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

civdef

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/wtc.shtml
http://wtc.nist.gov
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html
http://vincentdunn.com/wtc.html
http://www.house.gov/science/hot/wtc/wtc-report/WTC_ch2.pdf
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/WTC%20Part%20III%20-%20Baseline%20Final.pdf

civdef

Above are some links to help. The perimeter tube (correct name for the exoskeleton design) indeed wasn't the primary support, but it played a major part, see above for details.

RedPlanet

civdef wrote:

Above are some links to help. The perimeter tube (correct name for the exoskeleton design) indeed wasn't the primary support, but it played a major part, see above for details.

It was designed to provide support for horizontal load civdef.
So afterall, now you're willing to concede?

Sure sounds like it.

civdef

Eh no, do you know what role horizontal load plays in supporting a building?(here's a hint: buckling).

civdef

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/aibs_2002_wtc.pdf

Excellent description of structure second page in.

RedPlanet

civdef wrote:

Eh no, do you know what role horizontal load plays in supporting a building?(here's a hint: buckling).

So are you back to saying that the primary supporting component in that building design is the thin permeter columns and NOT the core?

civdef

Sheesh, using small words:

Core takes vertical load, perimeter horizontal. Perimeter keeps core from buckling outwards. Without the perimeter providing horizontal restraint, core colums buckle outwards and building comes down. You're not thinking in terms of three dimenstional loadings. The last link I posted has pictures and everything.

RedPlanet

I see a depiction of the Pancake Theory which was debunked for 2 reasons:
1- the outer permetre requires buckling outward for the floor to pancake on teh next one below. However no buckling is observable in vidoes of the towers just before the collapse.

2- the fires on the N. tower didn't engulf the entirety of the floor area since the plane just hit the corner, so the fire wasn't evenly spaced throughout the floor.

But why am i even bothering, all this is off topic for this thread and should be posted elsewhere.
This thread is about the Pentagon video.

civdef

However no buckling is observable in vidoes of the towers just before the collapse.

Why's it have to be outward? Inward buckling of the perimeter is clearly visible in pictures. Videos aren't going to show in what direction the cores buckled.

{quote]This thread is about the Pentagon video.[/quote]
It started out that way but seems to have evolved along the way. From an engineering perspective, WTC is much more interesting anyway.

What do you reckon happened to WTC and the Pentagon by the way?

tunaman

civdef wrote:

What do you reckon happened to WTC and the Pentagon by the way?

Many people are now asking questions as the newly released video was supposed to proof beyond doubt that flight 77 hit the pentagon, when it's obvious it does nothing of the sort.

When the government produces it as absolute proof then there is a real problem. We basically have to take their word for it as that object in the video could be anything. I and many others believe that a plane did hit the pentagon, just not flight 77, as the pilot according to people he flew with said this...

"However, when Baxter (Sheri Baxter, flight instructor) and fellow instructor Ben Conner took the slender, soft-spoken Hanjour on three test runs during the second week of August, they found he had trouble controlling and landing the single-engine Cessna 172. Even though Hanjour showed a federal pilot's license and a log book cataloging 600 hours of flying experience, chief flight instructor Marcel Bernard declined to rent him a plane without more lessons."

http://www.pentagonresearch.com/attack.html

Has anybody had a proper look just who was on flight 77 that day?

http://www.thewebfairy.com/killtown/flight77/passengers.html

This flight was full of men with years of experience in the military and navy, so I find it very hard to believe they just sat back and let 5 skinny arabs armed with just boxcutters hijack the plane...

Commercial Pilot and Aeronautical Engineer Explains Why Official 9/11 Story About Pentagon Is Bogus

http://www.arcticbeacon.com/6-Dec-2005.html

Besides calling attention to the impossibility of a untrained pilot performing complex flight maneuvers and navigation, Sagadevan said the flight path taken near the Pentagon was also impossible for a large jetliner to perform without crashing before reaching the Pentagon.

Sagadevan was quick to point out one of the main problems with the government story is the low trajectory of the airplane, flying at high speeds and roughly only 20 feet off the ground for a long distance, another impossibility defying the standard principles of aviation.

The evidence indicates that the airplane was flying low before it reached the Pentagon lawn since several light poles were sheared off several hundred yards away form the building,? explained Sagadevan. ?With that in mind, the plane was traveling at about 400 knots at about 20 feet off the ground for a long distance prior to hitting the Pentagon.

This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been kept from hitting the ground by a cushion of air termed 'ground effect.' No pilot in the world would have been able to control the plane while maintained that air speed at 20 feet off the ground for that long a distance. Again, it?s just impossible but here I will admit that an expert is needed in order to explain the standards of lift and drag associated with flying a large airliner.

He also mentioned the what's also overlooked is the 'jet wash' from the airplane would have caused tremendous ground damage on the approach, something not evident in the aftermath of the Pentagon crash.

As you can see there are many problems with the official pentagon story, but in reality that is nothing compared to the evidence supporting the demolition job on the WTC and building 7.

The eyewitness accounts of large explosions in the lower levels of the WTC are numerous, and as they don't contradict each other(see pentagon) then they cannot be ignored or brushed off as mere confusion. Neither can this explosives expert...

EXPLOSIVES PLANTED IN TOWERS, NEW MEXICO TECH EXPERT SAYS

http://www.world-action.co.uk/explosives.html

Posted: 14 September 2001
By Olivier Uyttebrouck, Journal Staff Writer

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center
suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both
towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.
The collapse of the buildings appears "too methodical" to
be a chance result of airplanes colliding with the structures,
said Van Romero, vice president for research at New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology.

"My opinion is, based on the videotapes, that after the
airplanes hit the World Trade Center there were some
explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the
towers to collapse," Romero said. Romero is a former
director of the Energetic Materials Research and Testing
Center at Tech, which studies explosive materials and
the effects of explosions on buildings, aircraft and
other structures.

Romero said he based his opinion on video aired on
national television broadcasts. Romero said the collapse
of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions
used to demolish old structures. "It would be difficult for
something from the plane to trigger an event like that,"
Romero said in a phone interview from Washington, D.C.

Romero said he and another Tech administrator were on
a Washington-area subway when an airplane struck the
Pentagon. He said he and Denny Peterson, vice president
for administration and finance, were en route to an office
building near the Pentagon to discuss defense-funded
research programs at Tech.

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small
amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero
said. The explosives likely would have been put in more
than two points in each of the towers, he said.

< ROMERO SAID THAT IF HIS SCENARIO
IS CORRECT, THE DIVERSIONARY ATTACK
WOULD HAVE BEEN THE COLLISION OF
THE PLANES INTO THE TOWERS >

The detonation of bombs within the towers is consistent
with a common terrorist strategy, Romero said. "One of the
things terrorist events are noted for is a diversionary attack
and secondary device," Romero said. Attackers detonate
an initial, diversionary explosion that attracts emergency
personnel to the scene, then detonate a second explosion,
he said. Romero said that if his scenario is correct, the
diversionary attack would have been the collision of the
planes into the towers.

Tech President Dan Lopez said Tuesday that Tech had
NOT been asked to take part in the investigation into the
attacks. Tech often assists in forensic investigations
into terrorist attacks, often by setting off similar
explosions and studying the effects.

oscarBravo

My reply here is from the perspective of someone with 24-odd hours of flight experience including one solo flight, and a keen interest in the theoretical and practical aspects of aviation. I've also passed all six private pilot exams.

tunaman wrote:

I and many others believe that a plane did hit the pentagon, just not flight 77...

So where is that plane, its passengers and crew?

tunaman wrote:

This flight was full of men with years of experience in the military and navy, so I find it very hard to believe they just sat back and let 5 skinny arabs armed with just boxcutters hijack the plane...

More accurately, armed with boxcutters and hostages they were perfectly prepared to kill.

tunaman wrote:

Besides calling attention to the impossibility of a untrained pilot performing complex flight maneuvers and navigation...

It's not that difficult to fly a plane. The hard part is landing it safely, and that wasn't a concern in this case.

tunaman wrote:

...Sagadevan said the flight path taken near the Pentagon was also impossible for a large jetliner to perform without crashing before reaching the Pentagon.

How does he know for certain what flight path was taken?

tunaman wrote:

Sagadevan was quick to point out one of the main problems with the government story is the low trajectory of the airplane, flying at high speeds and roughly only 20 feet off the ground for a long distance, another impossibility defying the standard principles of aviation.

There's nothing in the principles of aviation that says it's impossible to fly 20 feet off the ground at high speed. It's almost impossible to do it safely, but - again - that's not an issue here.

tunaman wrote:

The evidence indicates that the airplane was flying low before it reached the Pentagon lawn since several light poles were sheared off several hundred yards away form the building,? explained Sagadevan. ?With that in mind, the plane was traveling at about 400 knots at about 20 feet off the ground for a long distance prior to hitting the Pentagon.

This in itself is an impossibility since the airplane would have been kept from hitting the ground by a cushion of air termed 'ground effect.'

Bull. If you think ground effect will magically keep an airplane off the ground, try this thought experiment: imagine you've got a plane relatively stable in ground effect at high speed. Then you shove the yoke hard forward.

What do you suppose will happen?

tunaman wrote:

No pilot in the world would have been able to control the plane while maintained that air speed at 20 feet off the ground for that long a distance.

"That long a distance" being the several hundred yards you mentioned earlier? 400mph is practically 200 yards per second. Even if we're talking about a thousand yards, we're only talking about five seconds of flight. Also, we're not talking about control, we're talking about crashing into a building.

tunaman wrote:

He also mentioned the what's also overlooked is the 'jet wash' from the airplane would have caused tremendous ground damage on the approach, something not evident in the aftermath of the Pentagon crash.

Jet wash doesn't cause tremendous damage, as evidenced by the lack of tangled wreckage at the ends of airport runways the world over.

tunaman wrote:

If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the
detonations could have been caused by a small amount
of explosive, he said.

So a small amount of explosive could have caused the towers to collapse, but an impact from a fully fueld jetliner and subsequent inferno couldn't?

tunaman

Most people know who David Shayler is, right?

Well for those who don't he was an MI5 agent who was brave enough to speak the truth and look what happned to him...

http://www.thememoryhole.org/spy/shayler/welcome.htm

He obviously knows plenty about what goes on behind the scenes, and here is what he said about 9/11...

London has bombed itself before
Attack Was 'Coup de'tat,' Buildings Were Demolished By Controlled Demolitions

Former MI5 agent David Shayler, who previously blew the whistle on the British government paying Al Qaeda $200,000 to carry out political assassinations, has gone on the record with his conviction that 9/11 was an inside job meant to bring about a permanent state of emergency in America and pave the way for the invasions of Afghanistan, Iraq and ultimately Iran and Syria.

David Shayler joined MI5 in October 1991 and worked there for five years. He started at F Branch (counter-subversion) in January 1992, and worked in T Branch (Irish terrorism) from August 1992 until October 1994. He left the organization in 1996.

Shayler appeared on The Alex Jones Show to kick off what will be a wider public campaign to educate the public on 9/11 issues and government corruption.

Shayler again risked jail by speaking out. The British government has a legal gag preventing him from speaking about his work during his MI5 tenure. Since what Shayler discussed was already on the public record (a consequence of which was his imprisonment on two separate occasions), he now feels safer in stepping back out into the limelight.

Shayler delved into his past investigations and the evidence that led some within MI5 to conclude that the Israelis bombed their own London embassy in July 1994. Shayler said that the Israelis framed two Palestinians who remain in jail to this day.

"The same thing has happened with two Palestinians who were convicted of conspiracy to cause the attack on the Israeli Embassy in Britain in 1994 but MI5 didn't disclose two documents which indicated their innocence. One document indicated another group had carried out the attack and the other document was the belief of an MI5 officer that the Israelis had actually bombed their own embassy and allowed a controlled explosion to try and get better security and these documents were never shown to the trial judge let alone the defense."

Shayler said that his suspicions were first aroused about 9/11 when the usual route of crime scene investigation was impeded when the debris was immediately seized and shipped off to China.

"It is in fact a criminal offence to interfere with a crime scene and yet in the case of 9/11 all the metal from the buildings is shipped out to China, there are no forensications done on that metal. Now that to me suggests they never wanted anybody to look at that metal because it was not going to provide the evidence they wanted to show people that it was Al-Qaeda."

Shayler then went on to dismiss the incompetence theory.

"The more I look at it, you realize that it's not incompetence. There were FBI officers all over the country, Colleen Rowley is obviously the one who managed to get a congressional hearing, but there was plenty of evidence certainly."

"There are so many questions that need to be answered, protocols being overridden within national defense, people actively being stopped from carrying out investigations. This wasn't an accident, they were aware there was intelligence indicating those kind of attacks, there were FBI intercepts saying it in the days before the attacks. When you look at it all, that is a big big intelligence picture and yet these people were crucially stopped from doing their jobs, stopped from trying to protect the American people."

Shayler elaborated by saying the evidence suggests the attack was originally meant to be much wider in scope and was an attempt at a violent coup intended to decapitate the entire government as a pretext for martial law.

"So you're looking at a situation in which you almost have a coup de'tat because you've got to bear in mind that there were weapons discovered on planes that didn't take off on 9/11. Now people have obviously postulated that they were going perhaps to attack the White House, Capitol Hill. That looks to me like an attempt to destroy American government and declare a state of emergency, in fact a coup de'tat, a violent coup de'tat."

"There are so very many questions about this and you realize again that none of the enquiries ever get to the bottom of any of these things, they don't take all the evidence, they don't often take any evidence under oath when they should be taking it under oath."

Shayler was forthright in his assertion that the attack was planned and executed within the jurisdiction of the military-industrial complex.

"They let it happen, they made it happen to create a trigger to be able to allow the invasion of Afghanistan, the invasion of Iraq and of course what they're trying to do now is the same thing with the invasion of Iran and Syria."

Shayler ended by questioning the highly suspicious nature of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7, the first buildings in history, all in the same day, to collapse from so-called fire damage alone.

"I've seen the results of terroristic explosions and so on and no terrorist explosion has ever brought down a building. When the IRA put something like a thousands tonnes of home-made explosives in front of the Baltic Exchange building in Bishopsgate and let off the bomb, all the glass came out, the building shook a bit but there was no question about the building falling down and it doesn't obey the laws of physics for buildings to fall down in the way the World Trade Center came down. So you have the comparison of the two, Building 7 compared with the north and south towers coming down and those two things are exactly the same, they were demolished."


Here is a short video of him questioning what really happened on 9/11...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5403286136814574974&q=shayler

Part 2:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=2953150409490347185&q=shayler

He left in 1996!What would he know about 9/11?

easy_as_easy

im sure he is talking through his years of experience dealing with terrorists and bombings

arbeitsscheuer

Hmmm. What he says does dovetail quite adequately with what some very reasonable outspoken critics have already said about the inconsistencies of the "Official" version of events.

I think he makes some good points, but that's just me.

homah_7ft

Maybe he didn't see the evidence of a couple of passenger planes loaded with jet kerosine crashing into the buildings.

DublinWriter

I've seen David Shayler speak a number of times and he always comes over as a weirdo and kook.

If that is the calabre of what MI6 have been recruiting, then God help the British Intelligence Services.

I have a theory about him still being in the pay of MI6 and and his whole 'speaking out' routine being an active misinformation campaign on the part of MI6.

Considering how hard the UK government went after Peter Wright (author of Spycatcher), and how they let Shalyer guest-speak his way around the chat-show circuit, maybe I'm not being so paranoid after all.

Squaddy

Take a luk at my upload to see what it would have looked like. This isnt the real video so dont get confused.

oscarBravo

Squaddy wrote:

Take a luk at my upload to see what it would have looked like. This isnt the real video so dont get confused.

It's perfectly obvious it's not the real video. The real video has approximately one frame per second. As I mentioned above, an airliner travelling at full speed would travel around two hundred yards per second - about three times its own length. That's why I imagine the plane isn't visible in the published video. Your mock-up shows a plane travelling at maybe 75 feet per second.

You'll have to do better.

Dirk Gently

Squaddy wrote:

Take a luk at my upload to see what it would have looked like. This isnt the real video so dont get confused.

is that an accurate scientific recreation of what it should have looked like taking into account all factors including speed of the plane and speed, quality and location of the camera.

If it is can you link me to the site so I can have a look at their calculations. Kind of hoping this is a propper scientificly made video and not what someone wishes it would look like. Would certainly pose questions,unless its all bollix of course.

Squaddy

“Flight 77 could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall”

“The airplane wont go that fast when you start pulling those G manoeuvres. That plane would of fallen out of the sky..”

- Russ Wittenberg, commercial and Air Force Pilot who flew two of the planes used on 911.

In order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 330 degree downward spiral, which some pilots have said, “would have been difficult if not impossible for a Boeing 757 even with an expert pilot. Hani Hanjour, moreover, was known as a terrible pilot, who could not safely fly even a small plane”

Terrorists brilliant enough to get through the U.S. military's defence system would not have struck the Pentagon's west wing for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been. The west wing was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; a strike anywhere else would have killed thousands of people, rather than 125. And the secretary of defence and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing. Why would an al-Qaeda pilot have executed a very difficult maneuver to hit the west wing when he could have simply crashed into the roof of the east wing?

Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes. And yet the US military, which by then would have known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons, has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”

Why is there absolute no trace of flight 77??

Former pilot Ralph Omholt writes:

There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel. . . . The pre-collapse Pentagon section showed no “forward-moving” damage. . . . There was no particular physical evidence of the expected “wreckage.” There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.”

Official explanation is that the intense heat of the jet fuel vaporised the entire plane. Indeed from these pictures it seems that there is absolute but if the fire was hot enough to incinerate the jumbo jet then how can investigators identify 184 out of 189 people found at the pentagon.

Titanium has a melting point of 1688 degrees Celsius, jet fuel also known as Kerosene is a hydro-carbon which can retain a constant temperature of 1120 degrees Celsius after 40 minutes but only if the fuel is maintained.

The fuel would of burned off immediately upon impact therefore it is scientifically impossible that 12 tonnes of steel and titanium was vaporised by Kerosene likewise the 2 engines should have been found relatively intact at the pentagon.


CNN reporter Jamie McIntyre, reporting live from the Pentagon on 9/11, said: “From my close-up inspection, there's no evidence of a plane having crashed anywhere near the Pentagon.” Karen Kwiatkowski, who at the time was an Air Force Lieutenant Colonel working at the Pentagon, has written:

I would think that if a 100-plus-ton aircraft . . . going several hundred miles an hour were to hit the Pentagon, it would cause a great deal of possibly superficial but visible damage to the . . . entire area of impact. But I did not see this kind of damage.

A number of military personal at the pentagon specifically mention smelling Cordite. Cordite and jet fuel have 2 very distinct smells. Cordite is used in ammunition.

Evidence was destroyed.

Proof that Flight 77 was hijacked and heading back towards Washington was allegedly provided in a phone call from passenger Barbara Olson to her husband, attorney Ted Olson. But no evidence from telephone records has been provided to confirm that this call occurred. The only evidence that has been submitted is the claim of Ted Olson - who works for the Bush-Cheney administration.

Also i thought the official explanation was that the plane bounced off the lawn before impact?? But why did the guy on sky news say that you can clearly see that the plane is close to the ground!?!?

Squaddy

If they really had a video feed or still photos proving beyond a reasonable doubt that a 757 crashed into the pentagon they would have shown it by now.

Dirk Gently

squaddy can you tell me where you got the video from so I can check out how accurate of a recreation it was, otherwise I can't really take it seriously.

Squaddy

Picture 1 - The verticle stabilizer is 45 feet tall but the engines hang down a good 5 feet below the fuselage and they hit this trailer about 10 feet high and cleared the spools.

Picture 2 - use the fire engine for scale.

Picture 3 - Thats what the plane would look like against the builidng.

Pciture 4 - Now does that look like the boeing 757?!!?

SpitfireIV

oscarBravo wrote:

So where is that plane, its passengers and crew

Operation Northwood:
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.

Thats just an example as already stated in an earlier thread. a possible theory for the 'dissapearance' of a 757??


You seem fairly determined that a 757 slammed into the Pentegon and have answered a lot of questions on it, but can you answer how a 757 dissapeared after crashing into the building?

How the plane mysteriously 'vapourised', yet 184 bodies were positively identified....titanium....bone.....titanium.........bone?? How would one disapear and the other not?

I'm no genius, but I was under the impression that an aircraft composed of lightweight materials, ie aluminium, carbon composits etc, yet we still have that small 'hole'.




Beside the hole you'll notice the famous 'unbroken windows', I read in another link posted in this thread that the reason these windows were unbroken was because they were blast proof! Hell, they also seem to repel 757 engines and wings too, pretty tough brickwork as well.

So we've established that the plane HAD to have been going 400mph-500mph+ to penetrate that wall and to travel through 9 foot of reinforced concrete, now the main fuselage of the aircraft, with its aluminium skeletal structure etc was the part that made the hole and traveled through the building. Would it not be the other way around, ie the heavy steel/titanium engines would be the parts to travel through the building and go the furthest?
I'm no mathematician or physics guy but I would have thought the heavy an object was, going at 400mph+ that would it strikes and object it would penetrate further or if not, at least inflict massive damage and not 'vapourise' as we are led to believe.




What about the conflicting reports as to the 'wreckage' or lack there of.




The part above--recovered after the Pentagon impact--is a "diffuser case," a component from the types of "dual chamber" turbojets represented by the Allison J33, J71, Pratt & Whitney J57 and JT8D. "It is not part of a Boeing 757 engine," said Schwarz, adding, we even inspected a 757 engine in a jet maintenance shop."


The part sheet above shows a diffuser case design for the 757 jet engines and it's quite different from the one found at the Pentagon (left). Schwarz said "the difference is between the "duel-chamber turbojet" versus the newer "high bypass jet fan" designs found on the 757 and 767 jets.

The key difference between the diffuser case found at the Pentagon and a Boeing 757 diffuser case (left & below) is the triangular bezels around the openings. [The triangular bezel reinforcments can more easily be observed near the top of the photo below.] Note that the Pentagon diffuser case has no such opening or reinforcing points--no triangular bezels.





Then there was the mystery over the APU wheel....was it or wasnt it?
I dont know, but why cant people agree on it? It either IS or isnt an APU part.

American Free Press, an independent weekly paper based on Capitol Hill, printed the photograph in September alongside a photo of a U.S. Air Force Global Hawk, and asked why this seemingly crucial piece of evidence had not been identified, either to bolster the government's version that a Boeing 757-200 had smashed into the Pentagon - or to disprove it.

http://www.rumormillnews.com/cgi-bin/archive.cgi?noframes;read=37640





The wheels.....again, disputes, WHY??


Any experts want to figure out that one?? Why does Karl Schwarz have it in his head that its not off a 757??....maybe he's mad and had nothing else to do with his time :rolleyes:




Those that believe that there is a conspiracy are left searching for facts and picking up what they can, there is lots of disputing evidence out there to challenge the official findings....but thats what they are, official, so all other claims get slammed into the ground. I dont know what happened and I'm not for a minute pretending that I do, but there ARE things that need to be answered, those who believe there was no conspiracy, naturally have all the research material widely availible to them, the findings, reports etc, which of course 'must' be right, so its easy for them to put a case forward, remember that....

CroppyBoy1798

oscarBravo

Squaddy wrote:

“Flight 77 could not possibly have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into a high speed stall”

“The airplane wont go that fast when you start pulling those G manoeuvres. That plane would of fallen out of the sky..”

What speeds? How fast? Which G manoeuvres? Those quotes are meaningless without that kind of context.

Squaddy wrote:

In order to hit the west wing, reportedly executed a 330 degree downward spiral, which some pilots have said, “would have been difficult if not impossible for a Boeing 757 even with an expert pilot. Hani Hanjour, moreover, was known as a terrible pilot, who could not safely fly even a small plane”

Again, we're talking about flying safely, which was never an issue here.

Also, who reported that the plane executed a 330 degree downward spiral? It's nonsensical to say a 757 can't execute such a maneouvre, without specifying exact details of the flight path - where are such details specified?

What, exactly, are all these experts contradicting?

Squaddy wrote:

Terrorists brilliant enough to get through the U.S. military's defence system...

What defence system? NORAD has always been designed to defend US airspace from inbound threats originating outside that airspace.

Squaddy wrote:

...would not have struck the Pentagon's west wing for many reasons: It had been reinforced, so the damage was less severe than a strike anywhere else would have been. The west wing was still being renovated, so relatively few people were there; a strike anywhere else would have killed thousands of people, rather than 125. And the secretary of defence and all the top brass, whom terrorists would presumably have wanted to kill, were in the east wing. Why would an al-Qaeda pilot have executed a very difficult maneuver to hit the west wing when he could have simply crashed into the roof of the east wing?

How do you know he was specifically trying to hit the west wing? How do you know he could have simply crashed into the roof of the east wing?

Squaddy wrote:

Flight 77 allegedly, after making a U-turn in the mid-west, flew back to Washington undetected for 40 minutes.

Its transponder was switched off. ATC radar doesn't track airplanes, it tracks active transponders.

Squaddy wrote:

And yet the US military, which by then would have known that hijacked airliners were being used as weapons, has the best radar systems in the world, one of which, it brags, “does not miss anything occurring in North American airspace.”

Where was such a boast made? In what context? Was it referring to civilian airliners?

Squaddy wrote:

Why is there absolute no trace of flight 77??

I've asked that question repeatedly of those who insist it didn't hit the Pentagon.

Squaddy wrote:

There is no viable evidence of burning jet fuel.

Apart, of course, from the big fire.

Squaddy wrote:

There was no particular physical evidence of the expected “wreckage.” There was no tail, no wings; no damage consistent with a B-757 “crash.”

Were any such pieces found in or around the WTC? Bearing in mind that the planes that hit the twin towers collided with box-section steel uprights, compared to the massive concrete construction of the Pentagon.

Squaddy wrote:

Official explanation is that the intense heat of the jet fuel vaporised the entire plane.

Can you link to the official explanation that states that?

Squaddy wrote:

The fuel would of burned off immediately upon impact...

The almost-full contents of an airliner's fuel tanks don't burn off immediately. It takes time to burn that much kerosene.

Squaddy wrote:

...therefore it is scientifically impossible that 12 tonnes of steel and titanium was vaporised by Kerosene...

Again with the vapourising. Where's the official explanation that involves jet engines vaporising?

Squaddy wrote:

...likewise the 2 engines should have been found relatively intact at the pentagon.

The mistake I'm seeing over and over again is the comparison with "normal" air crash sites. We're talking about 6 tons of jet engine colliding directly with a massively reinforced concrete structure. Do you seriously expect to see a damaged-but-largely-intact engine afterwards?

civdef

I officially give up.

I advise all sane people to do the same.

SpitfireIV

civdef wrote:

I officially give up.

I advise all sane people to do the same.

Ok Civdef, I'll stay here with all these insane people :rolleyes: .........:D

Can you say though that you are certain that nothing the least bit suspicious happened that day and that all the allegations, rumours, conspiracy theories, conflicting evidence etc are all just bogus unfounded lies? If so.....then whats the purpose of them? What could possibly be gained be people wasting there time on them?


This is the Conspiracy theory forum where a lot weirder stuff gets discussed , at least we aint talking about aliens attacking the Pentagon.

Omnipresence

ReefBreak wrote:

People that believe that no plane crashed into the Pentagon on 9/11 = Fecking Conspiracy Nuts.

Exactly...

The pentagon is a massive building thats massively re-inforced... you can clearly see the amount of brick layers in one of those photos.

Also the explosion is equally massive, just because it exits for a short time and looks small in the video if you actually use your brain to see its size compared with the size of the building its massive (also realising only intermittent frames are being shown etc so it would have lasted much longer than in video-time)

I'm reminded of a scene in father ted..... "Near..... Far Away"

unfortunately lots of people seem to be blissfully happy to be like Dougal....

-A

SpitfireIV

aloleary wrote:

Exactly...

The pentagon is a massive building thats massively re-inforced... you can clearly see the amount of brick layers in one of those photos.

Also the explosion is equally massive, just because it exits for a short time and looks small in the video if you actually use your brain to see its size compared with the size of the building its massive (also realising only intermittent frames are being shown etc so it would have lasted much longer than in video-time)

I'm reminded of a scene in father ted..... "Near..... Far Away"

unfortunately lots of people seem to be blissfully happy to be like Dougal....

-A

An explosion is an explosion, can you say for definate that it was a 757 in that video clip? I dont think you could, nor no one can, physically you cannot see one in it.

You've explained the explosion, care to explain the rest? I'm not being smart here, but by just giving an explanation as to the explosion doesnt mean that you have solved the rest of the puzzle that so many people, for so long have been disputing