9/11 The Truth!

sci0x

Found this extremely interesting article asking questions you may not have thought of about 9/11.

Standdown

mr_angry

Why hasn't anyone replied to this. This is one of the most sensational things I have ever read on Boards!

It does take quite a while to read though. I don't know why its in 'After Hours' though.

I think the freakiest thing is the missing people on the passenger lists, simply because there's no plausable explanation for it. Why would anyone hide the names of 4-6 people on each airline, outside that of the hijackers?

One of the most complete conspiracy theories I've ever read.

Mercury_Tilt

This post has been deleted.

Memnoch

BUMP

people NEED to read this.. the facts in this are SHOCKING to say the least. I have never really believed conspiracy theories before this but this stuff sounds so true!

What sucks is that there is NOTHING we can do about it. Well there is something we can do. Tell everyone you know, tell your friends, get them to read it, even if they are sceptical, it will open people's eyes.

it opened mine

Borzoi

And they even manage to link it to the Kennedy assassination - there's an effing surprise.

I'm afraid it's just another conspiracy theory on the net. YAWN.

aodh_rua

Originally posted by Borzoi
I'm afraid it's just another conspiracy theory on the net. YAWN.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss it - especially if his sums etc. on the plane velocities and the seismic activity add up.

Memnoch

Borzai - u sound like you didn't read most of the article but simply dismissed it off hand?

Read the evidence he provides.. it is compelling, I cannot find any fault with the math present within, if u think it is a fraud and is wrong then pls show us where he is wrong, rather than just dismissing it off hand.

When you make a cell phone call, the first thing that happens is that your cell phone needs to contact a transponder. Your cell phone has a max transmit power of five watts, three watts is actually the norm. If an aircraft is going five hundred miles an hour, your cell phone will not be able to 1. Contact a tower, 2. Tell the tower who you are, and who your provider is, 3. Tell the tower what mode it wants to communicate with, and 4. Establish that it is in a roaming area before it passes out of a five watt range. This procedure, called an electronic handshake, takes approximately 45 seconds for a cell phone to complete upon initial power up in a roaming area because neither the cell phone or cell transponder knows where that phone is and what mode it uses when it is turned on. At 500 miles an hour, the aircraft will travel three times the range of a cell phone's five watt transmitter before this handshaking can occur. Though it is sometimes possible to connect during takeoff and landing, under the situation that was claimed the calls were impossible. The calls from the airplane were faked, no if's or buts.

Well I can confirm that this part is total nonsense.
On a recent flight from Dublin to London Heathrow I left my mobile switched on accidently in my jacket in the compartment over my head.
It had three missed calls During the flight as well as welcome messages from various UK mobile operators.

Kinda confirms my scepticism of the rest of the article:rolleyes:

mm

Memnoch

I don't know much about mobile phones etc...

however while ur on a flight from Dublin to London you would be passing mostly over cities woudln't you? From where ur mobile could connect etc? Also this article was written a year and a half ago? how old is ur phone? Maybe things have changed since then? I wish there was someone with more technical knowledge around who could provide a more robust explanation of things.

At any rate, I still can find no fault with his math regarding the speed of the planes etc etc.

add that to the fact all the other unrelated evidence about bush and his cronies and how much they have gained because of 9/11....

Pompey Magnus

is it just me or does the "f-15" look way too big (overall length of less than 20 m) when compared to the boeing (length 55m) and the entire wtc building (64 m wide)? how on earth could you identify what a measly tail-fin looks like on an object that is further away than the tower?

It's interesting reading but this is a part I'm taking with a pinch of salt!

http://www.attackonamerica.net/f-15atwtc.mpg
http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/F-15.htm

Originally posted by Memnoch
I don't know much about mobile phones etc...

however while ur on a flight from Dublin to London you would be passing mostly over cities woudln't you? From where ur mobile could connect etc? Also this article was written a year and a half ago? how old is ur phone? Maybe things have changed since then?

Well there were relatives who took the calls from their loved ones on the planes, how silly is someone putting foward the notion that the calls couldn't be made into their piece.
It makes the rest of what they are saying doubtfull, very doubtfull.

mm

dudara

Can't you make calls from special cell phones on planes?

Borzoi

Originally posted by Memnoch
Borzai - u sound like you didn't read most of the article but simply dismissed it off hand?

Read the evidence he provides.. it is compelling, I cannot find any fault with the math present within, if u think it is a fraud and is wrong then pls show us where he is wrong, rather than just dismissing it off hand.

Memnoch, I choose not to believe. What you choose is up to you, I will neither condemn you nor praise you for your choices, because I really couldn't care less.

Capt'n Midnight

Yeah that bit about the F15's not going full speed..

Air resistance - an F15 can only do it's top speed at high altitude with an empty tank and carrying no missiles.. Going supersonic (still less than half the F15's top speed) at low level is more or less banned in US urban areas.. (and would make for an extremely bumpy ride)

Still a lot of americans believe the CIA (or the NSA or MIB) were responsible...

Still the Bush admin are milking it for all it's worth..

ixoy

Originally posted by Man
Well I can confirm that this part is total nonsense.
On a recent flight from Dublin to London Heathrow I left my mobile switched on accidently in my jacket in the compartment over my head.
It had three missed calls During the flight as well as welcome messages from various UK mobile operators.

Kinda confirms my scepticism of the rest of the article:rolleyes:

mm

Although, to be fair, US mobile networks are much sh1tter than ours until recently, right? We have a standard - GSM - which means stuff like handshaking can be negotiated much quicker. Whereas the US was an open free-for-all with standards, making communication between mobiles and networks that much more difficult. So it may be corect for US standards which aren't applicable to our more standardised ehh standards.

Beëlzebooze

I'm not sure what to think of all this, but a conspiricy on this kind of scale would be near impossible to keep under wraps. there would have to be so many people involved that it just couldn't be kept quite.

It is conceivable that some players in the US administration had knowledge of an impending attack, but that is a far cry from accusing them of planting explosives in the basement of the towers?

Sposs

Everyone knows the Bush was respondsible for 9/11 it gave him the perfect excuse to invade Iraqi under his banner "War on Terroism" Its all about the Oil.

joe90

Its all about oil.

Sposs

Most Intresting Bit -

While the aircraft crashes caused minimal earth shaking, significant earthquakes with unusual spikes occurred at the beginning of each collapse. The Palisades seismic data recorded a 2.1 magnitude earthquake during the 10-second collapse of the South Tower at 9:59:04 and a 2.3 quake during the 9-second collapse of the North Tower at 10:28:31.

The Palisades seismic record shows that -- as the collapses began -- a huge seismic "spikes" marked the moment the greatest energy went into the ground. The strongest jolts were both registered at the beginning of the collapses, well before the falling debris struck the earth.


These unexplained "spikes" in the seismic data tends to lend credence to the theory that perhaps a massive explosion(s) in the lowest level of the basements where the supporting steel columns of the WTC met the bedrock caused the collapses.

gimme

yawn

Dustaz

o_0

Its on the internet. It MUST be true.

Jesus, you stupid skeptics, all his sources are there for you to read! It must be true!!!!!


sigh.

Ok I'm not gonna waffle on about this "all about oil" nonsense, but I must say that a few things about the attack always perplexed me.

Firstly was the death toll. When they were reporting the incident, estimates of the toll were anywhere between 20000 to 40000. When it came out at 3000 it made me wonder how so few people died.

Secondly was the terrorists flying skills. I heard somewhere that they used games like "Flight Simulater" etc but the idea that they could maneuver the plane so well always made me wonder.

However, what the writer doesn't take into account is the suicide mission. How could they find people who would take their own lives like that? It doesn't make sense. Although, there have been similar conspiracies drafted by the joint chiefs of staff is the past - i.e. operation Northwood, which basically was a list of possible terrorist attacks that the US could commit on home soil that would turn the nation in favour of a war with cuba.


Perhaps it really was a conspiracy, and the planes were never even meant to drop the building, thus not causing the same kind of economic downturn that it did - but the only real notion here is that we're never going to find out if it really is a conspiracy or not

Silent Bob

Not only are all his sources there, but almost all of them are linked to either his site or attackonamerica.net!!!

This is proof that he is telling the truth!!1! Why would someone link to an outside source (which is sooo untrustworthy) when you can link to your own!!!

bug

one of the many things I never understood.. and I could go on about the others....was the numbers of people who reportedly boarded and were killed on each plane. There were a number of conflicting reports at the time and we were filled with statistics and innudated with reports about every aspect of Sept 11. Which could be a very good distraction method to confuse members of the public but of course a large attrocity such as sept 11 would bombard the public with reports as information comes in in bits.

Its a possibility that there may have been persons on each plane that somebody wanted to get rid of. This is pure conspiracy on my part though.

An inconcievable chain of events or an inconceivable level of lies. I'd say both

Stark

Don't have time to read all this now, will read it tonight. Just wondering does it mention the document prior to september 11th of the republican's plans for the country and how they'd need a "pearl harbour style" event to implement them?

AL][EN

hmmm interesting (if not long) read i have to admit they make some good points but after all deep down at some points

weather its true or not!! beats me!!

Éomer of Rohan

Is it just me or can anyone else not find that page standdown.net - I clicked on the link and it won't come up! I am asking because it would be very interesting had someone removed the whole page.

valor

retry

sci0x

Originally posted by Beëlzebooze
I'm not sure what to think of all this, but a conspiricy on this kind of scale would be near impossible to keep under wraps. there would have to be so many people involved that it just couldn't be kept quite.

It is conceivable that some players in the US administration had knowledge of an impending attack, but that is a far cry from accusing them of planting explosives in the basement of the towers?

You dont realise how well the government is at keeping this under wraps. This has been on the net for ages but nobody talks or it seems like to talk about these things. There are plenty of other sources on the net saying the same thing but ppl are too fooled by the government and the media to believe.

Take for example the ban on smoking in Ireland. The media and government constantly say how well it worked in America. EVERY American i have met has said they have lost business over it and it was a complete mistake. You have to go to the source yourself to get the complete truth about anything these days!

GoneShootin

its a good read





total bull****, but a good read none the less

aidan_dunne

I have to agree with GoneShootin on this one. It's an interesting read and raises a lot of "believable" points but I think it's bull as well.

By the way, about those pictures showing the "F-15" flying past the WTC. Looks like a typical dodgy, blurry, Photoshopped UFO picture to me!

It was aliens! The aliens did it, I tells ya!

sci0x

Ok lets look at another site 9/11 Timeline. It explains more clearly the events of 9/11. Its shows the facts. You choose if you want to believe them.

daveg

Originally posted by aidan_dunne
I have to agree with GoneShootin on this one. It's an interesting read and raises a lot of "believable" points but I think it's bull as well.

By the way, about those pictures showing the "F-15" flying past the WTC. Looks like a typical dodgy, blurry, Photoshopped UFO picture to me!

It was aliens! The aliens did it, I tells ya!

The F15 pics are a total fake. It looks totally out of proportion. The F15 is 63 feet long. It looks was longer in the pic beside the twin towers.

Besides I think we have all seen footage of the second plane crashing into the second tower. I have never seen nor heard the F15. It's not exaclty a quiet jet.

vibe666

did nobody see the thing on the discovery channel about why the towers collapsed?

there was fireproofing on the steel structure to prevent them from collapsing due to fire weakening the steel, but when it was put on they not only did a pretty bad job of it but the rust proofing that was supposed to go underneath was very poorly applied, and a lot of areas of fireproofing fell off due to rust beneath it on the steel.

this wasshown by a guy who was brought in a couple of years before 9/11 to survey the site and had said at the time it was a complete mess and wouldn't stand up to a serious fire.

incidentally the towers were designed to withstand being hit by a passenger jet, as it was in the original build spec. not for terrorist attacks, but they had taken into account the possibility of a low flying jet in fog unable to see the towers, but had only guessed at a low speed impact, not the high speed ones that happened.

it was very interesting, and would give you a lot more genuine information about the whole episode than some half baked conspiracy theory. of course it only goes into the why they collapsed part of it, not the why it happened and who was responsible, so it's not the full story.

will have to have a look at that link anyway when I get the chance.

daveg

Originally posted by vibe666
did nobody see the thing on the discovery channel about why the towers collapsed?

there was fireproofing on the steel structure to prevent them from collapsing due to fire weakening the steel, but when it was put on they not only did a pretty bad job of it but the rust proofing that was supposed to go underneath was very poorly applied, and a lot of areas of fireproofing fell off due to rust beneath it on the steel.

this wasshown by a guy who was brought in a couple of years before 9/11 to survey the site and had said at the time it was a complete mess and wouldn't stand up to a serious fire.

incidentally the towers were designed to withstand being hit by a passenger jet, as it was in the original build spec. not for terrorist attacks, but they had taken into account the possibility of a low flying jet in fog unable to see the towers, but had only guessed at a low speed impact, not the high speed ones that happened.

it was very interesting, and would give you a lot more genuine information about the whole episode than some half baked conspiracy theory. of course it only goes into the why they collapsed part of it, not the why it happened and who was responsible, so it's not the full story.

will have to have a look at that link anyway when I get the chance.

I saw that program. Was excellent. As you said it was designed to take the imapct of a smaller plane/lower speed/less fuel. Dont know if anything would withstand a fully loaded airliner at full speed.

Dustaz

Originally posted by sci0x
You dont realise how well the government is at keeping this under wraps. This has been on the net for ages but nobody talks or it seems like to talk about these things. There are plenty of other sources on the net saying the same thing but ppl are too fooled by the government and the media to believe.

(c)amp

blondie83

Is it just me or can anyone else not find that page standdown.net - I clicked on the link and it won't come up! I am asking because it would be very interesting had someone removed the whole page.

I couldn't open it either, I tried a few times but it doesn't work. Anyone got any parts of it they could post up so we could read it?

mr_angry

What browser are you guys using? I'm on Netscape 7.1, and it works fine...

yossarin

You dont realise how well the government is at keeping this under wraps.

<paraphrased terry pratchet>
Its amazing that people will believe that a government, given its absolute failure to do anything else effectivly, is totaly effective at covering things up
</paraphrased terry pratchet>

depechemode

Originally posted by daveg
I saw that program. Was excellent. As you said it was designed to take the imapct of a smaller plane/lower speed/less fuel. Dont know if anything would withstand a fully loaded airliner at full speed.

I believe it was built to withstand a fully fueled 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel with a cruise speed of 607 mph, the slightly larger 767-200's that were used which were carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel with a cruise speed of 530 mph. Where did you get smaller plane/ lower speed/ less fuel from?

The jet fuel burns rapidly and the fires caused by this would only have lasted a few minutes, the rest of the time the fires were fueled as would an ordinary office fire
p.s. no steel high-rise structure has ever collapsed due to fire, hydrocarbon fuel burns at a max of 700 C. the evidence suggest the wtc fire did not even approach this temp due to oxygen starvation (hence the black smoke, did you see any windows shattering due to these extremes in temperature that could melt the steel? I didn't! What about the outer steel structure glowing red hot? Nope!) but remained at about 250 C, the melting point of steel? over 1500 C yet pools of molten steel discovered under the rubble, where did this extra heat come from?

What really puzzles me is the fact the entire building fell in little over the time taken for a free falling object to fall under gravity, what happened to the undamaged steel super-structure below the fire which could normally hold the wieght above with ease, why does it put up the same resistance as thin air, would it not have been more likely for the upper levels, if they were to fall, to fall in a manner to meet least resistance ie outwards and not the manner in which they encountered maximum resistance, falling through a hundred levels of steel superstructure?

I'm no engineer but these points raised here give an engineering viewpoint and don't go into the murky detail of why someone would set this up! It deserves some consideration!!!
http://911research.wtc7.net

Beëlzebooze

If it was a orchestrated affair, why use four aircraft?

Two would have been enough, and certainly if enough "evidence" was planted in the alleged terrorists homes or appartments.

Also the planes could have been shot down, if the ATC had recieved some fundementalist rhetoric over the air. the message of terrorism would still have been clear.

It is way too elaborate and complex for a conspiracy. Too many people would have to be involved, it would leak somewhere along the line.

Stark

like it's leaking now?

mr_angry

If they were planting evidence, you'd think they would have gone for something a little more concrete?

The missing passengers still freak me out. Could they have been CIA agents?

Capt'n Midnight

Conjecture is not the same as circumstantial evidence.
And supposing is not the same as leaking..

Also that about the F15's only doing a fraction of their speed..
Top speed for an F15 is at high altitude with most of the fuel burnt and in a clean config (no missiles) - at low altitude in urban areas there is a ban on supersonic flight, further limiting the speed.

And that bit about hydrocarbons only burning at 700c... I've a parafin (similar to aviation fuel) blowtorch at home. Have a look at materials used in Jet engines and thier temperatures.. Also steel looses most of it's structural strength well below it's melting point (burning wood actually is one of the materials that retains it's strength longest in intense heat !) Also in a building that size there are lots of combustable substances...


BTW: I still think the Titanic was not sunk in 1912 , it was not ready in time - so they swapped it when her sister ship came in for repair. Captain Smith had previously rammed a liner into something and yet they still let him sail... Overall it was an insurance job..

ColinM

Dustaz, silent bob, and other sceptics - don't think you are so clever by dismissing this by saying it's on the Internet, so it's probably just some crank mouthing off. Read it, take it on board, knock it about a bit internally for a while and see how it holds up to scrutiny after you do your own research.

One of you made reference to the fact that many of his supporting links, like the one to the FAA standard intercept procedure was to a link on his own website. That link goes to a page on his own website alright, but that page contains a list of links to the FAA.gov website - so it is not the case, at least for this section, that he is backing up his own arguments with his own documentation.

Borzoi, who chooses to dismiss all of this without reading it because he doesn't care, deserves to live in a world where his future is created by others.

Remember folks, if you are either gullible or a sceptic, you will always have a skew on the truth. The hardest thing to do is to hold the rudder straight, but you should endeavour to do so.

And above all, be paranoid - it might just save your life one day!

Anyone even remotely interested in this topic and the subsequent use of the September 11th 2001 tradgedy that was made by the NeoCons to advance the aims of the Project for the New American Century should make sure they have read the article (also long) linked to below:

http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/

The most obvious flaw I can see in the theory, is that it would be almost impossible to keep this a secret. It would have to come out at some time. The sheer amount of people involved would be in the hundreds, if not thousands, and for all these people to knowingly kill so many people seems a bit unbelievable to me.


Perhaps they purposely ignored strong evidence that such an attack was bound to happen - of which many claims came out after 9/11 but were basically ignored - in order to turn the American people towards their policies. However, if that were true, then they couldn't have figured out what was about to happen in terms of economic downturn, and all the damage it has done to US credibility.


I personally believe that the MAIN reason that the US hit iraq when it did, was the iraqi oil currency switch in November 2000. See the main reason that America(even though it was an insane poverty level) is able to spend so much money on things such as war, aid, space travel etc is the fact that ALL OPEC countries trade their oil in the dollar. This means that huge countries, such as Japan, need to keep huge reserves of US currency in order to buy this oil. This mightn't seem like much of a threat, HOWEVER the thing is that it costs America practically NOTHING to print this money up, but if Japan wants it, they have to pay for it - thus giving America something for nothing.

Some other countires are seriously considering changing their oil currency to the euro, such as iran, venezuela, and russia. Ofc iran is in the "axis of evil", the US wants chavez out, and they can just hope that russia doesn't make the switch. Russia has talked of making such a switch in the past, but of course this swith wouldn't come free to Europe. They would obviously want inclusion in the Euro, in order to benefit from the boost it would give all euro-zone countries.


I believe that such a change could come in the near future, thus making the EU a practical super-power, and almost ruining America, due to not only their lack of income from the $, but also their need to buy in a helluva lot of euros in order to fill their currency reserves for use in buying oil!


EDIT: fixed date typo

Sposs

Good Points there Ultilty i hadn't relieased the Iraq had changed Currency from the Dollar , explains a lot.

BuffyBot

Frankly my opinion of this is that its paranoid conspiracy theory crossed with bias and flavoured with people trying to find an explanation in something that was a terrible tragedy (rationalisation is something everyone will try to do after an event of such huge proportions).


I suspect the real truth will never be known - the argument is logical but some of the premises are shaky - making me suspect this isn't near the true explanation either.

Pompey Magnus

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight

And that bit about hydrocarbons only burning at 700c... I've a parafin (similar to aviation fuel) blowtorch at home. Have a look at materials used in Jet engines and thier temperatures.. Also steel looses most of it's structural strength well below it's melting point (burning wood actually is one of the materials that retains it's strength longest in intense heat !) Also in a building that size there are lots of combustable substances...

From The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)....

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments)."

(Lets not forget the evidence suggesting the fire was oxygen starved and only reached 250 C,
-at 700C glowing steel visible in daylight-NO,
-at 600 C extensive window breakage- again NO....... etc!)

Taking the possibility that it was the first few minutes of the intensest heat with the rapid burn off of jet fuel that caused the inevitable collapse of the towers then it's also worth noting that due to steel being an excellent conductor of heat and the areas affected being part of a wider steel superstructure, as the temperature decreased later on, the steels would have regained considerable strength.(the softening of steel is reversible!)

Also when they do collapse the debris never disintegrates into dust and the collapse remains localised to the area experiencing the extreme temperatures!
"The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromized by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, concievably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. But it will not crumble into pieces."




I must admit to never having really considered this topic before but now that I have there are some things which I really just find suspicious. Its possible that this is a dead end conbspiracy theory but it's also possible that there could be something behind it and until a logical explanation for these seeming inconsistencies is produced I will tend to view the US hierarchy with suspicion (hey, they view Camp X-ray prisoners as guilty until proven otherwise, I'm only following their lead)!

Capt'n Midnight

http://www.sciencefairs.bc.ca/regions/gvrsf/2002/m16e.html

The average flame temperature for the jet-burner is 3477°C.
The average flame temperature for the oxyacetylene torch is 1217°C.
The average flame temperature for the fire is 797°C.

(I think it's higher than 797 - cos larger fire - more radiation, less cooling.)

Note: it's not the support beams under compression that went - it was the TRUSS under tension that failed first - the Safety load factors are a lot lower so forget about the temperature needed to weaken to 20% (also lots of extra weight on the floors due to collapse and other debris - ie straight away twice the load on the floor just below impact.)


Have a good look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Gmodified

Well, if you look at the video again, impact puts the windows out on other side of the building. I would expect that air passing through the hole would contribute to the process and give the same affect as a blow torch.
I have seen real fire where burning
-sofa
-two single beds/ 1 double bed with mattress
- some other rubbish
managed to heat up floor support beam to the point that concrete floor slab dropped and floor in the room above looked like a big satellite dish. It wasn't very heavy floor

Fire happened in the small archway of the big apartment block. you can imagine it as hole in the building with air access from both sides but on ground level instead somewhere in the sky

Ok, steel softening is reversible but under the load may easily go beyond the point where starts to flow, sometimes under own weigh(once temp doesn't drop suddenly)