9/11 Conspiracy, 7 years later...

[D_Fiona_Farvel]

You know what dude? You can't get this thread shut down because you disagree with my thoughts. What is up with the Orwellian attitude of some of the members? Free speech means protecting the speech that you don't agree with... suppressing free speech is authoritative and anti-American.

I hope that your fucking keyboard breaks in half.

Tripod, we have disagreed a few times, including on this, but I do absolutely support your right to believe and voice your opinion on this subject... the thread should not be closed as I only see a rather healthy, substantiated debate.

 

[tripod]

Tripod, we have disagreed a few times, including on this, but I do absolutely support your right to believe and voice your opinion on this subject... the thread should not be closed as I only see a rather healthy, substantiated debate.

Thank you and let me also say that the introductory post was deliberately sensational... it wouldn't have sounded quite as good if I said that, "Some of the stuff appears to have been faked but I am not really sure." lol!!!!

I'll link to the videos tomorrow that show the stuff that really blew my mind. They are all on youtube and I have downloaded most of them and watched them over and over.

I am not 100% sure about what I have seen... I wasn't there and don't have a high enough security clearance to figure the truth from the fiction. I am hoping that this debate will resolve some discrepancies that have been burning in my brain.

 

[Scrufuss]

Opinions are always welcome. But when they get seemingly ludicrous and absurd and evidently mis-worded on top of that to make seemingly WRONG statements… Well let the fecal matter fly.
I will admit, the 911 incident hit me hard, and deep. I volunteered to go help with the clean up. It traumatized me. It did worse to some people I know. Maybe that’s why it gets me so deep because I am taking on the emotional turmoil as my own.
Sorry for flaming you, Tripod. Well for the most part I am. You just cant say things like air is denser up high and expect others to not get suspicious.
...

 

[tripod]

Opinions are always welcome. But when they get seemingly ludicrous and absurd and evidently mis-worded on top of that to make seemingly WRONG statements… Well let the fecal matter fly.
I will admit, the 911 incident hit me hard, and deep. I volunteered to go help with the clean up. It traumatized me. It did worse to some people I know. Maybe that’s why it gets me so deep because I am taking on the emotional turmoil as my own.
Sorry for flaming you, Tripod. Well for the most part I am. You just cant say things like air is denser up high and expect others to not get suspicious.
...

Well, there is no reason to be suspicious of me. I have proved myself to be an intelligent individual with a solid set of morals on this board. I meant to say cooler not more dense... it is an honest mistake.

I dream at least once a month about planes going down and huge fucking disasters. 9/11 has permeated my fucking dreams and I am SERIOUSLY pissed about that... I am traumatized too man, I feel exactly what you have felt. I am also reacting to the emotional turmoil but I am doing it by asking questions and dealing with my pain through an armchair research project... it's just my way of going about my grief.

I just fucking hate being lied to, I absolutely despise it.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

Well Phil, we both know the Bush administration has less than forthcoming and transparent during many events. While I believe pretty much all of the conspiracy theory stuff is junk, I always wondered why most of the pentagon attacks footage were confiscated, and whether United 93 was shot down or crashed by the terrorist pilots.

But then again, will any of this matter? I don't know, but asking questions and being skeptical is not always a bad thing.

There was no Pentagon footage. Just 5 frames of film from a security camera at a guard booth.
Never mind about HUNDREDS of eye witnesses who SAW a plane come in low over the highway and hit the building...

Forensic analysis of the DAMAGE done to cars, streetlights and external building structures prove that whatever hit the pentagon HAD to have a the wingspan of a 757 to have knoicked down all those streetlights.

No cruise missile has that kind of wingspan.

Its just amazing to me... we have these attacks on FILM... some of them, from 50 different angles... we have a REAL conspiracy by a PROVEN set of conspirators.

But folks will still ignorantly claim that the evidence is not evidence...s till ignore well documented reality in favor of a story far more outlandish and far more complicated... with not one iota of evidence in support.

 

[D_Jared Padalicki]

Somethings were suspicious after the attacks, but you honestly don't believe that there weren't planes hitting the towers! We saw it all, we also saw the chaos... Weird post. I know that there were theories, but this theory is going a bit too far.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

PS-

GO here
YouTube - 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

WATCH IT CAREFULLY

Any so called "theory" of what went down HAS to explain ALL the observable, measurable and quantifiable DAMAGE.

This analysis shows the Exact and ONLY flight path that explains all observed evidence.
A flight path that agrees perfectly with radar tracking, and eyewitness accounts as well.

 

[HazelGod]

Its just amazing to me... we have these attacks on FILM... some of them, from 50 different angles... we have a REAL conspiracy by a PROVEN set of conspirators.

But folks will still ignorantly claim that the evidence is not evidence...s till ignore well documented reality in favor of a story far more outlandish and far more complicated... with not one iota of evidence in support.

Yes, heaven forbid there ever be anyone with the audacity to continue questioning that which any number of others feels is proven gospel.

Save for their ilk, we might still be explaining fire with phlogiston instead of oxygen.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

They question real evidence, but not their own assumptions or fantasies.

They imagine their ignorance qualifies them to hold an opinion.


I don't give a shit what anyone believes.... what can you DEMONSTRATE?

That some jackass can verbalize an idea does not mean that idea is valid, does not equate that idea with ideas that have evidence in support.


The buidlings did not IMPLODE- they peeled like bananas. NO demolition ever has peeled a buidling's curtain walls like a banana. From the top down.

 

[tripod]

PS-

GO here
YouTube - 911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77

WATCH IT CAREFULLY

Any so called "theory" of what went down HAS to explain ALL the observable, measurable and quantifiable DAMAGE.

This analysis shows the Exact and ONLY flight path that explains all observed evidence.
A flight path that agrees perfectly with radar tracking, and eyewitness accounts as well.

That was a pretty fucking cool video and I loved their thoughtful and detailed animations. It was pretty damn convincing too... those light poles were just absolutely mangled... I don't know how they could have faked that, but it is not impossible, I just can't think of anything right now.

You do agree that plane wreckage photos can be faked right? I mean, those photos look pretty fuckin' real to me... I've seen most of them already and don't have much personal experience with plane crashes, so I just say that the photos look real to me, but they could also be faked.

The generator damage wasn't all that convincing that it was damaged specifically by an airplane wing and not just part of the damaged mess, but again, it looked real enough to me.

The only problem was that they had cut between the security camera frame and their animation and lo and behold... there was no plane. Listen, I know that it sounds fucking ridiculous that no plane hit the pentagon. I just am not entirely convinced although that video was informative and a point win for the debunkers, but it didn't disprove the conspiracy theory anywhere near 100%. The light poles are pretty strong evidence though.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

I will tell you right now that Boeing 737, 757 and 767s are mostly Aluminum and air... the wings are extremely delicate and full of moving parts.

There is noooooo way that an Aluminum plane would disappear into a Steel building like a knife through butter. Planes that have no crash ratings like commercial airliners crash against buildings, not into them.

A Boeing 767 has a maximum cruise speed of 568 miles per hour at 35,000 feet (cruise altitude).

MIT had clocked Flight 175 as going around 580 miles per hour at SEA LEVEL... the Boeing 767s ABSOLUTELY CANNOT GO THIS FAST AT SEA LEVEL.

Cruise missiles travel at around 580 miles per hour at sea level.

Oh yeah, I am getting over a sinus infection and haven't smoked anything in days. I am very clear headed on this.

You are entirely wrong.
The claimed airspeed for that plane is its DESIGNED speed... that is the top speed it was designed to fly safely at.

In a dive at full throttle the plane CAN exceed the speed of sound... but doing so will cause it to break up.

You don't know anything about building, and less about airplanes.

In 1947 a B-25 hit the Empire State building.
The Empire State building is built FAR more robustly than the WTC, with a forest of internal columns and MASONRY walls...
The B-25 was a FAR lighter aircraft traveling at a far lower speed than the 757s that hit WTC.
Nevertheless, the plane disappeared INTO the building.
One of its two engines penetrated to a central elevator shaft and fell down the shaft to hit the elevator car.
The other engine penetrated the ENTIRE building, to come out the far side, and plummet down to crash thru the roof of a Sculptor's studio across the street.

So... history proves that smaller, lighter planes hitting harder structures at slower speeds CAN penetrate.

IN fact, the WTC was little more than a series of columns that the planes hit like an Egg hitting an egg slicer. ( steel columns built to hold that building up versus aluminum structures built for light weight.)

Just to give you an accurate idea of what happened when the planes hit the bulilding, A finite element analysis was done, with an accurate physics simulation model of the plane hitting an accurate physics simulation of the building... and computed on a super computer the way Auto makers simulate crashes in the design phase for a car.


Watch this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

It should give you a very vivid idea of what happens when an aluminum airplane hits a 500,000 ton steel cheesegrater.

 

[corndogg]

...

That was a pretty fucking cool video and I loved their thoughtful and detailed animations. It was pretty damn convincing too... those light poles were just absolutely mangled... I don't know how they could have faked that, but it is not impossible, I just can't think of anything right now.

You do agree that plane wreckage photos can be faked right? I mean, those photos look pretty fuckin' real to me... I've seen most of them already and don't have much personal experience with plane crashes, so I just say that the photos look real to me, but they could also be faked.

The generator damage wasn't all that convincing that it was damaged specifically by an airplane wing and not just part of the damaged mess, but again, it looked real enough to me.

The only problem was that they had cut between the security camera frame and their animation and lo and behold... there was no plane. Listen, I know that it sounds fucking ridiculous that no plane hit the pentagon. I just am not entirely convinced although that video was informative and a point win for the debunkers, but it didn't disprove the conspiracy theory anywhere near 100%. The light poles are pretty strong evidence though.

You do realize that there were eyewitnesses to the plane hitting the Pentagon, right? One of those was a co-worker I have known for over 20 years. He actually saw the plane as it flew over and headed towards the Pentagon, and he heard the crash. He was less than a mile away.

 

[Phil Ayesho]

You do agree that plane wreckage photos can be faked right? I mean, those photos look pretty fuckin' real to me... I've seen most of them already and don't have much personal experience with plane crashes, so I just say that the photos look real to me, but they could also be faked.

No, I don't agree the wreckage photos could be faked... TOO many photographers took too many pictures with too many cameras in the minutes and hours immediately after the explosion.

Your "conspirators'' would have had to Produce an ACTUAL 757's worth of violently torn apart plane wreckage and carefully stage the scene before photographers arrived.

Once again... TOO many people need to keep too many secrets and too many witnesses need to have stories that match the evidence for the 'theory to hold up.

The SIMPLEST way to cause that much damage to the pentagon, AND provide believable plane wreckage in time for arriving spectators with cameras would be the CRASH A PLANE INTO THE PENTAGON.

The generator damage wasn't all that convincing that it was damaged specifically by an airplane wing and not just part of the damaged mess, but again, it looked real enough to me.

The generator was not hit by the wing. IT was hit by the ENGINE.
IT had a semicircular chunk CUT away the SAME radius as the engine nacelle.
The missing chunk of generator was found DEEP inside the building along with the heavy parts of the engine.

That was also where they found the remains of a streetlamp luminare that got ingested into the same starboard engine.

The only problem was that they had cut between the security camera frame and their animation and lo and behold... there was no plane

. Listen, I know that it sounds fucking ridiculous that no plane hit the pentagon. I just am not entirely convinced although that video was informative and a point win for the debunkers, but it didn't disprove the conspiracy theory anywhere near 100%. The light poles are pretty strong evidence though.

Actually, there are photos from that camera BEFORE the event and, when compared, you can clearly see the TAIL of the aircraft, visible in the event picture is NOT vivible in any other previous shot from that camera.
The Tailfin shape seen is ONLY present in that frame of video from that day... Plus you can see the swirling cloud of smoke trailing the damaged engine ( which was reported by eyewitnesses )

You do not see the plane in the next frame because the security camera only takes ONE FRAME PER SECOND.

At 500 miles per hour, a 757 travels enough distance to go from the position seen, to impact with the building in less than one second.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

PS: Tripod is most likely correct in his speculation that a commercial turbofan suffering high-speed impact damage would emit grey/blue smoke, due to the high percentage of unburnt hydrocarbon fuel exiting the damaged engine. While I appreciate the photo Wartrac provided, the engine failure depicted was not due to any structural deformation as would result from a collision, and therefore makes a poor illustration of the scenario in question.

Most likely doesn't make it so. It's not confirmed that the engine suffered catasrophic failure or close to it, it clipped a light pole that is meant to break away when struck by a car doing 60 miles per hour, nevermind a jetliner doing 500. I would need some form of evidence to this other than conjecture.

 

[2322]

What's the point of faking 9/11? It seems a horribly convoluted process to achieve a goal.

Armies of people who will never say anything

You would literally need thousands of people of multiple specialties and rare scientific ability to produce three dimensional holograms complete with sound effects synchronized to the demolitions explosions. You would have to maintain this for the entire flight of each plane.

You would need to have government agents hijack the planes successfully, land them, destroy the planes, murder every man, woman, and child aboard the planes, then hide all the evidence. That is even if you could find a place to land and disassemble the planes where they won't be seen.

Why fake that? Why risk having it found out? Why not just really hijack planes and really fly them into buildings in the most densely populated part of the country rather than playing with movie effects that could fail or haven't even been invented yet?

It makes no sense to create a vast complex process to replicate a relatively simple process when the opportunity for failure is so high.

Flight 93

Why bother with that at all? Why waste a hijacked plane like that or even create a whole false plane with a holograph and sound lightshow in a Pennsylvania cow pasture?

We managed to go to war with Iraq before without any pretense of disaster, so why create this whole menagerie of events involving thousands of highly trained specialists who the government would have to hope won't say anything for the rest of their lives?

It doesn't make sense in the slightest.

Perhaps Bush's neocon backers give oodles of money to Bush's old friends the bin Laden family who give it to Osama to train a bunch of impressionable young men to go out and commit terrorist acts against the west. One of them happens to be 9/11.

Oh wait.

If you're going to do that, then why make all the hijackers Saudis, Egyptians, and Yemenis? Why not say they're from a country we really want to invade, like Iraq? Why even bother with the whole Afghanistan thing anyway? There ain't no oil there and it's a bitch to invade.

I basically believe there is only one real government conspiracy regarding 9/11 and even that may be a question we don't want answered:

Was Flight 93 shot down or did it really crash? Given the scenarios involved and some alleged eyewitness accounts, the fate of Flight 93 is questionable. If it was shot down, then I hope the government never releases the name of the warrior who had to do it.

 

[HazelGod]

Most likely doesn't make it so. It's not confirmed that the engine suffered catasrophic failure or close to it, it clipped a light pole that is meant to break away when struck by a car doing 60 miles per hour, nevermind a jetliner doing 500. I would need some form of evidence to this other than conjecture.

There isn't any to be had.

However, knowledge of the material properties of various engine components...such as the strong, but brittle, forged titanium alloy inlet stator and compressor vanes spinning at several thousand RPM...gives us some ideas of what to expect when the engine ingests foreign materials. Such as bits of steel and glass from a breakaway streetlight pole...

That was also where they found the remains of a streetlamp luminare that got ingested into the same starboard engine.

 

[Equus14]

Okay, how many of you 9/11 anti-conspiracy theory people who refuse to believe things that are not beyond the realms of possibility but contradictorily also happen to be a theist believing things for which not only is there no evidence whatsoever but are absolutely beyond the realms of possibility?

Case closed.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

There isn't any to be had.

However, knowledge of the material properties of various engine components...such as the strong, but brittle, forged titanium alloy inlet stator and compressor vanes spinning at several thousand RPM...gives us some ideas of what to expect when the engine ingests foreign materials. Such as bits of steel and glass from a breakaway streetlight pole...

Ok but there are pics out there when fan blades are destroyed and sucked into the engine by something as soft as a bird. Again, without knowing the actual damaged caused, "gives us some ideas" or "speculation" doesn't come close to proof.

A cruise missle is 20 feet long, 4 feet in diameter and has a wingspan of 12 feet. Even if this was painted silver with American Airlines all over it, do you think it could be mistaken as a jetliner by so many people?

Also, look at this composite photo, the left to right damage is much larger and any cruise missile. Also notice that the damage from where flight 77s wings would have hit, bows inwards. So that damage shows it is from an impact, not damage of an explosion that would have blown outwards. Not to mention anything along the lines of a cruise missile would not have had the punching power to go that far in after striking the generator on the outside.

 

[bobabooey69]

There was no Pentagon footage. Just 5 frames of film from a security camera at a guard booth.
Never mind about HUNDREDS of eye witnesses who SAW a plane come in low over the highway and hit the building...

There was also footage from a nearby gas station and post office security cam. I wonder where THAT footage is, and why that suddenly disappeared and was never revealed. I will get the links for you.

Most of the WTC conspiracy is bunk, the demolition and missile stories are hilariously stupid as there are dozens and dozens of video cameras that caught it all, and thousands of first hand eye witnesses that are rock solid.

It is the stuff at the Pentagon and Flight 93 that don't smell right with me.

 

[D_Marazion Analdouche]

There was also footage from a nearby gas station and post office security cam. I wonder where THAT footage is, and why that suddenly disappeared and was never revealed. I will get the links for you.

It is the stuff at the Pentagon and Flight 93 that don't smell right with me.

Get with the times man, the Citgo and Sheraton videos were released some time ago.

What about flt 93 and the Pentagon doesn't smell right?