Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
The Great Big 9/11 Conspiracy Theory Thread [Megamerge]
Options
Comments
-
Gordon wrote: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.
counter conspiracy... I like it. it would make sense, that way they get a double whammy!0 -
Personally I'm of the opinion that there is little the film can defend, particularly anything to do with the events of 9/11.whizzbang wrote:It raises interesting point some of which is can defend and some of which it can't.
Would you apply that same argument to the official explanation of events, I wonder?That doesn't mean you should write the whole thing off because one or two pieces don't add up.
Regardless, its not "one or two pieces" in Loose Change. I struggled to find a single argument made in the movie from opening to closing credits where I could honestly say the evidence presented, the logic used, etc. all added up....and that was just when I watched it to see what all the fuss was being made about here on boards and elsewhere. Bits of eevry argument stand up, sure. But thats as good as it gets. And if those bits were enough on their own....why the need for all the rubbish which accompanies them.
Since watching it, I've gone and read up some more on the subject, as well as looked at more in-depth criticisms of LC and to be honest my opinion of it has only dropped.
Initially I thought it was thought-provoking but badly flawed. Now I am more of the opinion that it is intentionally misleading and intellectually dishonest.
jc0 -
Here is a brilliant new film about 9/11 that you won't see in the cinema...
Who Killed John O'Neill?
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1981225573970187433&q=who+killed+john
John O'Neill : The man who knew too much
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/knew/
I'd really like to hear what all the sceptics have to say about this video...0 -
tunaman wrote:Here is a brilliant new film about 9/11 that you won't see in the cinema...
...
I'd really like to hear what all the sceptics have to say about this video...
This skeptic has the following to say:
Why is it brilliant?
Is it brilliant in the way LC was sold to be brilliant, or is it brilliant in the "I've actually done some research of my own, and can't find anything wrong with what these guys are saying".
Is there any reason I should consider this to be of different quality to the hours of utter rubbish that has been foisted on me by people telling me that such-and-such a video will put everything in a new light, make me challenge everything I believe, and so on and so forth ad nauseum???
Whatever about anyone else, I've better things to do than to sit down and watch hours of video every time someone makes a comment like yours, suggesting that finally you've found the questions that will stump the skeptics.
As a skeptic I ask what reason there is to believe these questions are any more stumping then the myriad of others you've made similar claims about already.0 -
bonkey wrote:This skeptic has the following to say:
Why is it brilliant?
Is it brilliant in the way LC was sold to be brilliant, or is it brilliant in the "I've actually done some research of my own, and can't find anything wrong with what these guys are saying".
I think this film is brilliant because it connects many of the dots. The trouble is some people will probably find plenty wrong with the content of this film, not because it's not true, but because it's so disturbing.Is there any reason I should consider this to be of different quality to the hours of utter rubbish that has been foisted on me by people telling me that such-and-such a video will put everything in a new light, make me challenge everything I believe, and so on and so forth ad nauseum???
Do you even know who John O'Neill was? and the story behind him?Whatever about anyone else, I've better things to do than to sit down and watch hours of video every time someone makes a comment like yours, suggesting that finally you've found the questions that will stump the skeptics.
Are you afraid of learning something?
At the very least I reckon you will find the film extremely thought provoking.As a skeptic I ask what reason there is to believe these questions are any more stumping then the myriad of others you've made similar claims about already.
I have presented many facts which have not been "debunked" like many people like to believe, but rather they have had to come up with ridiculous excuses and far-fetched explanations for their very existence.0 -
Advertisement
-
tunaman wrote:I think this film is brilliant because it connects many of the dots.
Credibly, or in an LC-fashion?
Ah, so LC-fashion then.The trouble is some people will probably find plenty wrong with the content of this film, not because it's not true, but because it's so disturbing.
People more typically find fault with content when the content is faulty. Its a very poor sign when you're already trying to explain away the criticisms that haven't even arrived.
Unsurprisingly, its pretty much the same thing I heard about LC...that people would knock it because they didn't want to consider that it might be right.
Oh dear. I'm hearing echoes of "Watch the video. It answers your questions."Do you even know who John O'Neill was? and the story behind him?
Look - here's a tip. Keep this to yourself though, because its hush-hush. K?
Anyway....there's this really secret internet place called www.google.com. If I didn't know who John O'Neill was, it would take me all of 30 seconds to find out. As a result, I'd have to be an utter moron to start saying I'm skeptical of something without bothering to find out what it was I'm skeptical of.
As for knownig "the story" behind him, that depends on how much of what you consider to be "the story" is fact, and how much is speculation CT-stylee.
So yes. I know who he is, what the background is, and what the allegations are.
More echoes of why I should have watched LC. I thought I made it reasonably clear, but let me clarify further:Are you afraid of learning something?
I am not afraid of learning anything.
I'm afraid I'm going to waste another chunk of my life getting suckered into watching a video by "challenges" like the one you've just provided.
I'm afraid that having done so, I'm going to then feel the need to offer an opinion in a discussion about it and waste more of my time acting as some sort of research tool / logical thought process for those who'd prefer to watch it and then make comments like the one I'm just responding to.
If I thought I honestly stood a chance of learning something from the video, I'd watch it in a shot. Thats why I asked you why its brilliant...to see if you could offer a credible argument as to why I shoudl watch it...what I might learn. What did I get? The usual obfuscation and exhortations. The usual "challenges".
Again...why I should have watched LCAt the very least I reckon you will find the film extremely thought provoking.
Its funny that in response to a post saying that I'm skeptical because it sounds like you're pimping this in the same way LC and other videos are pimped.....all you've done is pimp this in the same way once more.I have presented many facts which have not been "debunked" like many people like to believe, but rather they have had to come up with ridiculous excuses and far-fetched explanations for their very existence.
You've convinced me. I definitely don't need to watch this video.
Feel free to believe its because I'm closed-minded or scared of the truth or afraid to learn something or whatever.
Indeed, feel free to believe that I've watched it, can't refute it, and am posting this stuff here in some foolish hope that people won't cop I've been caught out.
Hell - feel free to believe what you want about my attitude to this video. Whether its credible or not, backed by evidence or not....believe what you like about why I'm skeptical of a video I claim not to have seen. Its clear from this last quote of yours that this is already how you operate.
jc0 -
There are so many signs pointing to the Bush cartel and 911 being completely rotten, as well as the ensuing wars for oil, that frankly I find it strange that anyone would cling to the official stories put forth by the American government as being true.
Operations Northwoods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
Osama Bin Laden was/is a CIA agent
http://www.greenleft.org.au/back/2001/465/465p15.htm
Bin Laden family very cosy with Bush oil cartel
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm
George W Bush steals election by interfering with votes in florida, a State run by his brother, Jeb Bush, with Supreme Court Judges appointed by his dad, George Snr. (ex director of CIA, son of nazi-financier). A company employed to block votes from felons gets it's results 95% wrong - mainly blocking traditionally democrat black voters, and is later awarded a $4 million dollar government contract.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._presidential_election,_2000#Controversy_in_Florida
Bush polls are seriously flagging before 911, and most see him as an absentee 'lame-duck' president.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0120-05.htm
9/11 Terrorist attacks... I think enough has been mentioned about the extreme dodginess of this whole event already - including the 11x increase in trading out of UA stock the day before the attacks, and the fact that almost every fighter jet in the US was deployed on training missions far away from NY.
The day after the attack, the US releases a list of attackers, despite an official statement by the FBI that there is absolutely no evidence to link most of them. Many of these supposed hijackers turn up alive and well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm
http://www.welfarestate.com/911/
Bin Laden allowed to escape capture by US forces
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8853000/site/newsweek/
Bin Laden Family flown out of US in the 'immediate aftermath' of the 911 attacks - the only aircraft in US airspace.
http://edinburghnews.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=971322003
In the PNAC (Project for new american century) Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfwowitz (among others) detail that America would need a 'new Pearl Harbour' to justify war.
http://www.ifamericansknew.org/us_ints/nc-pilger.html
War in Afghanistan to a country which 'harbours terrorists' despite the Taleban being quite friendly with the US prior to the war. War with Iraq for weapons of mass destruction - the government lies to the people, spends trillions of their tax dollars and sends their children to war and death.
Wake up and smell the coffee!0 -
Gordon wrote: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.
Interesting theory, completely impossible to prove or disprove, but makes an awful lot more sense than some of the theories being thrown around....Originally Posted by tunaman
Here is a brilliant new film about 9/11 that you won't see in the cinema...
...
I'd really like to hear what all the sceptics have to say about this video...
There's a reason we won't see it in the cinema... And what bonkey said to be honest. You've been challenged to provide credible evidence for your 'theories' more than once, and asked to back up or at least explain some of the claims made in 'Loose Change', but have failed to do so. Forgive me if I'm not going to waste my time on this latest video. Tell us about John O'Neill, explain, in your own words, the conspiracy theory surrounding him. And before you ask, yes I know full well who he is, the story surrounding his background broke within a couple of days of 9/11, this is the first I've heard of some of the allegations surrounding him and 9/11 mind you, but if you were to tell us about it, as in explain your point of view and maybe back it up a little bit, rather than post a link to a 90 minute video that for all I know could be the Best of the Morris Dancing Championships then I might listen to you. But to be perfectly honest, bonkey's post sums it all up perfectly:Originally Posted by bonkey
You've convinced me. I definitely don't need to watch this video.
Feel free to believe its because I'm closed-minded or scared of the truth or afraid to learn something or whatever.
Indeed, feel free to believe that I've watched it, can't refute it, and am posting this stuff here in some foolish hope that people won't cop I've been caught out.
Hell - feel free to believe what you want about my attitude to this video. Whether its credible or not, backed by evidence or not....believe what you like about why I'm skeptical of a video I claim not to have seen. Its clear from this last quote of yours that this is already how you operate.
PS: Although I keep swearing blind I'm not posting anymore in this thread, I can't seem to help myself. However, I stand by my earlier claim that nobody is going to convince anyone of anything in this thread, and so I once again bow out of the discussion. I swear I mean it this time....0 -
Kernel wrote:There are so many signs pointing to the Bush cartel and 911 being completely rotten, as well as the ensuing wars for oil, that frankly I find it strange that anyone would cling to the official stories put forth by the American government as being true.
1) Who's clinging to them as being true?
2) Where's the evidence that NIST, the eyewitnesses, the media at large, and all the other involved parties are also rotten to the core?
3) Once we've shown that they'er all rotten, where's the evidence to suggest that they're all in collusion with each other, as would be necessary to create a coverup ov this magnitude.
People keep saying this while presenting me with stuff that doesn't look, smell or taste like coffee.Wake up and smell the coffee!0 -
bonkey wrote:1) Who's clinging to them as being true?
2) Where's the evidence that NIST, the eyewitnesses, the media at large, and all the other involved parties are also rotten to the core?
3) Once we've shown that they'er all rotten, where's the evidence to suggest that they're all in collusion with each other, as would be necessary to create a coverup ov this magnitude.
Bonkey, you haven't adressed, refuted or referred to any of my particular points, so why should I bother getting involved in a confrontational discussion on the said issues?
PS - A coverup is not difficult if you involve only those who would lose out most from disclosure.0 -
Advertisement
-
Kernel wrote:Bonkey, you haven't adressed, refuted or referred to any of my particular points,so why should I bother getting involved in a confrontational discussion on the said issues?
Who asked you to?
I asked you to justify some bald assertions that you made that you didn't supply any argumentation or evidence to support.
You talk about finding it strange that people would still "cling to" the official story, but proide absolutely nothing to show that people are clinging to th official story. I've yet to see a single person post here that they believe everything about the official story, and yet you and numerous others keep trying to somehow see criticism of the alternate theories of what did happen as belief in the official version.
You provide evidence that the Administration is rotten to the core - another straw man. No-one has suggested that the Administration are beyond reproach and entirely trustworthy.
You then assume that because you can claim the Administration is rotten that this somehow supports the MIHOP (Made it happen on purpose) theories, which it doesn't. It adds weight to the notion that the Administration have been less than fully honest, but no-one has ever questioned this. It does not add weight to the various theories about how the goverment have been less than honest, and so is not relevant to the skeptics & critics of MIHOP theories who are saying that the alternate theory laxks credibility.
Finally, you seem to suggest that the Administration are all that matter. You don't argue that all of of the other parties involved are equally corrupt and when questioned on it, suggest that the conspiracy doesn't require as many as I'd think. Unfortunately you only make this as a stand-alone statement, with no reasoning to support it.
I didn't attack the specifics of any of your individual points for a number of reasons, but mostly because I question their relevance. I couldnt' care less if the points are true or not if they cannot be shown to be relevant. The three questions I asked all attacked the argument that made use of these points. If that argument doesn't stand up, the correctness of the points themselves matters not one whit.
To recap -
You question how anyone can believe the official story, when noone here has suggested that it is fully correct.
You argue the Administration is corrupt...again a point that no-one has questioned.
You do not explain how all the other involved parties are either in on it or have been taken in, and when questioned on it offer nothing but a bald assertion that a conspiracy of this type would need (an unspecified number) fewer people than (the unspecified number) I think would be required.
If you don't want to get into a discussion about it, thats fine, but don't kid yourself that my lack of interest in attacking straw-men and other ill-formed arguments somehow suggests that are strong or convincing lines of reasoning.
jc0 -
If you can't see the relevence of the points raised, then it's beyond the scope of an internet forum to convince you to join the dots. I consider myself a logical and rational person, and all the pieces of the conspiracy with regard to the Bush administration, phoney war on terror and 911 seem blatantly obvious once you've actually researched.
Start by reading a couple of books:
Behold a Pale Horse - William Cooper
Rule By Secrecy - Jim Marrs
Then watch the some documentaries, such as:
Fahrenheit 911
Outfoxed (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8775995341064689390&q=outfoxed)
The Great Conspiracy (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6529813972926262623)
The World According to Bush (I can only find a french version on google)
Bush Family Fortunes (by Greg Palast)
And you've probably already watched Loose Change and In Plane Sight, and researched Operation Northwoods and my other links. Just ask yourself who has profitted from 911. Follow the money - and the Patriot Act(s).
Anyway, I'm interested to know what your theory of the events are, if different from the official story, and what you have to back that up?0 -
I have yet to meet someone who defends their argument on the grounds that they consider themselves to be irrational and illogical.I consider myself a logical and rational person,
That said, I've come across plenty of irrational and illogical arguments. The "I'm not going to explain it to you because you're questioning it" line that you've just taken, incidentally, doesn't strike me as a terribly rational nor logical way of showing that you have a strong argument.
There is a reason circumstantial evidence is rarely considered sufficiently strong to base a conclusion on. This holds true in science as well as in a court of law.and all the pieces of the conspiracy with regard to the Bush administration, phoney war on terror and 911 seem blatantly obvious once you've actually researched.
Logically you cannot reach a firm conclusion on circumstantial evidence. Rationally, you shouldn't do so.
You consider yourself both rational and logical......but insist that "joining the dots" is a reasonable approach to take. I disagree. I believe one can reach a multitude of theories by "joining the dots", and a maximum of one of them can be correct. Thus, it is insufficient to say we can join the dots, if we cannot also rule out the other possibilities.Start by reading a couple of books:
Then watch the some documentaries
Why do you assume I haven't done this already?
Tell me - how many books, documentaries and web-sites have you read and researched which offer the counter-point views? The ones which point out the flaws in the conspiracy theories? More importantly - why don't you offer me those links as well? If you're going to assume I haven't done my research, why not assume I haven't done it on both sides of the argument? If I haven't read the claims, I can hardly have read the refutations, can I? So why only suggest I need to research one side of things?
Hell, if I were to take this approach, I could argue that the earth is flat. Or hollow. As long as you limited yourself to my reaerch material, you'd never find fault with it. And if you were criticising my reasoning, I could just say I consider myself rational and logical, amn't going to join the dots for you, and suggest you read my choice of research material. Bit like you've just done.
And no offence...but Micheal Moore? As a credible, reliable analysis of what really happened?? You gotta be joking me. Moore himself admitted in various interviews (around the time he got his Oscar) that he uses all the misdirectional tricks the likes of the Bush administration employ and that he is about as far from an objective opinion as you can get.
Lots of people.Just ask yourself who has profitted from 911.
Many of them were politicans in the US, sure....but thats what politiicans do. They take advantage of situations where they see the opportunity for political gain. Y'know...the type of stuff that lwed to Bob Woodward writing that one of Bush's first reactions to 911 was to tell people to look at Iraq even after they told him Iraq wasn't involved.
Lobbying groups also had a field-day, working out how their corporations could make the most out of what would be done. Airlines, strangely enough, did quite well out of 911. Does this mean they were complicit in the organisation?
The gain = blame notion simply doesn't hold water here. If 911 happened through incompetence (Let it happen through incompetence - LIHTI) , one would expect to see politicians and lobbyists queueing up to take advantage of the fallout. If it happened through deliberate inaction (Let it happen on purpose - LIHOP), one would expect to see the same thing. If it happened through deliberate planning (make it happen on purpose), guess what....same thing again.
So...we both saw politicians making political hay. You choose to see this as being dot-joinable to your chosen scenario and thus conclude that it backs up your hypothesis. I see that it fits pertty-much any hypothesis, and thus is not an indicator for any of them. Indeed, I would argue that it would be highly suspicious if politicians didn't try and leverage the situation and not the reverse.
I don't have a detailed theory of what the events are. I approach this as a skeptic - I look at what others are putting forward as their version of what happened, and I see where the flaws/failings/omissions in their theory are. I do this for the official version of events, and for any other version I come across.Anyway, I'm interested to know what your theory of the events are, if different from the official story, and what you have to back that up?
In general, the official version raises the fewest questions. This is to be expected to a degree, as they have the most money behind them and one would expect their version to be the most complete. I would expect their version to raise the fewest questions whether it were true or a coverup....so again its not a terribly significant point.
There are still those questions, though, which the official version doesn't resolve....perhaps not as many as one might think, but there are unanswered questions. This is where we start to differ in approach, I think. As a skeptic, I see an unanswered question and conclude that it is an unanswered question. I ask why it is unanswered, and I might offer an opinion on how credible a possibility seems, but I will not start guessing as to what the answer might be and what that would imply....especially because the "might be" is already going to be derived from what one believes the implications are. The most I would do is conclude that certain explanations seem plausible, whilst others are "not impossible", and so forth. given multiple plausible explanations....I don't go picking one over the others because it fits my conclusions.
Fundametanlly, I don't subscribe to the "Pentagon not hit by a plane" theories having any credibility. I do not subscribe to the "WTC 7 was demolished" having any credibility. Same for the remote-controlled, missile-launching looks-like-a-757-but-wasn't notions. I believe four passenger planes were hijacked, three were flown into buildings and one crashed into the ground.
Who ultimately was behind it all? I don't know, but I haven't seen a credible case made to lay it at the feet of the Bush Administration.0 -
bonkey wrote:Fundametanlly, I don't subscribe to the "Pentagon not hit by a plane" theories having any credibility.
Do you believe the pentagon was hit by flight 77? as if you do you would also have to believe it was flown by the incredibly inept Hanjour.
How do you explain this testimony from Norman Mineta, who under oath told how Cheney was given updates of the incoming plane?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDfdOwt2v3Y&search=minetaI do not subscribe to the "WTC 7 was demolished" having any credibility.
Well to say you have researched the subject in great detail and then come out with a statement like that, then you are either in denial or not very intelligent. I suggest you look at these short clips of the building collapsing at free-fall speed...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=wtc+7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7
I really don't need to say anything else as the footage clearly speaks for itself.I believe four passenger planes were hijacked, three were flown into buildings and one crashed into the ground.
You still believe flight 93 crashed in this field?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_pl3.jpg
If so I challenge you to take this test...
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=24620 -
How hard is it to accept that crashing a plane isn't a particularly challenging thing to do? I've pointed out before that the most difficult part of flying a jet is landing it safely.tunaman wrote:Do you believe the pentagon was hit by flight 77? as if you do you would also have to believe it was flown by the incredibly inept Hanjour.
As has been pointed out in this very thread, that footage clearly demonstrates that the building was not collapsing at freefall speed. Go find the post where this was pointed out to you, and refute the fundamental principles of physics contained in it - if you can.tunaman wrote:I suggest you look at these short clips of the building collapsing at free-fall speed...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7082804592890872932&q=wtc+7
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8403741864603265979&q=wtc+7
I really don't need to say anything else as the footage clearly speaks for itself.
Yes. If you believe it didn't, come up with a credible theory - with credible evidence - as to where flight 93 went.tunaman wrote:You still believe flight 93 crashed in this field?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight93/gallery/crater_pl3.jpgtunaman wrote:If so I challenge you to take this test...
http://s15.invisionfree.com/Loose_Change_Forum/index.php?showtopic=2462- Question 1 - "We may observe that the crater is only about 10ft deep." I can't see the bottom of the crater in either of those photographs, so I don't know how deep it is, and I don't think "Killtown" does either.
- Question 2 - no, I can't find debris from a high-energy crash in a low-resolution photograph taken from a long distance away. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
- Question 3 - the shape of the plume more closely resembles the ordnance blasts; the colour is irrelevant, as all three photographs were taken in completely different lighting conditions. The "mushroom cloud" is typical of a high-energy explosion - not inconsistent with a high-speed impact straight into the ground - whereas the Lear crash is consistent with an unsuccessful forced landing, and subsequent fire. What has been proved?
- Question 4 - there's scorched grass at the edge of the crater. Once again, there's a difference between a high-energy explosion, and a near-controlled crash with subsequent fuel spillage and slow burn.
- Question 5 - no, I can't explain random witnesses' confusion. Can you explain what other witnesses saw, when they thought they saw a United Airlines jet fly upside-down over their heads at an altitude of a couple of hundred feet?
- Question 6 - 6,000 gallons of jet fuel exploded in a fireball that created a mushroom cloud. That's not entirely consistent with finding pools of blood. As for the "trash dump" comment - have you ever seen the aftermath of a road accident? It's not exactly tidy.
- Question 7 - I once saw the remains of a Samsonite briefcase and contents that had been at the centre of a controlled explosion in Charles de Gaulle airport (long story). Among the twisted metal and melted plastic was a pocket calculator without a scratch on it. That was probably some sort of conspiracy too.
0 -
tunaman wrote:Well to say you have researched the subject in great detail and then come out with a statement like that, then you are either in denial or not very intelligent.
I thought part of the charter of this forum was to be respectful to other people's opinions?
I haven't insulted anyone for the opinions they hold, simply challenged those opinions in one way or another. If you're unable to offer me the same courtesy as the charter obliges you to, I see no reason to discuss this with you in this place and at this time.0 -
1)- Bin Laden has already taken responsibility for this on Al Jazeera and through Arabic channels as well as western channels.
2) Bin Laden is an ENGINEER and so yes did plan to take it down and had the capability to do it in a cold calculated brilliant way, his family has a CONSTRUCTION firm in Saudi Arabia and his expertise was in DEMOLITION.
3) There was plenty of Jet fuel in those size of Jets, furthermore they were not in the air long, so tanks were at optimum, the heat required to melt those steel beams was enormous...and the jet fuel was quite capable of doing so...
4) The radicals in Hamburg cell were not CIA operatives they were virulent Wahabists who would certainly not take orders from the hated INFIDEL west. this is just to start off here...I want to check through your boards...there is alot of interesting people on here and I am glad to have found you.0 -
oscarBravo wrote:How hard is it to accept that crashing a plane isn't a particularly challenging thing to do? I've pointed out before that the most difficult part of flying a jet is landing it safely.
I agree that the landing is the most difficult part of flying a plane, however the path flight 77 supposedly took in hitting the pentagon was very similar to landing the plane. As it was moving at twice the normal speed of an airliner coming into land, would this not be at least twice as difficult?
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/09/11/national/main310721.shtml
Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
The steep turn was so smooth, the sources say, it's clear there was no fight for control going on. And the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
All reports say that Hanjour, the alledged pilot was incredibly inept, so how did he manage these amazing feats?
Does the pentagon look like an airliner had just hit it?
http://killtown.911review.org/images/flight77/building/center_fascade.jpg
What about the $2.3trillion the pentagon announced had gone missing on september 10th 2001?
Strange how everybody just forgot about that...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2002/01/29/eveningnews/main325985.shtml
On Sept. 10, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld declared war. Not on foreign terrorists, "the adversary's closer to home. It's the Pentagon bureaucracy," he said.
Rumsfeld promised change but the next day – Sept. 11-- the world changed and in the rush to fund the war on terrorism, the war on waste seems to have been forgotten.
"According to some estimates we cannot track $2.3 trillion in transactions," Rumsfeld admitted.
$2.3 trillion — that's $8,000 for every man, woman and child in America.As has been pointed out in this very thread, that footage clearly demonstrates that the building was not collapsing at freefall speed. Go find the post where this was pointed out to you, and refute the fundamental principles of physics contained in it - if you can.
I think you are mistaken, as that is footage of building 7 which came down in roughly 6.5secs according to most estimates, which is free-fall speed.
This building was not hit by a plane, and there is still no official explanation as to why it came down nearly 5 years later...Yes. If you believe it didn't, come up with a credible theory - with credible evidence - as to where flight 93 went.
It's not my job to just make up theories, as even if I knew what happened people would claim it was just a theory, so it's a pointless exercise.[*] Question 1 - "We may observe that the crater is only about 10ft deep." I can't see the bottom of the crater in either of those photographs, so I don't know how deep it is, and I don't think "Killtown" does either.
There is a picture of a man standing in the middle of the crater which helps you work out roughly how deep the crater was. Roughly 10ft deep looks about right to me.[*] Question 2 - no, I can't find debris from a high-energy crash in a low-resolution photograph taken from a long distance away. What exactly is this supposed to prove?
There was no airliner crash where we were told. There are many other closer pictures which have no sign of any debris either. That doesn't strike you as the least bit strange?[*]Question 3 - the shape of the plume more closely resembles the ordnance blasts; the colour is irrelevant, as all three photographs were taken in completely different lighting conditions. The "mushroom cloud" is typical of a high-energy explosion - not inconsistent with a high-speed impact straight into the ground - whereas the Lear crash is consistent with an unsuccessful forced landing, and subsequent fire. What has been proved?
The way the plane supposedly crashed has a bearing on the subsequent fire?
That is just clutching at straws.[*]Question 4 - there's scorched grass at the edge of the crater. Once again, there's a difference between a high-energy explosion, and a near-controlled crash with subsequent fuel spillage and slow burn.
Just like the WTC, again with the amazing properties of kerosene. Have you forgotten this is just plain old jet fuel?
Where is the plane? where are the two 6 ton engines? where are the wing sections?
Do you think the plane just completely disintegrated on impact?[*]Question 5 - no, I can't explain random witnesses' confusion. Can you explain what other witnesses saw, when they thought they saw a United Airlines jet fly upside-down over their heads at an altitude of a couple of hundred feet?
These were not just random witnesses as nearly every eyewitness at the crash site says the same thing. No plane, no debris. Here is a short Italian documentary called 'the mystery of flight 93' which includes eyewitness testimony which never gets talked about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tg77n3ckHGI&search=flight%2093
The official story just doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny.[*]Question 6 - 6,000 gallons of jet fuel exploded in a fireball that created a mushroom cloud. That's not entirely consistent with finding pools of blood. As for the "trash dump" comment - have you ever seen the aftermath of a road accident? It's not exactly tidy.
If jet fuel can completely destroy two engines made of titanium then what chance is there of finding any human remains?
However...[*]Question 7 - I once saw the remains of a Samsonite briefcase and contents that had been at the centre of a controlled explosion in Charles de Gaulle airport (long story). Among the twisted metal and melted plastic was a pocket calculator without a scratch on it. That was probably some sort of conspiracy too.
We then have to really use our imagination. First the passport on the streets of New York and then this...
http://killtown.911review.org/images/htb2/red-bandana.jpg
Where have I seen that red bandana before...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-600397827976179049&q=planet+of+the+arabs0 -
Again, you miss my point. The hardest part of flying a plane is landing it safely. Making it come in contact with the ground is an extremely easy thing to do. Making it hit the ground in a particular place isn't all that challenging either, unless you want to be able to use the plane again.tunaman wrote:I agree that the landing is the most difficult part of flying a plane, however the path flight 77 supposedly took in hitting the pentagon was very similar to landing the plane. As it was moving at twice the normal speed of an airliner coming into land, would this not be at least twice as difficult?
That's a rate of descent of 2,800fpm. It's steep and it's reckless, but it's not impossible. Have a look at the instrument on this page - it reads up to 4,000fpm in ascent and descent. In fact, the steep descent rate quite possibly prevented an accelerated stall in the sharp turn, by reducing the effective angle of attack and increasing airspeed.tunaman wrote:Radar shows Flight 77 did a downward spiral, turning almost a complete circle and dropping the last 7,000 feet in two-and-a-half minutes.
It's not that complicated a maneouver. It's a descending spiral turn. I was doing those on my third lesson.tunaman wrote:...the complex maneuver suggests the hijackers had better flying skills than many investigators first believed.
It's not an amazing feat, it's a descending turn.All reports say that Hanjour, the alledged pilot was incredibly inept, so how did he manage these amazing feats?
You're claiming flight 93 didn't crash in Pennsylvania. For this to be the case, either (a) flight 93 wasn't hijacked, or (b) it was hijacked, but wasn't crashed. Which do you believe to be the case? And where, oh where, did those people go?tunaman wrote:It's not my job to just make up theories, as even if I knew what happened people would claim it was just a theory, so it's a pointless exercise.
You see, you're asking questions about the official explanation, and claiming that the lack of answers to these questions casts doubt on that explanation. I'm asking you much more fundamental questions about any possible alternative explanations, and you don't seem to see a difficulty with there being no answers to those.
I'm clutching at straws?? You honestly think a plane that drills almost straight into the ground at several hundred miles an hour and (say) a plane whose undercarriage collapses at the point of landing will exhibit exactly the same type of fire?tunaman wrote:The way the plane supposedly crashed has a bearing on the subsequent fire?
That is just clutching at straws.
...as opposed to your story, which... oh wait, you don't have a theory.tunaman wrote:The official story just doesn't stand up to any real scrutiny.
If you want to talk about standing up to scrutiny, answer this: where are the passengers and crew who boarded flight 93? Where, indeed, is the plane?0 -
I would tend to side with Oscar Bravo here. Flying towards a particular point is fairly easy. Landing a plane, is difficult. It is what most of the early training concentrates on.0
-
Advertisement
-
SkepticOne wrote:I would tend to side with Oscar Bravo here. Flying towards a particular point is fairly easy. Landing a plane, is difficult. It is what most of the early training concentrates on.
John Lear, (son of the inventor of the Lear jet) a pilot of over 19,000 hours flight experience who has flown over 100 different aircraft has stated that it would be near impossible for an amateur pilot to control a passenger plane of that size travelling at that speed against the upward lift generated to have struck the pentagon.
Flying toward a particular point towards the ground, against the lift generated by that speed, is not easy at all.0 -
-
Forget everything else. The key to 9/11 is WTC7.
How a could a 46-story building, with barely any fires inside it, collapse so completely into it's own footprint some 5 hours after the first 'planes hit the twin-towers?
Strange, considering that the Bankers Federation building, closer to the Twin Towers than WTC7, didn't collapse, even with debris raining down on it.
Strange, considering that WTC7 was the only other Silverstein owned building in the WTC centre besides the twin-towers.
Strange, considering that Silverstein in a TV interview stated that he told firefighters to 'pull' the building, 'pull' being a term to demolish a building.
Unravel Silverstein's connections, and the whole thing will fall apart like a badly knit pullover.0 -
Link, please.Kernel wrote:John Lear, (son of the inventor of the Lear jet) a pilot of over 19,000 hours flight experience who has flown over 100 different aircraft has stated...
Lift is a function of three things: airspeed, lift co-efficient and angle of attack. Airspeed is obvious. Lift co-efficient is a function of the shape of the wings, and can be altered (for example) by extending flaps. Angle of attack is the angle formed between the chord of the wing (the line from the front to the back of the airfoil) and the incident angle of the oncoming airflow.Kernel wrote:Flying toward a particular point towards the ground, against the lift generated by that speed, is not easy at all.
Based on that, allow me to reintroduce a thought experiment I raised earlier in the thread: assume you're flying along at 400mph, in straight and level flight a couple of hundred feet above the ground. You can add ground effect if you like; it doesn't much matter. Now imagine you shove the yoke/stick all the way forward and hold it there. What happens?
Pushing forward on the stick deflects the elevators downward. This increases the angle of attack of the horizontal stabiliser, causing an increase in lift at the back of the aircraft. This increase in lift aft of the centre of mass causes the aircraft to pitch downward.
Pitching downward reduces the angle of attack of the wings. Reducing the angle of attack causes the wings to lose lift, as described above. In level flight, lift exactly matches weight. When lift is lost but weight stays the same, the equilibrium is disturbed and the aircraft descends.
There's a secondary effect of this descent: airspeed increases. Given time, this increased airspeed will generate increased lift. When you're just above the ground, you don't have time for this secondary effect.
There's one other (relatively minor) secondary effect of pitching down: the thrust from the engines has a downward component. This will contribute to a high rate of descent.0 -
oscarBravo has given a good technical explanation which I won't repeat here.Kerne wrote:Flying toward a particular point towards the ground, against the lift generated by that speed, is not easy at all.
You compensate for lift by pitching the plane downwards. Once you've found the right angle found the right angle it is just a matter of making small adjustments until you hit the target. The process of pitching down to compensate for lift is fairly intuitive. If the plane is not going where you want it to go you will find yourself pitching it accordingly. Aiming towards a point is actually easier than maintaining straight and level flight since you have more visual clues to guide you.
I'm not an airline pilot but I have recieved training in small planes. The principles of flight for both large and small planes are exact the same. On the very first lesson you are likely to be asked to steer the plane towards a point on runway on the approach for landing although the instructor is likely to take over at the last moment.
Ground effect would not be a major factor in the Pentagon event, imo. If you are landing a plane you still have to pull up before landiing. Ground effect is then felt as you are flIying along just above the runway. If you did not pull up you would simply plough into the ground at the point you were aiming at.0 -
DublinWriter wrote:How a could a 46-story building, with barely any fires inside it, collapse so completely into it's own footprint some 5 hours after the first 'planes hit the twin-towers?
I don't know, but I thought we were talking about WTC7? The notion that there were "barely any fires inside it" is simply not credible.
Yes, yes. I know:
You'll point at the original FEMA report as your evidence. Or perhaps show some pictures which show a relatively-undamaged north face as "proof" that teh south face wasn't damaged.
I'll then point you at the fact that they also concluded they didn't have enough information and got NIST to look into it, who's report is still yet to be published, but which has established (with more-or-less certainty) that WTC7 was massively damaged on the side facing the towers, and there were significant fires burning there - far more than the two apparently-isolated cases mentioned in the FEMA report that you will want to focus on.
A complete mystery.Strange, considering that the Bankers Federation building, closer to the Twin Towers than WTC7, didn't collapse, even with debris raining down on it.
Everyone knows collapses are entirely mathematically symmetrical, and behave entirely equally in all directions, and effects all buildings equally regardless of any differences tehre may be between them. Basically, we all know that distance from the collapse is the only factor which has to be considered.
...which is why this is such an interesting case. Right?
The Bankers Trust Building, which is which what I assume you're referring to, was heavily damaged - something you should perhaps mention. Perhaps also relevant is the fact that it was so heavily damaged, that it became the tallest building ever to be demolished subsequent to being declared a total loss in 2004.
So yes, it - like WTC 6 - remained standing after 911 in marked contrast to WTC7. Just like WTC6, the Deutsche Post Building (aka the Bankser's Trust) was torn down subequent to 911 as a result of the damage caused that day.
So yeah...one remained standing and the other fell. Both were write-offs from damage, and due to the events of 911 neither building stands today.
Not true.Strange, considering that WTC7 was the only other Silverstein owned building in the WTC centre besides the twin-towers.
Firstly...In 2001, the deal which "purchased" the towers (a 99-year leasehold, in fact) was actually a deal for the World Trade Center. It included WTC 4 and 5, at least.
WTC7, on the other hand, was not actually part of the World Trade Center complex, despite its name.
Of the adjacent buildings, a number (including the Bankers Trust) were subsequently demolished, so are in effect every bit as much a write-off as the Silverstein buildings.
Also, Silverstein was only the majority-owner of WTC7, not the outright owner.
It should also be noted that despite notionally "owning" the World Trade Center, Silverstein had to pay annual rent to the Port Authority. These leasehold contracts were written in such a way that he continues to be obliged to pay this rent (at $120 mill per year) even though he lost the associated income almost 5 years ago. (See 911myths links below).
Pull being a term to demolish a low-rise building by attaching ropes to the top and pulling it off-balance so that it collapses in a specific direction.'pull' being a term to demolish a building.
If you check you'll find the connection is typically established by showing the guy at WTC 6 talking about it about to be pulled. WTC 6 was[/]i pulled - a manual, rope-pulling-based demolition to ensure it fell in the correct direction.
Sure it will. Here's a good place to start:Unravel Silverstein's connections, and the whole thing will fall apart like a badly knit pullover.
http://www.911myths.com/html/windfall.html
http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc7_profit.html0 -
secret_squirrel wrote:1. Relevant how? Has he flown a 757?
Of course it's relevent. :rolleyes: And yes, he has flown 757s - in fact he has flown for around 10 different airlines. Didn't you read my post....? Concentrate on the part that says: "a pilot of over 19,000 hours flight experience who has flown over 100 different aircraft".
OscarBravo, here is the link - in case you don't believe me... It was on an art bell show I listened to a while back. With all due respect to you guys who have flown a cessna or a piper for an hour or two, this guy has considerably more real-world flight experience.
http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htm0 -
From that same link:Kernel wrote:o
OscarBravo, here is the link - in case you don't believe me... It was on an art bell show I listened to a while back. With all due respect to you guys who have flown a cessna or a piper for an hour or two, this guy has considerably more real-world flight experience.
http://www.greatdreams.com/John-Lear.htmArt Bell continues John Lears biography:John Lear suspects that Venus does not have the sulfuric acid atmosphere with an 800 degree temperature that we've all been led to believe and instead is a planet very similar to ours, but with a similar, but much more technologically advanced civilization.John Lear believes that the government has very good reasons for their continued coverup but refuses to discuss them.
0 -
Kernel wrote:Concentrate on the part that says: "a pilot of over 19,000 hours flight experience who has flown over 100 different aircraft".
I'm concentrating, but I still don't see two sevens seperated by a 5 in there.
Is this like that fnord thing?
As for Mr. Lear himself...I was amused to find that on a google of "John Lear 911", this very thread made it to the front page.0 -
Advertisement
-
SkepticOne wrote:From that same link:[/B] [/LEFT]
What has that quote about his beliefs about venus got to do with the fact that he is a seriously qualified pilot? Nothing. You're using some of his 'far-out' personal beliefs to try to discredit him on an entirely seperate matter.
If a carpenter said something stupid about world politics or geography, does that mean he must know nothing about woodworking? Flawed logic.0
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement