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

civdef

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.

You desperately want to see a demolition, so that's what you're seeing, nothing I say will convince you otherwise. What's the point arguing with that?

My point is, where is that force coming from?

Gravity is a bitch.

Oh, you're selectively choosing when a plane's jet fuel causes a fire and when it doesn't?

FFS, that part of the building collapsed due to the direct impact of the 757. Fire didnt make that part come down.

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.[/

Do these help (from the first pages of a google image search)?

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/pentagonplanetire.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/aedrive6.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/insert.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/landinggear002.jpg

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/PENTPLANE/Damage9.jpg

legologic

Oscar Bravo wrote:

Pulling off an impossible turn would be pretty stupid, alright. Maybe he pulled off a possible turn instead?

At 9.38 flight77 apparently turns 330 degress at 530 mph descending 7000 feet in 2 and a half minutes.

"[flight 77] could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall"
"The plane wont go that fast when you pull those high G maneuvres. that plane would have fallen out of the sky"
Russ wittenburg, commercial and Air Force pilot who flew 2 of the planes used in 9/11

Growler wrote:

I find the "expert" analysis regarding the collapse of the buildings quite funny, the "i've never seen a steel enforced building collpase due to fire" line seems to discount the effect of having a large plane impact on said building, there isn't much precedent for that type of event to the best of my knowledge.

July 28th 1945 a B2 bomber hits the empire state 79th floor fire burns for a few hours.
feb 14th 1975 three alarm fire between 9th and 14th floor of WTC north tower before sprinklers are even installed.
may 4th 1988 fire in 62 story in LA burns for 3 hours across 4 floors
Feb 23rd 1991 38 story in philidelphia built in 1973 burns for over 19 hours over 8 floors
Oct 17th 2004 56 storey in venezuela built in 1976 burns for 17 hours over 26 floors reaching the roof.
2005 the winchester building in madrid burns for 24 hours.

none of these collapsed

sept 11th 2001 two 110 story skyscrapers burn for 53 and 106 minutes over 4 floors before becoming the first two buildings in history to collapse due to fire the third of the three in history being WTC 7

Utense wrote:

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

Also the small bits of wreckage that were found have been stated as being definately not part of the boeing plane that is said to have crashed into the pentagon. By whom... Honeywell's aerospace division who manufacture the APU for boeing for one. Also the diffuser case seen in photo's from the pentagon is completely different to the design a 747 diffuser case which has surrounding triangular bessels on the openings. Apparently flight77 vaporized including 2 9ft diameter engines made from titanium with a melting point above that of the burning temperature of aviation fuel. If it vaporized it's the first time in aviation history.

This here is loose change 911. Its the most conclusive tape i've found on 911 inconcistencies. nothing it states is unfounded... it doesent blame the secret society of jews. It does point the finger at government conspiracy and while i'm slow to give that too much creedance I would say it at least raises a lot of questions to which answers should be (though more than likely wont be) provided.

solas

redplanet wrote:

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?

for what it's worth I have no doubt the US admin is complicit in the murder of innocent civilians, however suggesting that they didn't die in those planes is insulting.
The tinfoil conspiracy theories have little substance and are more likely to be dismissed than gathering actual evidence of the crimes that were (and continue to be) comitted against the citizens of the US.
It would be more helpful if people were to focus on the issues at hand.

While all this horseh!t is being played out on TV, the plame affair has conveniently been sideswept under the carpet, an instance where the legitimacy of the the Bush admin can be challenged.

growler

legologic wrote:

At

July 28th 1945 a B2 bomber hits the empire state 79th floor fire burns for a few hours.
feb 14th 1975 three alarm fire between 9th and 14th floor of WTC north tower before sprinklers are even installed.
may 4th 1988 fire in 62 story in LA burns for 3 hours across 4 floors
Feb 23rd 1991 38 story in philidelphia built in 1973 burns for over 19 hours over 8 floors
Oct 17th 2004 56 storey in venezuela built in 1976 burns for 17 hours over 26 floors reaching the roof.
2005 the winchester building in madrid burns for 24 hours.

none of these collapsed

.

so one of the examples you give involved a plane hitting a building, which as I pointed out seemed to be a fairly major factor in the subsequent collapse. Are you choosing to ignore the fact that a B25 weighs about 12% of a 767 , carries about 9500 less gallons of fuel, and would be travelling at less than a 1/3 of the speed ?

Hey, why let a few inconvenient facts get in the way !

ReefBreak

HelterSkelter wrote:

If you have to resort to slagging someone's spelling then you obviously have nothing worthwhile to say.

I'm not normally one that pulls people up on spelling & grammar, but in this case I make an exception because:
a) The writer is calling someone thick and
b) The writer's spelling & grammar was so terrible as to render point (a) irrelevant.

Basically don't question someone's intelligence if you've got the spelling capacity of a 5 year old.

Time Magazine

Somebody who doesn't blindly accept the evidence that this is all a conspiracy is simply a sheep that is afraid to rebel. FACT.

ReefBreak

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?

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

bobbyjoe

When I saw this news I was expecting something new or more of the footage that was released. This film looks exactly like what was released already. It definetly doesn't clear up the all the questions about what happened.

Does anybody believe 911 was properly investigated? The commission had a budget of $5 million. $60 million was spent investigating Clintons bj, $50 million on the spaceshuttle challenger disaster. The official story as reported by the 911 commission report is full of holes, important factors were not investigated, evidence was scrapped large section of the 911 report were censored. Questioning it is the only rational thing to do. Theories range from they let it happen to demolition and remote controled planes so you can't lug everyone who doubts the official line as a conspiracy nut.

Maybe this thread should just concentrate on what was released and why instead of going into every theory going?

SpitfireIV

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.

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

Civdef, I've heard that pancake theory, and it is the 'official' explanation as to why the towers fell. But how can that hold through, whem for example the North tower was struck on the south east corner, therefore the most damage was confined to this area and logic would tell you that if there was failure of the floors causing pancaking, that it would fail first at this corner causing the building to fall to this side, not straight down on itself. Not to mention the 47 main central support columns which all but dissapeared, you'd imagine they would be left to some digree with the floors falling around them.

What about the plumes of smoke shooting from the building 9 to 10 stories below the falling tower? Alledged to be demolition explosions.

What about the number of explosion that were confirmed by both firefighters and civilains in the building. Not to mention the firefighter radio transmission stating that there were only two isolated pockets of fire and they were sure they could deal with it.

The damage to the lobby area, how did that happen? The alleged explosions in the basement area. The same area's where, during the clean up process molten metal was found where the main support beams were coupled to the bedrock. Explosins to weaken the main structure? These were picked up on a seismograph and measure between a force 1 and 2 earthquake.....something which wasnt picked up by with the earlier terrorist truck bomb.

It doesnt add up nor does it make sence, far too many conflicting stories.

HelterSkelter

ReefBreak wrote:

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

Reefbreak, read this account here of plans they had in store for cuba: http://aq.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=51389075&postcount=74

bobbyjoe

Shouldn't the footage look something like this?

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/may2006/170506doctored.gif

If a 747 flew over a highway would it not lift cars off it or deafen the people in the cars?

Untense

Reefbreak wrote:

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

Did you ever stop and consider that the 'conspiracy nuts' are acting on evidence? There is no evidence to point where the plane went.

RedPlanet

solas wrote:

.... however suggesting that they didn't die in those planes is insulting.

I hear you Solas.
It's just your choice of words i am not getting.
I don't understand why one or other manner of death would be "insulting", unless we are talking about some sort of honor in death like some Japanese thing. But even then...

Anyway i don't see how this affects the Valerie Plame leak investigation.
There's no reason the Justice Dept or whomever can't press charges when there is a lot of chatter going on about the Pentagon.

oscarBravo

Untense wrote:

We don't know, nobody is making any guesses either.

That indicates a lack of critical thinking to me. If the plane had to be disposed of, and the crew and passengers eliminated - wouldn't the simplest approach be to simply fly the thing into the Pentagon?

oscarBravo

legologic wrote:

At 9.38 flight77 apparently turns 330 degress at 530 mph descending 7000 feet in 2 and a half minutes.

What's the source for this?

legologic wrote:

...the first two buildings in history to collapse due to fire...

You're not serious, are you?

RedPlanet

oscarBravo wrote:

wouldn't the simplest approach be to simply fly the thing into the Pentagon?

Not necessarily at all.
For one, we don't know the reasons why they struck the Pentagon.
Probably personal vendettas here, maybe to wipe out certain pentagon personalities, destroy an entire department or what have you.
We don't know if a commercial airplane (which crumples very easily) could even penetrate that fortress enough.
Also the Pentagon is meant to have it's own air defenses and in order to get round this it required flying something very low to the ground.
Thus a precision guided missle is ideal.

oscarBravo

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

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 passengers could be a group of college students off on a holiday... arrangements will have been made to evacuate the passengers and return the aircraft to its original status.

That doesn't explain anything. In the scenario described, the plane, crew and students would still be around.

growler

ReefBreak wrote:

I have also been asking this question but the conspiracy nuts seems to put their hands over their ears and hum loudly whenever I mention it.

one theory given earlier was that the passengers were all shot / gassed and the plane sold on (presumably with false numberplates).

See all the answers are out there ..... particularly if you're paranoid and anti american.

oscarBravo

RedPlanet wrote:

Not necessarily at all.
For one, we don't know the reasons why they struck the Pentagon.
Probably personal vendettas here, maybe to wipe out certain pentagon personalities, destroy an entire department or what have you.
We don't know if a commercial airplane (which crumples very easily) could even penetrate that fortress enough.

It's still not making any sense to me. You're suggesting a conspiracy to make it look like terrorists flew a plane into the Pentagon. To accomplish this, a plane and a lot of people vanish - where and how, we're not going to bother speculating on - and a missile is fired - from where? - at the Pentagon.

RedPlanet wrote:

Also the Pentagon is meant to have it's own air defenses...

As I understand it, it doesn't. Feel free to produce some evidence to the contrary.

SpitfireIV

oscarBravo wrote:

That doesn't explain anything. In the scenario described, the plane, crew and students would still be around.

No, doesnt really explain 'much', but its a clear example of the US military minds of the 60's and what they were capable of, add another 40 years worth of thinking, plus the neo-conservative goverment to that and things might get creative.

As for the matter of where could a missle have been fired from....after the 'incedent' a white unmarked jumbo jet was spotted in the air over the pentagon even after the grounding order was issued, this is reported in news footage. Some claim they also seen a C-130, while there is also speculation of a helicopter being in the area then disapearing, so why all the conflicting reports?? Motorists on the highway couldnt even agree, I think I'd have a fair idea if a 757 flew a couple of feet above my car. Some said they seen a 757, some claim it was a small corporate jet while some claim it was a missile.

I'm not making up these stories, nor would I have vivid enough of an imagination, I'm just relating the stories I have heard.

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 from within the Pentegon with Parade Magazine.

oscarBravo

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

No, doesnt really explain 'much', but its a clear example of the US military minds of the 60's and what they were capable of...

During the cold war, with the imminent likelihood of nuclear war, those military minds balked at the idea of disposing of a planeload of passengers.

Another question for the theorists: nobody seems to be disputing the fact that two passenger jets were hijacked and flown into the WTC. Why is it so unlikely that another jet was hijacked and flown into the Pentagon?

bonkey

Untense (regarding where the missing passengers are) wrote:

We don't know, nobody is making any guesses either.

Why is that?

Why is it ok to not answer the tough questions in one theory, but to criticise another severely for leaving important questions unanswered?

cooperguy

Conspiracy nuts click here:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Manic Moran

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

logic would tell you that if there was failure of the floors causing pancaking, that it would fail first at this corner causing the building to fall to this side, not straight down on itself.

Physics 101, as has already been explained in a previous thread. Please indicate to me the source of a force which would push the top of the building outwards, and not down.

Please bear in mind also that whilst the impact occured in one corner, the damage appears to have been spread around throughout the entire floor, witness the fireball emitting from all sides. Ergo, pretty much any part of the structure is vulnerable to being weakened by fire.

Interesting show on National Geographic channel last week, explaining how the unusual lattice cored structure of the WTC actually kept it up a lot longer than would have been expected of a conventionally designed skyscraper.

NTM

bonkey

RedPlanet wrote:

So Bonkey:

Why were 5 frames of that tape released (leaked?) before,

Without knowing who leaked them, the why is effectively impossible to ascertain.

What purpose does leaking the tape yet omitting a particular frame or two serve?

Thats a subquestion of why, isn't it?

jc

SpitfireIV

Interesting site cooperguy, I found this of interest though:

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Thats the official theory as to why WTC7 collapsed, but as I stated in a previous post, Larry Silverstein, whom owned this building admitted to giving the order to 'pull it', ie bring it down by controlled demolition.

"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."

Straight from Larry's mouth.

civdef

Great link, but wasted on the true believers. By believing that they alone understand the real "truth" about the tragedy of 9/11, they've built themselves up as cleverer than the rest of us. They're not too keen on being shown up for the gullible straw-clutchers they probably are.

bonkey

CroppyBoy1798 wrote:

therefore the most damage was confined to this area and logic would tell you that if there was failure of the floors causing pancaking, that it would fail first at this corner causing the building to fall to this side, not straight down on itself.

Logic doesn't tell me that at all. Logic tells me that to fall to one side, the supports on the opposite side would either have to stretch or fail due to vertical-seperation stress. At this point, there would be failure at both sides of the centre, which would result in rotational movement during the downwards collapse (which, surprise surprise, is seen in one tower) and not in what you refer to as sideways.

Alternately, its possible that there would be a compressive-collapse travelling from the damaged side inwards and onwards. This would, again logically, lead to rotational movement during collapse, and not a fall to the side.

jc

solas

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg
thought this was funny, I dunno why but apparantly this is what a 757 hitting the pentagon would look like.

Time Magazine

Not what a 757 parked outside the Pentagon would look like, no? .