The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]

ronbyrne2005

honestly ,who cares? truth will come out in the end as it always does,if people know unreported things that occured it will emerge.

Metacortex

In fairness, i think even if they did shoot it down, people would understand why, you just have to look at the WTC footage.

ChityWest

I think it was just a slip of the tongue - and doesnt mean anything. There is a point made in the comments part of that youtube page that rang true for me :

First, on the day in question, and for weeks afterward, the government could have easily gotten away with saying that, yes, they had shot down the plane, it was headed for the Capital building, blah blah blah.

Second, no NTSB investigator ever found a piece of debris that made him/her go, "Hey, what's this big hole in the side?" Also, no Air Force maintenance guy has ever said, "Hey, that fighter had more missiles on it when it took off this morning."

afaik there hasnt been any evidence proving that it was shot down and we all make the odd verbal mistake.

whizzbang

ChityWest wrote:

afaik there hasnt been any evidence proving that it was shot down and we all make the odd verbal mistake.

The wreakage was in such little bits that I doubt they could have told what happened to it either way!.

Hitting the ground at 500 mph = little pieces.

I heard they found some wreakage a few mile saway, over a hill, that would suggest it broke up in the sky. Which would support the "Shot down" theroy.

Manic Moran

whizzbang wrote:

I heard they found some wreakage a few mile saway, over a hill, that would suggest it broke up in the sky. Which would support the "Shot down" theroy.

Could also support the theory that the aircraft was thrown around in maneuvers which exceeded its design limits. What did the flight data recorder say about its speed and angle at impact?

NTM

bonkey

DublinWriter wrote:

I'm not sure if it's in the Loose Change video, but there's a video showing the towers collapsing and analysing the time they take to collapse.

All such analysis are highly suspect - most notably because the time taken for the collapse is so hard to judge once the event becomes obscured in its own dust-cloud. Determining when it ends is virtually impossible from video-evidence alone.

The time taken for each tower to collapse was the exactly the same time at which a coin would fall if dropped from the top of the tower.

No, it wasn't.

There's a simple test for this. Watch the collapse. See the debris falling slightly to the side of the main column? See how its moving faster than the main column?

This is freefall speed. This would match your coin. This is - as already pointed out - moving faster than the central column collapse.

There is one logical conclusion from this, and one non-sensical one.

Logical: The collapse did not occur at free-fall speeds
Nonsensical: The collapse fell at free-fall, and the debris somehow managed to fall at speeds faster than gravity on this planet permit. This would suggest that not only were bombs and airplanes used in the great conspiracy theory, but some sort of localized gravity-increasing ray as well.

Meaning the towers 'free-falled'.

No, they didn't. A basic understanding of physics refutes this utterly...


jc

bonkey

whizzbang wrote:

The wreakage was in such little bits that I doubt they could have told what happened to it either way!.

Are you basing this on an expert's comments, or just on your own gut feeling?

I would expect to find shrapnel from the missile amongst the wreckage if a missile was used....but thats just me I guess.

I'm also foolish enough to believe that the black box recorders (which were recovered for flight 93) would also offer some corroboration.

I heard they found some wreakage a few mile saway, over a hill, that would suggest it broke up in the sky. Which would support the "Shot down" theroy.

If true, and if "a few mile" is a large enough distance that one would statistically not expect to find wreckage....sure, I'd agree.

But you only heard, and we don't know how far "a few mile" really is. Its not like you've checked the facts or anything.

But last time I heard these allegations it was from some site where the Alternate Theorists claimed the location was 6-7 miles away, when in fact its about 1.5 miles away and well within the area where it is statistically probable to find amounts of wreckage.

Manic Moran wrote:

What did the flight data recorder say

Allegedly, it said nothing to substantiate the "shot down" stories. Also, the families of those on board the plane agreed they didn't want the recorded released to the public.

This, naturally, is "proof" that no information from the black boxes can be taken seriously, because its being covered up, and the families are "obviously" being co-erced into agreeing with this...meaning that if the black-boxes ever were released and showed nothing sinister it would be because they had been doctored and everyone involved would be too scared / corrupt to blab.

Its the usual story....you know how it goes, I'm sure. If the evidence hasn't been released, its because its incriminating. If it has been released and isn't incriminating, its because its been faked / doctored. Y'know...thats why no missile parts were said to have been found in the wreckage. "Obviously" they were there, but its all part of the coverup.

I'm half-surprised someone hasn't changed the story from missile to a live test of some new seekr1t beam-weapon or something, to explain away the lack of missile wreckage.

jc

bonkey

tunaman wrote:

They were designed to withstand the largest plane at the time, a fully loaded 707,

Whatever about the claims of deMartini, there's a couple of points worth noting here.

The calculations were allegedly for a 707, lost in fog, almost out of fuel. This is not "fully loaded" by any stretch. The calculations were based on a "searching for landing" assumption and so were using a max speed figure of around 200mph, which implies significantly less kinetic energy than what happened on 911.

The calculations - according to Leslie Robertson (the guy who carried them out) - did not consider jet-fuel and the subsequent fires etc. They determined whether or not the building would collapse upon impact from being struck by a 707 at low speed.

all buildings are also over designed as it happens.

Indeed. Each of the twin towers survived a crash-impact from an airplane imparting kinetic energy far in excess of the calculations carried out.

What they didn't survive was the combination of the crash, the fires that were started, and all the ensuing events.

This combination - again according to Robertson - was not modelled or tested, because it was simply beyond the modelling capabilities of the day.

The calculations, as far as they went, said the actual impact wouldn't make the building fall. The actual impact on 911 didn't make the building fall, no matter whether you subscribe to the pancake theory, the explosives theory, the gravity-ray theory, or any other theory.

jc

Tusky

Did you just say "rewind" ?

Yook

Tusky wrote:

Did you just say "rewind" ?

No, I said it last night at 23:18.

dbnavan

He didnt say it was shot down he says Imagine the world we would fac if the people who attacked the united states in new york, shot down the plane that attacked the pentegon.

I would have to hear the whole statement very easy to cut a clip to make it sound like something its not, what were his previous and next sentences

Huggles

Did nobody read my post? :mad:

Ciaran500

I did, happy now?

Pigman II

ronbyrne2005 wrote:

truth will come out in the end as it always does

Huggles

Ciaran500 wrote:

I did, happy now?

yeah, I suppose you'll have to do :rolleyes:

seamus

whizzbang wrote:

The wreakage was in such little bits that I doubt they could have told what happened to it either way!.

Actually, in the U.S., crash investigation is sometimes painfully meticulous. Without an obvious cause of crashing, they will rebuild the plane from all of those tiny little pieces (not literally fix it up so it could fly again), like a big jigsaw, to try and reveal what happened.

bonkey

TheGooner wrote:

Did nobody read my post? :mad:

I did.

You referred to a tv-show without any details which would allow someone to meaningfully research what you were talking about to see:

a) If what you're saying is an accurate reflection of what was in the show
b) If what was in the show is credible in the first place.

So having read you post, I dismissed it.

If you wanna get mad (:mad:) that no-one's discussing your post, that's your perogative, but in all fairness....there's nothing about it to discuss except how devoid of content it is.

whizzbang

seamus wrote:

Actually, in the U.S., crash investigation is sometimes painfully meticulous. Without an obvious cause of crashing, they will rebuild the plane from all of those tiny little pieces (not literally fix it up so it could fly again), like a big jigsaw, to try and reveal what happened.

True, it is amazing what they do, but the only images I have seen of the crash site were just a burnt hole in the ground so I'm not sure if even they can recreate the plane form that!
http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39380000/jpg/_39380287_field2_i203_ap.jpg
http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight93.html
Admittedly the second site is not the most unbiased in the world!

I'm not a big conspiracy theorist, but I do think this one is possible. They have said since they would shoot down any hijacked planes http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0,,559599,00.html.

the "The passengers brought it down" is a great story for people to believe though, I think the US Government just let that become the memory to give people peace and let them have some heros.

J

Huggles

bonkey wrote:

I did.

You referred to a tv-show without any details which would allow someone to meaningfully research what you were talking about to see:

a) If what you're saying is an accurate reflection of what was in the show
b) If what was in the show is credible in the first place.

So having read you post, I dismissed it.

If you wanna get mad (:mad:) that no-one's discussing your post, that's your perogative, but in all fairness....there's nothing about it to discuss except how devoid of content it is.

Alright Bonkey keep your hair on!!

Anyways I stated that I saw the pilot speaking about it on some show on the biography or history channel, can't remember, and he said that it was the 'Hardest order he's ever had to follow"...

I was in Washington DC myself at the time and it was common knowledge amongst the locals that it had been shot down, a Wasington Police Officer told me the same thing. All teh news reports said "fighter jets had been scrambled"

Theres my input bonkey hope thats okay for you now.

In my :mad: post I was actually only joking

bonkey

TheGooner wrote:

Anyways I stated that I saw the pilot speaking about it on some show on the biography or history channel, can't remember, and he said that it was the 'Hardest order he's ever had to follow"...

I know what you stated. Repeating it doesn't add credence, nor does it nullify my original criticism.

Making up a "quote" from the unidentifiable pilot doesn't change much. (Its pretty clear its not a quote from the pilot because people generally don't refer to themselves in the thid person unless their name is Pigman or something.)

I was in Washington DC myself at the time and it was common knowledge amongst the locals that it had been shot down,

An unsuibstantiable claim of common knowledge amongst an ill-defined group who wouldn't have a credible basis for their information anyway.....need I say more about the usefulness of this tidbit?

All the news reports said "fighter jets had been scrambled"

Yup. They did. No question

And they're pretty much correct. Fighters were indeed scrambled. Its even easy to verify this one with no end of linkage, because the question about scrambling has always been more of a question of when the various planes were scrambled, not whether or not they were.

Its worth noting, though, that the only connection between "Scrambled" and "intercepted and shot down their target" is that the latter typically requires the former. The former, however, in no way implies the latter, which is what you seem to be suggesting here.

If I said that Flight 77 took off, and that this was proof that it crashed into the Pentagon, would you think I had a convincing argument? My guess is that its more likely that I'd be laughed and pointed at by the CTers for such a transparently flawed argument.

Why then should "the fighters took off" be considered any more of a convincnig argument for the allegation that they shot down a commercial airliner? Short answer....it shouldn't.

jc

SpitfireIV

whizzbang wrote:

the "The passengers brought it down" is a great story for people to believe though, I think the US Government just let that become the memory to give people peace and let them have some heros.

J

I couldnt agree more whizzbang, as I mentioned in an earlier post I think flight 93 was supposed to go down, it provided the great heroism of the days events, the American people taking on the nasty hijackers and sacrefising themselves in the process. With there, 'lets roll!' battle cry, that phrase which was to become attached to the days events and the years thereafter.

CroppyBoy1798

Zascar

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main

growler

bonkey wrote:

I Making up a "quote" from the unidentifiable pilot doesn't change much. (Its pretty clear its not a quote from the pilot because people generally don't refer to themselves in the thid person unless their name is Pigman or something.)


jc

I knew it , Pigman shot down Flight 93 and is now trying to deflect attention way from his obvious guilt, I mean who would suspect him of such evil. bad little piggy.

bonkey

I see here that Loose Change is under fire for some alleged copyright infringements.

I wonder how long before fanboys of the piece turn this into some sinister move by The Man to quash yet another brave attempt to bring The Truth to Light.

jc

DublinWriter

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

I couldnt agree more whizzbang, as I mentioned in an earlier post I think flight 93 was supposed to go down, it provided the great heroism of the days events, the American people taking on the nasty hijackers and sacrefising themselves in the process. With there, 'lets roll!' battle cry, that phrase which was to become attached to the days events and the years thereafter.

And no one has offered any explaination of why the debris of Flight 93 was scattered over a nine-mile radius.

whizzbang

bonkey wrote:

I see here that Loose Change is under fire for some alleged copyright infringements.

I wonder how long before fanboys of the piece turn this into some sinister move by The Man to quash yet another brave attempt to bring The Truth to Light.

jc

Its an interesting movie but ut totally undermines himself by pushing easily checkable falsehoods as evidence. For example he say people couldn't have made phone calls from the planes as cell phones don't work from thet height. Then he goes and quotes the people as saying "I'm on the airfone" which is not a cell phone, it is one of those phones on back of the seat in front of you! Of course they work at altitude as they work over the airplanes radio system (I think)

Also he asks why the empire state building didn't collapse when it was hit by a plane. The fact is that the world trade center was a totally different building type. The Empire state building is a brick on brick building. All the strength is based on the mass of the walls. Where as the WTC used curtain walling which have little strength in themselves but hang off the metal frame of the building. These curtain walls are only strong as long as they are rigid, fireing a jet through them messes them up and they can collapse. A stone building on the other hand it much tougher.

Not to mention the fact that the plane that hit the Empire state was much smaller than the WTC.

*puts tin foil hat back on*

good movie but some glaring mistakes in it

(BTW I'm pretty sure they shot down flight 93 so I'm not a total sceptic)

bonkey

DublinWriter wrote:

And no one has offered any explaination of why the debris of Flight 93 was scattered over a nine-mile radius.

Sure they have. You just don't like the explanations offered. Perhaps you feel there no-one has offered any credible explanation.

There is a distinction.

bonkey

whizzbang wrote:

Its an interesting movie but ut totally undermines himself by

I'm always curious as to how a film which totally undermines itself can remain interesting. Hell, even fiction that totally undermines itself finds it tough to remain interesting.

*puts tin foil hat back on*

good movie but some glaring mistakes in it

Again...what's good about it? More importantly, do you not see the irony of having to put your tinfoil back in place before saying that its good? Its almost as though you're implicitly admitting that conspiracy theorists value judgements are based on a different scale.

Its almost saying "if I wasn't a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't find this a good film, but I am so I do".

jc

Gordon

I haven't read this thread fully but I really have to impart this information to you. If it has been discussed on this thread then my apologies, but at least you will know that what I'm saying is true, as it has been confirmed previously.

I have it on very good authority that the conspiracy theories have been made by the terrorists to create a schism in the American public against the current administration. It may sound a bit mad but it's true, seriously.

whizzbang

bonkey wrote:

Its almost saying "if I wasn't a conspiracy theorist, I wouldn't find this a good film, but I am so I do".

yep, it panders to all my paranoias, so of course I find it interesting!

It raises interesting point some of which is can defend and some of which it can't. That doesn't mean you should write the whole thing off because one or two pieces don't add up.