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

layke

ReefBreak wrote:

I'm sorry, but the levels of intelligence really appear to have dropped since I last posted here. There is NO massive conspiracy here. The US let it's guard down, a plane was hijacked by a bunch of terrorists and flown into the Pentagon building. That's it.

Next you'll be telling me that thousands of jewish New Yorkers managed somehow to keep the 9/11 plot all to themselves and called in sick on that day. Please.

Anyone that believes any conspiracy theory about the Pentagon has no right to ever call an American "stupid". In fact, I have a tasty pyramid scheme that I think you might be interested in. No really, send your cash to:
Morons Only,
5 Idiot Street,
Thicksville,
Ireland.

I'm am really sorry I have been sucked into this one but hey.

There is no clear evidence to support what Bush and his gov say, in fact every story I have heard has more holes then swiss cheese.

So I can also say that anyone who believes what bush says is a total idiot.

Look the fact is we don't know what went on and I have a little trouble believeing what Bush and his cronies are trying to feed me. Hell if I believed everything our gov told me i'd be waiting on the next gen e-voting machines.

silverharp

Bonkey - thanks for the 911 myth site , I was curious about WTC7 as it rarely gets mentioned in the press.

Stand back and look at the big picture though I still find it nigh on impossible to believe that a conspiracy that would run to hundreds of people could be kept under raps for long, creating remote controlled jets, wiring the twin towers to blow up after being hit by planes (if I saw that in a movie I would walk out straight away)

The lack of clarity from the US gov comes down to ass covering, nobody wants to take the blame for this but even this is a fallacy as no organisation can deal with this level of random events, there is a hindsight bias at work here on behalf of the media etc looking for scapegoats.

Untense

growler wrote:

I do quite often find myself laughing at "proven" and "established" "experts" when they are clearly nutjobs. One can find an "expert" to back up any theory you want, ID, Moon Bases, Zionist Conspiracy, God, Lizard Nazis in Antartic ......whatever particular brand of delusion you wish to pursue. I chose to disbelieve them when making an informed judgement based on the evidence of my own eyes, I saw planes hit the towers (albeit on a lizard controlled TV station with a possibly Jewish cameraman) and came to the conclusion that, that impact most probably caused them to fall down. Further reading revealed that I was not alone in making this leap of faith and that it seems the majority of experts also had come to the same conclusion.

Clearly this man is a nutjob? Because he has a different opinion of what happened?
Simple facts are stated in the video, did you watch it or were you too busy laughing?

Here are some more simple facts.

burning temperature of jet fuel
http://worldaerodata.com/mb/msg/606.html

Jet fuel versus melting point of steel
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/14715/jet_fuel_versus_steel_and_concrete

Some more stuff on jet fuel.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm


Maybe the fires didn't destroy the towers and it was the collission that caused the collapse?


here are some more facts to laugh at.

The tower was designed to withstand the equivalent forces of tornadoes or jet planes...
http://911research.wtc7.net/materials/early/flyer/flyerp.pdf

Untense

bonkey wrote:

Can you point out the south face of the building in that building? The one that was actually facing the two towers? The one thats on the other side of what that photo shows? The one that was obscured by the fires etc. of WTC 1 and 2 after they collapsed? The one that would have been hit by falling debris?

No, I didn't think so.

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=255

al Jazeera also mentions the cover up of evidence that took place after the collapse of the trade towers.



There you go. You should really keep an open mind instead of holding so rigidly to a belief.

bonkey

silverharp wrote:

Bonkey - thanks for the 911 myth site

You're welcome. What I like about the site is that the author/authors takes/take a similar stance to me. Its not about proving the official story. Its about showing that the alternate theories are nowhere near as credible as you'd be led to believe.

Indeed, in general when you see someone telling you to do the research and keep an open mind, what they're really saying is "don't do the research. I've already done it and you can trust me". These guys are generally only ever offering what the alternate-theorists choose not to tell you - the other half of the quote, the other analysis, or the limitations/flaws in their expert testimony.

The lack of clarity from the US gov comes down to ass covering,

Definitely in part. Its also, in part, how they work. they have a habit of suppressing from public release as much as possible, to make it more difficult to figure out which bits are the ones you shoudl go after. The tape released yesterday is a prime example (although its interesting to note the FoI request - although possibly not the subsequent court case - did include a request for the other tapes which haven't been released).

I wouldn't also entirely rule out that some pressure has been brought to suppress / diminish in importance / alter some facts, despite the apparent scorn I heap (at times) on some allegations of what those facts are.

Lets consider that WTC was the unsuccessful target of a bomb attack some years ago. What if the post-bombing assessments showed more damage than was officially released at the time, whatever the reason? Couldn't be admitting that after the towers fell, even if said damage was a contributing factor, right?

Or what if the building methodology wasn't quite as superlative as we're led to believe? Or if some corners were cut on material quality during construction? Or if any of the "normal" forms of corruption that we hear about incessantly had taken place? Would that make a difference?

We hear the building was designed to withstand an impact from a plane of this size....but said modelling was done well before we had computers actually capable of carrying out such modelling in such detail...so just how certain are we that the design was that good? And how well was it modelled?

In the aftermath of the WTC collapse, the Bush administration apparently focussed more on reopening the likes of Wall Street for business than they did for taking care of the first responders. Official Disaster response policy is now, I believe, that such care is paramount except when the national economy is at stake.

My belief ultimately is that if there is a contributing factor to why any of the WTC collapses occurred other than the events of the day it is most likely a case that they were either known about and suppressed/ignored beforehand, or should have been known beforehand but weren't....and that there is a degree of culpability that someone doesn't want attributed.

However, in the absence of anything supporting such a concept, I acknowledge that it is nothing but idle speculation. I'm still not convinced that there had to be additional factors in the first place.

And if you want a "proper" conspiracy theory....this whole set of theories could just as equally be a bait-and-switch to keep the government-skeptics looking at the wrong events and missing the real conspiracies.

SpitfireIV

With regard to WTC7, after 9/11 in an interview Larry Silverstein told the interviewer that he gave the order to 'pull it', ie knock the building, therefore it took the fire department, or demolition experts a couple of hours to pull off a perfect controlled demolition when it would take a profession demolition team weeks to carry it out.


"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."
Larry Silverstein

What fires? The ones on floors 9 and 14? :rolleyes:

RedPlanet

Anyway back on topic

Let's pretend for a moment that the new images released by the Pentagon really does show the nose cone of a commercial jet.

1- What is so bloody secret about that picture that it couldn't have been released before?

2- Does anybody believe that those are the only camera's monitoring that side of the Pentagon?

3- Why are they releasing it? Surely they could drag out a silly Freedom of Information order for another year or more.

HelterSkelter

RedPlanet wrote:

Anyway back on topic

Let's pretend for a moment that the new images released by the Pentagon really does show the nose cone of a commercial jet.

1- What is so bloody secret about that picture that it couldn't have been released before?

2- Does anybody believe that those are the only camera's monitoring that side of the Pentagon?

3- Why are they releasing it? Surely they could drag out a silly Freedom of Information order for another year or more.

There is supposed to be footage of the plane hitting the Peantgon from a nearby service station but the footage was confiscated on the same day.

growler

Untense wrote:

There you go. You should really keep an open mind instead of holding so rigidly to a belief.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

does that work both ways ?

bonkey

Untense wrote:

http://www.aljazeera.com/cgi-bin/conspiracy_theory/fullstory.asp?id=255


There you go.

There I go....where?

There are three images on that page.

One shows WTC7 with a collapsing tower behind it. So again, you're showing me the face of the building that was away from the towers.

The second pic shows the same north face as usual.

So its still pics of the back and asking to show the sucking chest wound.

The third pic was taken mid-collapse when the first tower went, so at best its a shot of the chest before the wound woul dhave occurred and asking to see it.

Its a well-established fact that there is no footage of the south face showing whether or not there was damage. There are a handful of shots which show the very corner of the building (West/South I think) which do show damage, but even they are not conclusive, as the damage (according to the eye-witness testimony that NIST wants pictorial evidence to back up or refute) was allegedly to teh center fo the building.

And see, there's another important difference right there. NIST has eyewitness testimony, but desperately wants it confirmed or denied by something more solid. Look at how eyewitness is treated on your side of the fence, and you'll find instead a broad range of techniques such as quoting out of context, using partial quotes, insisting that peopel don't just make things up, that these are experts who know what they're talking about etc.

NIST - the people still investigating WTC7 - have a model which explains the collapse, backed up by eyewitness testimony and they still made a public request for people to come forward with pictures/video if they had it because they were not happy with the level of proof they had obtained and wanted visual evidence to support or contradict it.

They're right not to be happy, because they know (as I do) that the lack of said pictures is exactly what will be used to rubbish their findings by those who are predisposed to believe something else. Indeed, thats one of the main criticisms the alternatists have already levelled at NISTs theories - that the lack of pictorial evidence means there's no way they could know this.

Strange how some alternate-theorists base arguments on this lack of evidence, whilst others (like yourself) seem to think it exists. Its almost as if there's dissention in the ranks - as though you haven't all studied your facts well enough to have a consistent story. Couldn't be, could it?

You should really keep an open mind instead of holding so rigidly to a belief.

Every time someone presents me with evidence on this issue, I evaluate it and see whether or not its addressing the point I've made. Just as I've done with your link above.

You, on the other hand, are running around telling em that I can't be right while failing to show me any evidence to explain why I'm wrong.

You may be confusing which one of us has an open mind here and which one of us could do with one.

You may also be confusing either which one of us has researched this more thoroughly (given that you don't seem to know there is a lack of pictures/video of the south face) or you do know it and are being deliberately disingenuous.

SpitfireIV

I heard that too HelterSkelter, the FBI arrived pretty quick on the scene to take the tapes and leave a nice little warning for the employees not to discuss what they had seen, I think it was the Sheridan Hotel.

Here we're talking about plastic knives and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center.

Donald Rumsfeld interview with Parade Magazine.

Missile?? :rolleyes:

civdef

Here are some more simple facts.

burning temperature of jet fuel
http://worldaerodata.com/mb/msg/606.html

Jet fuel versus melting point of steel
http://www.gnn.tv/threads/14715/jet_...l_and_concrete

Some more stuff on jet fuel.
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/mslp_i.htm

See, there it is is again, this melting steel nonsense just won't go away. Buildings don't fall because the steel melts - they fall because the steel loses the strength needed to support the weight of the building and this happens around 550deg C. I'm not making this up, feel free to check.

"I remember getting a call from the, er, fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse."

That sounds to me like they're discussing going from an offensive firefighting strategy to a defensive one (again feel free to look these terms up). This means not attacking the fire, and concentrating on avoiding spread to other buildings. It's safer for firefighters because it means not having them in the building, and is usually done when there's a risk of collapse. To support this, firefighters don't demolish buildings, don't train for it, and don't have the necessary equipment- so why would they be discussing demolishing it - as you say, a professional demolition takes weeks to set-up.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

Anyway back on topic

Great idea.

1- What is so bloody secret about that picture that it couldn't have been released before?

Nothing.

The official version was that release of the tape was denied under the FoI request on the grounds that it could prejudice the trial of Moussaoui. Bear in mind that the original frames we've seen from this tape were unofficially released (a euphemism for being leaked, perhaps?). So the stance of the Administration was that they didn't want the tape seen at all by the public until after the trial, and weren't going to release the whole thing just because someone went behind their backs and released part of it prematurely.

We could argue whether or not the prejudice in the trial would have been for or against Moussaoui, given the poor quality of the video, but in either case....the witholding of information is par for the course for the current administration. In one sense, it makes sense. If you want to hide anything, then there's no point in just refusing to hand out that one thing...then everyone knows where to look, right? But if you refuse to release as much of everything as possible....then stuff may or may not be important, and people get more worked up about irrelevant bits and so on....its a sound strategy (even if distasteful)

2- Does anybody believe that those are the only camera's monitoring that side of the Pentagon?

You can believe what you like.

Personally, I'd imagine that if there were, you're once again reliant on a cover-up of massive proportions to suppress just that information. I'm not entirely sure what you'd need cameras there for, other than perhaps roof-mounted mostly-downward-facing ones, which wouldn't necessarily be of any use.

3- Why are they releasing it? Surely they could drag out a silly Freedom of Information order for another year or more.

The government requseted that teh FoI be refused on the grounds that it would prejudice the Moussaoui trial. They were subsequently taken to court (by Judicial Watch) saying that this excuse was unnacceptable grounds. I'm not sure of the details of said court-case, but once the trial ended (which it did in the past week-ish) there was no stated grounds to continue to refuse to release, and so the court ordered it to be released.

In other words, the FoI was not spun out, nor could it have been. It was refused outright shortly after being made. What was at issue here was the subsequent court case, and given the line of reasoning the administration took, they didn't have a leg to stand on should they wish to continue to retain the tape.

What is more interesting is the follwoing...

The original FoI request also included the other tapes alleged to have information. I don't know if these were included in teh subsequent court-case, but I don't think so based on the writing I've read so far.

From what I can gather, the DoD appears to have said "we have smoe tapes which show the impact, but you can't have them cause of the trial" at which point the court case began over these tapes. The implication here is that the DoD either claimes it doesn't have these other tapes (possibly true - it could be another dept/agency who does), or that it has the tapes and claims they don't show anything. This latter possibility shouldn't exempt them from the FoI request, so I'm inclined not to put too much weight behind it.

However....again from what I can gather....the entire FoI was refused on the grounds of the witheld tapes, but teh subsequent court case was not to enforce the FoI, but rather to require the release of the spefically mentioned tapes.

Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but Justice Watch's own site confirms what the original request was for, and it isn't just those gate cameras....whereas everything I can find about the court-case thus far suggests that it was only about what those cameras saw.

Again, in keeping with its "don't tell anything until you're forced to" approach to things, I could understand the administration's willingness to not release the other tapes regardless of whats on them.

At the end of the day, though, I'd eb very surprised if JW dropped the whole issue at this point, rather than following up on the remaining evidence it sought in that FoI request.

RedPlanet

bonkey wrote:

Personally, I'd imagine that if there were, you're once again reliant on a cover-up of massive proportions to suppress just that information. I'm not entirely sure what you'd need cameras there for, other than perhaps roof-mounted mostly-downward-facing ones, which wouldn't necessarily be of any use.

I for one, do not believe that because after the bombing of US Embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, there was a review of American assets and security was upgraded. I'd expect the Pentagon as well as any US military site to be properly assessed. In fact, i'd expect people to be held accoutable if there were any oversights in this regard. Particularly after the USS Cole incident.

bonkey wrote:

In other words, the FoI was not spun out, nor could it have been. It was refused outright shortly after being made. What was at issue here was the subsequent court case, and given the line of reasoning the administration took, they didn't have a leg to stand on should they wish to continue to retain the tape.

Oh i really don't buy that. I'm sure an appeal could be lodged for one. Or the order could just be ignored. You know like Guantanamo Bay.
Or they could exercise some Presidential order or some such nonsense if they wanted.

I suspect there may be more darker motives here.
By releasing this minimal and poor quality picture they are flushing out (of the ms media) who are the patriots and who are the traitors.
We do not see a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon in any of these pictures. This is about who will stand up and challenge or who will be cowed.

Manic Moran

I'd expect the Pentagon as well as any US military site to be properly assessed. In fact, i'd expect people to be held accoutable if there were any oversights in this regard. Particularly after the USS Cole incident.

The response to USS Cole was not more CCTV cameras on the ships, it was more sailors on deck with Mk1 Eyeballs and rifles. (and 25mm cannon) A camera cannot have any effect on the outcome of anything, it's just a passive observer. Guards can have an effect and can cover as much as a camera (if not more, since they can walk around). Why install a cheap CCTV system when you can have a nice top-of-the-line human system?

Go to the important government buildings in DC, you won't see cameras, you'll see snipers. Well, some of them, anyway.

I believe the 'pull it' comment was later explained by the person in question as 'pull the plug on the operation.', i.e. it was hopeless so not to risk further life on trying to save the unsaveable.

NTM

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

We do not see a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon in any of these pictures.

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.

Where are they?

RedPlanet

Manic Moran wrote:

....A camera cannot have any effect on the outcome of anything, it's just a passive observer.

A camera is not going to stop a rubber dingy laden with explosives from blowing up US destroyer in broad daylight, this is true.
Neither will it stop a jet airliner from crashing into a building.
But for a fairly inexpensive device, it can record invaluable information and be used as evidence, both of which could be put to use afterwards. I'm quite sure the planners at the Pentagon are aware of that.

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.
Where are they?

They probably repainted the plane and either scrapped it or sold it to some other country. The passengers were probably shot in the back of the head or gassed then cremated.
That's my guess.
We ARE talking about the US governement afterall.
You know, the ones that lied to the UN about WMD in Iraq and used phosphorus rounds as a weapon against a predominately civilian popluation not too long ago.

Boggles

2 points

1. If that was an airliner flying into the pentagon because from the video they released it could be anything from the titanic to an icecream van, it's not clear enough. But if it was a plane, that is some flying, fecking hell, credit where credit is due, Buck Rogers or what!

2. A simple question, why would the government kill there own citizens, blow up planes and destroy buildings. Can't think of one reason, but then again I haven't thought much about it.

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

I for one, do not believe that

You've made your disbelief of so many things abundantly clear. What you've failed to do in almost every case is offer anything more than your belief that it is otherwise as grounds.

I'd expect the Pentagon as well as any US military site to be properly assessed. In fact, i'd expect people to be held accoutable if there were any oversights in this regard. Particularly after the USS Cole incident.

None of which shows that cameras must have been mounted in such a position as to see an incoming passenger jet....it just suggests that the Pentagon had what they believed was adequate security.

Given that its not an open facility, where you can wander up to the walls from the sidewalk, I'd be more of hte opinion that if you were going to increase security, you'd put more people on the perimiter, rather than put more cameras inside the perimeter.

Having said that, I wouldn't go any furher than to consider my perspective an uninformed opinion. I certainly wouldn't suggest that a government is lying because I think they might have had a different security system to the one they claim they have, when no-one has come forward to say they have seen/installed/viewed feed from these cameras that you think should exist.

Oh i really don't buy that.

I'd suggest its possibly because you don't want to buy it.

I'm sure an appeal could be lodged for one.

Nothing to gain.

Or the order could just be ignored.

Nothing to gain.

Or they could exercise some Presidential order or some such nonsense if they wanted.

Nothing to gain.

I suspect there may be more darker motives here.

What a surprise.

By releasing this minimal and poor quality picture they are flushing out (of the ms media) who are the patriots and who are the traitors.

Brilliant!!! That must be it!!!!

I mean...there hasn't been a single possible event where one could see who was and was not onside with the administration since it took office. No...they put a 5-year-plan into effect based around this one tape, which they had to doctor, and rely on a third party to first request it, and then fight the refusal...all to figure out who is with them and who is against them in the media.

Jeez man...couldn't they, like, just have read the papers once or twice in those 5 years to get the same picture?

We do not see a commercial jet crashing into the Pentagon in any of these pictures.

I've never once suggested that we do.

This is about who will stand up and challenge or who will be cowed.

Repeating yoruself doesn't make it any less likely.

Here's a challenge. Show me one person who's pro- or anti- administration stance (patriot/traitor) has been brought to light by their response to this release, and I'll concede you may have a point.

Someone who has hithertofore remained silent and/or has suddenly changed stance based on this release......anyone.....

I mean....seriously....this isn't even today's top story....how the hell could it be the culimnation of 5 years of planning to determine who's with them and who's against them?

SpitfireIV

Page 13 of 15-page GWU file on Operation Northwoods (page 10 of Pentagon report)

Hijacking attempts against civil air and surface craft should appear to continue as harassing measures condoned by the government of Cuba.

It is possible to create an incident which will demonstrate convincingly that a Cuban aircraft has attacked and shot down a chartered civil airliner enroute from the United States. The destination would be chosen only to cause the flight plan to cross Cuba. The passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday.

An aircraft at Eglin AFB would be painted and numbered as an exact duplicate for a civil registered aircraft belonging to a CIA proprietary organization in the Miami area. At the designated time the duplicate would be substituted for the actual civil aircraft and would be loaded with selected passengers, all boarded under carefully prepared aliases. The actual aircraft would be converted to a drone.

The drone aircraft and the actual aircraft will be scheduled to allow a rendezvous south of Florida. From the rendezvous point the passenger-carrying aircraft will descend to minimum altitude and go directly into an auxiliary field at Eglin AFB where arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status. The drone aircraft meanwhile will continue to fly the filed flight plan. When over Cuba the drone will be transmitting on the international distress frequency a “MAY DAY” message stating he is under attack by Cuban MIG aircraft. The transmission will be interrupted by destruction of the aircraft which will be triggered by radio signal.


You see the Americans had figured this stuff out before, them plans are from the Pentegon and were presented to the Secretary of Defence, Robert Macnamara in the 60's in try and justify miltary intervention in Cuba. So it gives an idea of the mindset and what they were contemplating doing, even back then.

America's top military brass even contemplated causing U.S. military casualties, writing: "We could blow up a U.S. ship in Guantanamo Bay and blame Cuba," and, "casualty lists in U.S. newspapers would cause a helpful wave of national indignation."

even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

growler

RedPlanet wrote:

They probably repainted the plane and either scrapped it or sold it to some other country. The passengers were probably shot in the back of the head or gassed then cremated.
That's my guess.
We ARE talking about the US governement afterall.
.

Its a big leap from having dodgy intelligence on WMD to the mass murder of you own citizens. I am truly amazed that you believe this as the likely alternative reality when there is no evidence to support any such belief yet when shown evidence that supports a likely scenario you reject it out of hand.
Boggles.

Untense

civdef wrote:

See, there it is is again, this melting steel nonsense just won't go away. Buildings don't fall because the steel melts - they fall because the steel loses the strength needed to support the weight of the building and this happens around 550deg C. I'm not making this up, feel free to check.

I can understand that alright, but I can't see how weakened steel could cause a series of powerful detonations in sequence at free fall speed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/wtc/tower-explosions.htm





Back to topic,

oscarBravo wrote:

OK, quick question for the conspiracy theorists: if a commercial airliner didn't crash into the Pentagon, then we're missing one complete Boeing 757, the entire crew and a shedload of passengers.

Where are they?

We don't know, nobody is making any guesses either. Unlike the US goverment who started an entire war based on the idea that there were Weapons of Mass Destruction based on Iraq, normal people make decisions based on the evidence and facts at hand.

http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pentagon-Hole.shtml

If you look at the pictures on the above link you can see that if the plane were to hit as it did, would have left debris. There is no debris whatsoever in any of the photos.


http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pentagon/spencer05.htm#Damage_and_Debris
In one of the photos you can see a stool in one of the broken away rooms, the stool has a book on it perfectly intact.

If the jet fuel is enough to cause steel to melt, or lose structure civdev [;)], then why is it not hot enough to burn a book on a wooden stool a few mere feet from the hole where the plane hit ?

civdef

I can understand that alright, but I can't see how weakened steel could cause a series of powerful detonations in sequence at free fall speed.

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/...explosions.htm

What detonations? "Detonation" means combustion where the shockwave propogates at greater than the speed of sound. I see dust being pushed from the building by the pancake collapse as the floors fail progressively.

If the jet fuel is enough to cause steel to melt, or lose structure civdev [], then why is it not hot enough to burn a book on a wooden stool a few mere feet from the hole where the plane hit ?

Eh, the collapse in that area was caused by the whole fast object/vs fixed object collision business, rather than a fire.

RedPlanet

bonkey wrote:

I mean...there hasn't been a single possible event where one could see who was and was not onside with the administration since it took office. No...they put a 5-year-plan into effect based around this one tape, which they had to doctor, and rely on a third party to first request it, and then fight the refusal...all to figure out who is with them and who is against them in the media.

No, it's not like that at all.
Times change, their plans have went to pot, the Iraq war turned into a quagmire not a walk in the park like they believed it would. This fact changed the global and the internal (national) picture for the neocons and now they are just reacting to events.
They're still pressing for more war however (Iran) cause that was/is their plan, and even if things go astray, always stick to the plan.
We knew they'd invade Iraq before 911, that (911) was just the catalyst event to galvanise the American public, as well as international (western at least) opinion to launch their crusade.
Besides they have to maintain the status-quo whereby the oil men and military industrial complex get what they want. How can they keep sacrificing social programs for military budget without having really dangerous foes to frighten the American public with?
But like i said things have gone astray and they need to do a headcount coming up to the next war and that's where this tape is handy.
Obviously there was never anything on the tape to be of much use to anybody but they kept it hidden so to have another card up their sleeves.
It's not even a ACE or TRUMP but that doesn't matter.
The press isn't marching in tune today as they were a couple of years ago and they're starting to snipe.
Now they release this tape and you get loads of articles like that WashingtonPost one "Videotapes Dispel Conspiracy". Of course it doesn't but at least certain hawks at the Pentagon in charge of domestic spying and/or proganda disemination know that that journalist will tow the line. And that will be handy.
The ones that don't probably get put on the wiretapping shortlist.

bonkey wrote:

Jeez man...couldn't they, like, just have read the papers once or twice in those 5 years to get the same picture?

They sure could but what fun would that be?

bonkey wrote:

Here's a challenge. Show me one person who's pro- or anti- administration stance (patriot/traitor) has been brought to light by their response to this release, and I'll concede you may have a point.

Sorry i'd have to do more homework to provide that.
It's only my off-the-wall theory since i'm a nutcase conspiracy theorist right?

bonkey wrote:

Someone who has hithertofore remained silent and/or has suddenly changed stance based on this release......anyone.....

i'll have a think about it, but i never claimed this tape changed anybody's stance on it.

bonkey wrote:

I mean....seriously....this isn't even today's top story....how the hell could it be the culimnation of 5 years of planning to determine who's with them and who's against them?

It's not. It's just their latest reaction to events on the ground.

Manic Moran

Untense wrote:

I can understand that alright, but I can't see how weakened steel could cause a series of powerful detonations in sequence at free fall speed.

Good God almighty.. if there's any one part of the conspiracy theory that we have refuted with simple physics on this board in other threads, its the fact that the building was going to come down, it would have done so coming straight down with approximately the acceleration of gravity. And they weren't powerful detonations, watch the video.

NTM

RedPlanet

So Bonkey:

Why were 5 frames of that tape released (leaked?) before, and why the omission ("nose cone") What purpose does leaking the tape yet omitting a particular frame or two serve?

solas

I'm pissed off with all this propaganda about whether it was a plane or not, not only is it insulting to the memory and relatives of those killed in the attacks, it detracts from the real issue of the matter. There is more evidence to support the fact that the US admin did nothing to prevent the attacks from happening and are as guilty as hell of manslaughter, if nothing less.

RedPlanet

solas wrote:

I'm pissed off with all this propaganda about whether it was a plane or not, not only is it insulting to the memory and relatives of those killed in the attacks, it detracts from the real issue of the matter. There is more evidence to support the fact that the US admin did nothing to prevent the attacks from happening and are as guilty as hell of manslaughter, if nothing less.

What is so insulting to the memory of these people allegedly on the plane?
What exactly insults them?
That they may have been killed by their own?
That evil terrorists might have killed them?
That GWB is complicit in it?

Untense

civdef wrote:

What detonations? "Detonation" means combustion where the shockwave propogates at greater than the speed of sound. I see dust being pushed from the building by the pancake collapse as the floors fail progressively.

Well done, you've defined 'detonation'. But if you look at the debris on the video I provided, even from the very beginning of the so-called 'pancake theory', debris is not only being 'propogated' outwards at a very high velocity, it's also being 'propogated' upwards.
My point is, where is that force coming from?

Eh, the collapse in that area was caused by the whole fast object/vs fixed object collision business, rather than a fire.

Oh, you're selectively choosing when a plane's jet fuel causes a fire and when it doesn't?
If there wasn't a fire to destroy the plane, where did it go? If there was no incineration, where are the hundreds of bodies, wreckage and the luggage ? If there is no fire all of these things should be intact and visible.


I mean, you're all belly laughing at the completely off the wall nutter notion of something other than 757 hitting the pentagon, yet nobody can show one bit of wreckage (except the one flake of fusilage found on the green).

Show me the proof and I'll gladly change my mind.

solas wrote:

I'm pissed off with all this propaganda about whether it was a plane or not, not only is it insulting to the memory and relatives of those killed in the attacks, it detracts from the real issue of the matter. There is more evidence to support the fact that the US admin did nothing to prevent the attacks from happening and are as guilty as hell of manslaughter, if nothing less.

They were planes that hit the twin towers, nobody is disputing that. But the hole left in the pentagon is not the correct size for a 757.
http://911review.org/Sept11Wiki/Pentagon-Hole.shtml

Even if it did manage to fit in there there would be massive amounts of wreckage left on the green and around the building.

The point being made by the implications of this being something other than a 757 is that it may have been a much smaller unmanned craft. (The US Government has lots of these to play with.)