easier to happen.. and the first thing I'm going to do is start spreading rumors, all sorts of rumors, so many rumors you can't keep track.

Kind of like the Air Force has always encouraged UFO rumors, now, there may or may not be UFO's over the United States, regardless, the US Air Force has almost carte blanche to test classified aircraft because 99.99% of the time, the folks seeing them will be blinded by their fascination of the unknown and will convince themselves that they've seen a UFO.

Second point - Americans are stupid.

As a nation there are more stupid people in the US than just about any other country.. on a percentage basis.. It's not difficult to convince some cranked up junkie with a DSL connection and a sleep disorder that what you're saying in your blog is the God's honest truth.

*smack*   Structural Engineering 201.  You == the fail.  Remedial homework:  What is the tensile strength of steel as a function of temperature?

Everyone else:  Re-read Pynchon, Gravity's Rainbow, specifically the Proverb for Paranoids that I've quoted numerous times, and cross-reference against Principia Discordia's "Law of Fives", which states that given sufficient time and persistence, any phenomenon can be related to the number "five".


  would you say the flames in wtc raged for a sufficient amount of time?

   
Because... of course.. it's impossible that planes.. planes.. PLANES!! (Ever been on one, they're fu*king huge!) hitting a building could weaken or even destroy said steel girders which would then in turn collapse.. etc..etc..etc.

Here's the big thing. I laugh at the feeble minded souls who think that planes hitting the WTC towers wouldn't bring them down. They're office blocks essentially.. those are planes.. several hundred MPH missiles laden with fuel that are f**kin huge! That's not the question that's important.. the question is, why were they ever allowed anywhere near Manhattan, why were they not shot down as soon as it became known that they'd been hijacked? That's the correct procedure, shoot down the plane.



yes, planes are big. yes, planes are fast. no, the wtc were not just office blocks. they each had a big ass metal steel core. you're right, a raging boring 757 could definatly damage some steel girders, but not enough to bring down such an enourmous building in such a matter, so fast. 

yes, planes are big. yes, planes are fast. no, the wtc were not just office blocks. they each had a big ass metal steel core. you're right, a raging boring 757 could definatly damage some steel girders, but not enough to bring down such an enourmous building in such a matter, so fast. 


In theory, the components wouldn't go that fast, but together, it's quite possible. It's not really possible to test for such an event when building something of that size.. and often, the components on their own are stronger than the whole, consider that.

http://www.blackopradio.com/black314.ram

good clean fun.

^man, that's interesting stuff. real chilling and pretty well done, i thought.

Here's the big thing. I laugh at the feeble minded souls who think that planes hitting the WTC towers wouldn't bring them down.
OK, so why did WTC7 fall?

OK, so why did WTC7 fall?

It was so structurally damaged by the debris from Twin Towers that the WTC7 collapsed---demoliton style no less!
:-\\

OK, so why did WTC7 fall?


::)

That's like saying, why did my next door neighbors house burn.. when mine was on fire.

::)

That's like saying, why did my next door neighbors house burn.. when mine was on fire.

So you're saying that because two skyscrapers fell down, a third obviously will?  You argued in an earlier post that it was *because* the effects of a plane hitting the WTC buildings were critical that they collapsed handily - but of course, that argument can't apply to WTC7.  Try thinking critically, and look at those pictures of the Madrid tower burning.

Aren't you even a teensy bit suspicious that only three steel-framed skyscrapers have ever collapsed through fire, and all on the same day?  And fortuitously, all pancaking down into their own footprint... Ignoring the wackiest of the conspiracy theories, this is still very improbable (it's a bit like asking why during the 2004 election, the accuracy of the exit polls in Ohio varied as a direct function of the voting hardware used, and trying to get any explanation other than the voting hardware causing that variation - the probability maths is not proof of misdemeanour, but very suggestive).

What I'd love to happen is for there to be some out-of-the-way steel-framed skyscraper that is in need of demolishing, and an old aeroplane that nobody wants any more... fly one into the other and see what happens.  Of course, it wouldn't prove anything as a one-off, but it'd be lots of fun.

So you're saying that because two skyscrapers fell down, a third obviously will?  You argued in an earlier post that it was *because* the effects of a plane hitting the WTC buildings were critical that they collapsed handily - but of course, that argument can't apply to WTC7.  Try thinking critically, and look at those pictures of the Madrid tower burning.

Aren't you even a teensy bit suspicious that only three steel-framed skyscrapers have ever collapsed through fire, and all on the same day?  And fortuitously, all pancaking down into their own footprint... Ignoring the wackiest of the conspiracy theories, this is still very improbable (it's a bit like asking why during the 2004 election, the accuracy of the exit polls in Ohio varied as a direct function of the voting hardware used, and trying to get any explanation other than the voting hardware causing that variation - the probability maths is not proof of misdemeanour, but very suggestive).

What I'd love to happen is for there to be some out-of-the-way steel-framed skyscraper that is in need of demolishing, and an old aeroplane that nobody wants any more... fly one into the other and see what happens.  Of course, it wouldn't prove anything as a one-off, but it'd be lots of fun.


Hmmm. I do see your point.

That being said, I don't believe WTC 7 was built to withstand the same sort of damage that towers 1 & 2 were. You have to remember, they were both built to withstand rather a lot of force. I doubt WTC-7 was built to the same specifications, of course, if you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it, I'm afraid I'm fairly ignorant regarding the structural integrity codes of the world trade center buildings.

WT7 would not have collapsed vertically into its own foundations if fire and debris was affecting one side more than the other.  Sheesh!
::)

In theory, the components wouldn't go that fast, but together, it's quite possible. It's not really possible to test for such an event when building something of that size.. and often, the components on their own are stronger than the whole, consider that.


theoretical science can prove just about anything.

Hmmm. I do see your point.

That being said, I don't believe WTC 7 was built to withstand the same sort of damage that towers 1 & 2 were. You have to remember, they were both built to withstand rather a lot of force. I doubt WTC-7 was built to the same specifications, of course, if you have evidence to the contrary I'd like to see it, I'm afraid I'm fairly ignorant regarding the structural integrity codes of the world trade center buildings.


there you have it. wtc were built to withstand tremendous force. they were even built to withstand the force of the biggest plane at the time. sure, it wasn't quite a 757, but it was pretty damn big, and the 757 that did hit were somewhat empty. no where close to maximum weight.

      ps. if you're to ignorant to accept the proof accompanying the other side of the argument, maybe you shouldn't be visiting this thread.

theoretical science can prove just about anything.



.. err.. yeah, I suppose so.

So you're saying that scientific theory is flawed, but conspiracy theory isn't? If you believe that I've got a theory about Creationism I'd like to talk to you about.

there you have it. wtc were built to withstand tremendous force. they were even built to withstand the force of the biggest plane at the time. sure, it wasn't quite a 757, but it was pretty damn big, and the 757 that did hit were somewhat empty. no where close to maximum weight.

      ps. if you're to ignorant to accept the proof accompanying the other side of the argument, maybe you shouldn't be visiting this thread.


Of course they were, all skyscrapers are. But as I've been saying over and over again, do they actually build replicas of the building and fly real planes in to them? Of course not - Thus, it's all based on theory, something you seem to dislike. Theoretically a plane (smaller than a 757) shouldn't bring them down... but as you've pointed out yourself, theoretical science is just that, theory.

.. err.. yeah, I suppose so.

So you're saying that scientific theory is flawed, but conspiracy theory isn't? If you believe that I've got a theory about Creationism I'd like to talk to you about.


scientific theory and theoretical science are two different things. and what does al this have to do with "god"?

scientific theory and theoretical science are two different things. and what does al this have to do with "god"?



I know from past discussion that you like to deride the biblical ideas of Creationism and such like - For this I applaud you. But, to accept evolution, one must base a strong amount of faith on scientific theory, something you seem unwilling to do here.

"Scientific theory" as relates to whether a plane could bring down a steel-framed skyscraper in the way that it happened is not experimental science: you can't take twenty of the things and fly lots of planes in to test the theory.  So you're left with models, and the thing about models is that they are virtual and all the parameters are tweakable - and as the Kid says, you can use these sorts of models not so much to prove that it happened, but to prove that it's possible that it might have happened in a particular way.

This is very different to accepting the scientific theory of something like evolution, where there is a huge mountain of evidence that any theory needs to fit - you don't need to take the theory on faith, merely look at how well it explains what you can see.

"Scientific theory" as relates to whether a plane could bring down a steel-framed skyscraper in the way that it happened is not experimental science: you can't take twenty of the things and fly lots of planes in to test the theory.  So you're left with models, and the thing about models is that they are virtual and all the parameters are tweakable - and as the Kid says, you can use these sorts of models not so much to prove that it happened, but to prove that it's possible that it might have happened in a particular way.

This is very different to accepting the scientific theory of something like evolution, where there is a huge mountain of evidence that any theory needs to fit - you don't need to take the theory on faith, merely look at how well it explains what you can see.


..and have any 'model tests' taken in to account degradation over time, shifts in the geological soundness of the land, the effect that decades of New York winters would have on any building.

I'm not writing anything off, just saying, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that a conspiracy theory based on little more than an idea is certainly more relevant than scientific theory, based on the abilities and properties of the components involved.

..and have any 'model tests' taken in to account degradation over time, shifts in the geological soundness of the land, the effect that decades of New York winters would have on any building.
That's why any model would almost certainly show that what happened is within the realms of possibility.  But that doesn't stop me from being sceptical that only three steel-framed skyscrapers have collapsed because of fire, and those three were all on the same day.


I'm not writing anything off, just saying, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that a conspiracy theory based on little more than an idea is certainly more relevant than scientific theory, based on the abilities and properties of the components involved.

True.. and I have to admit that I don't like any of the conspiracy theories, mainly because the motives behind nearly all of them seem to me to be way too weak & disproportionate, with the possible exception of the simple financial motive as possibly the world's biggest insurance fraud... except that doesn't explain the Pentagon and flight 93.. so if you're trying to come up with a conspiracy to make that the prime motive, there's some seriously odd leaps of faith needed to make a coherent plot.

Put simply, there isn't a theory out there at the moment (including the official one) that actually makes sense and explains what has been observed.  Sure, I think the investigators & government know a lot more than they're letting on (for whatever reason), but that doesn't per se mean I think they were involved in plotting the event.

..and have any 'model tests' taken in to account degradation over time, shifts in the geological soundness of the land, the effect that decades of New York winters would have on any building.

I'm not writing anything off, just saying, it's somewhat disingenuous to claim that a conspiracy theory based on little more than an idea is certainly more relevant than scientific theory, based on the abilities and properties of the components involved.


but most all of the evidence supporting conspiracy theories is based on science and physics. thing is, there really isn't much "scientific" evidence supporting the official story.

              btw: good point with the whole evolution thing.

but most all of the evidence supporting conspiracy theories is based on science and physics. thing is, there really isn't much "scientific" evidence supporting the official story.

              btw: good point with the whole evolution thing.



That's why any model would almost certainly show that what happened is within the realms of possibility.  But that doesn't stop me from being sceptical that only three steel-framed skyscrapers have collapsed because of fire, and those three were all on the same day.
True.. and I have to admit that I don't like any of the conspiracy theories, mainly because the motives behind nearly all of them seem to me to be way too weak & disproportionate, with the possible exception of the simple financial motive as possibly the world's biggest insurance fraud... except that doesn't explain the Pentagon and flight 93.. so if you're trying to come up with a conspiracy to make that the prime motive, there's some seriously odd leaps of faith needed to make a coherent plot.

Put simply, there isn't a theory out there at the moment (including the official one) that actually makes sense and explains what has been observed.  Sure, I think the investigators & government know a lot more than they're letting on (for whatever reason), but that doesn't per se mean I think they were involved in plotting the event.


Thanks, as I'm sure you can see, I'm not attempting to disprove any of the conspiracy theories, Hell, I'm more than convinced that things were not as they appeared, that being said, it's highly unlikely that we've come close to an actual explanation. All the theories put forward tie in so nicely, which to me says they're wrong. As Mr. FooBar so clearly points out, if they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about the answers.

Thanks, as I'm sure you can see, I'm not attempting to disprove any of the conspiracy theories, Hell, I'm more than convinced that things were not as they appeared, that being said, it's highly unlikely that we've come close to an actual explanation. All the theories put forward tie in so nicely, which to me says they're wrong. As Mr. FooBar so clearly points out, if they can keep you asking the wrong questions, they don't need to worry about the answers.


so you're saying we shouldn't be contemplating whether or not the buildings should have gone down, but rather, why the government would do such a thing?

so you're saying we shouldn't be contemplating whether or not the buildings should have gone down, but rather, why the government would do such a thing?



A better way to put it.. in my opinion.. wouldn't be the idea of how the buildings went down, whether it was a real attack, whether it was planned.. or whether it was a Pearl Harbor deal where they allowed it to happen, but more, who benefits, how much evidence is there to suggest that such a thing would happen etc.

How the buildings went down is a secondary piece of the puzzle, first you have to know who did it and why, then you can easily work out how.

A better way to put it.. in my opinion.. wouldn't be the idea of how the buildings went down, whether it was a real attack, whether it was planned.. or whether it was a Pearl Harbor deal where they allowed it to happen, but more, who benefits, how much evidence is there to suggest that such a thing would happen etc.

How the buildings went down is a secondary piece of the puzzle, first you have to know who did it and why, then you can easily work out how.


i understand what you're saying, but proving the "official theory" (put forward by the government.) wrong is equal to proving the government has lied.

i understand what you're saying, but proving the "official theory" (put forward by the government.) wrong is equal to proving the government has lied.


I suppose so.

My point is, it's better to have a good idea of what you think is the case, before destroying what was.

I don't think it's as black and white as that: the "government" isn't a single brain with one set of knowledge and motivations.  There may well be people in government who do know more than they're letting on, but any odds most of 'em probably think it's in their own best interest not to inquire too deeply and are if not happy then at least relieved to accept the official verdict.  Like most "conspiracies", the only real conspiracy here is of apathy: not caring enough to find out what the truth really is.


My point is, it's better to have a good idea of what you think is the case, before destroying what was.

That's actually a very good argument for accepting any bunch of "official" twaddle when there isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise...

That's actually a very good argument for accepting any bunch of "official" twaddle when there isn't enough evidence to prove otherwise...


Not exactly my intention you understand, but I suppose it is.

Good thing I'm on the Government fast track program.  ;D

the only real conspiracy here is of apathy: not caring enough to find out what the truth really is.


yeah, it really bothers me when i try to explain it to people and they say they don't care. real mature!