9/11 anniversary, where were you when it happened and was it a conspiracy?

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

I remember being told about it by a customer when I was out on the road doing some deliveries. When they said that a plane had hit one of the towers I just assumed they meant small passenger plane, like a cessna or something similar. Jaw fairly dropped when I finally saw the tv.

Anyway I had to head back out to work and was immediately struck by how empty the streets were. Total ghost town scenario. The only other time I could honestly remember that happening was for the OJ Simpson verdict.

mickdw wrote: »

I can see your thinking but it's very much wrong.
There is no way the plane would simply be mashed against the surface of the building and not penetrate it. Sure the structural elements of the building are of themselves stronger than elements of the plane but take a huge mass moving at 500 miles power hour and it is firstly not going to stop dead and secondly it is going to enter the building remembering that the building is probably 50 percent glass by area.
So even imagining that the concrete and steel elements of the building withstood the impact, the plane would have been sliced and still entered the building in a similar fashion given the mass and velocity the plane had so one way or another the plane was entering the building.
I don't agree that the structural members of the building would withstand such an impact at all. For example you would have a reinforced concrete column or steel column on the face of the building. This would not be optimised to resist an impact from the side such as the plane caused. Further more, Taking very rough figures, at 500 miles per hour, The entire plane would have passed into the building in less than half a second, that's hundreds of impacts as each structural part of the plane in turn will meet the outer face of the building and impact at speed will cause damage.
The structure of the building actually did an amazing job of stopping the plane within the depth of the building.
In short, nothing strange about the plane emerging the building.
Now, the Pentagon being hit, with all staff vacated from that side of the building at the time and not a single piece of cctv that actually shows a plane hitting the building even though this it's a very secure building is just laughable to me.

miss tickle wrote: »

Here is the Affidavit by John Lear (son of Lear Jet inventor Bill Lear),

http://beforeitsnews.com/9-11-and-ground-zero/2012/03/911-airplane-affidavit-by-john-lear-son-of-learjet-inventor-1935777.html'

and here is a partial quote,


No Boeing 767 airliners hit the Twin Towers as fraudulently alleged by the government, media, NIST and its contractors. Such crashes did not occur because they are physically impossible as depicted for the following reasons:
A. In the case of UAL 175 going into the south tower, a real Boeing 767 would have begun 'telescoping' when the nose hit the 14 inch steel columns which are 39 inches on center. The vertical and horizontal tail would have instantaneously separated from the aircraft, hit the steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
B. The engines when impacting the steel columns would have maintained their general shape and either fallen to the ground or been recovered in the debris of the collapsed building. One alleged engine part was found on Murray Street but there should be three other engine cores weighing over 9000 pounds each. Normal operating temperatures for these engines are 650°C so they could not possibly have burned up. This is a photo of a similar sized engine from a McDonnell-Douglas MD-11 which impacted the ocean at a high rate of speed. You can see that the engine remains generally intact.(photo, http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/03/27/world/main546355. shtml)
3
C. When and if the nose of an airplane came in contact with the buildings 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns and then, 37 feet beyond, the steel box columns of the building core the momentum of the wings would have slowed drastically depriving them of the energy to penetrate the exterior steel box columns. The spars of the wing, which extend outward, could not possibly have penetrated the 14 inch by 14 inch steel box columns placed 39 inches on center and would have crashed to the ground.
D. The argument that the energy of the mass of the Boeing 767 at a speed of 540 mph fails because:
a. No Boeing 767 could attain that speed at 1000 feet
above sea level because of parasite drag which doubles with velocity and parasite power which cubes with velocity.
b. The fan portion of the engine is not designed to accept
the volume of dense air at that altitude and speed.
E. The piece of alleged external fuselage containing 3 or 4 window cutouts is inconsistent with an airplane that hit 14 inch steel box columns, placed 39 inches in center, at over 500 mph. This
4
fuselage section would be telescopically crumpled had it actually penetrated the building as depicted in the CNN video. It is impossible for it to have then re-emerged from the building and then fallen intact and unburned as depicted.
F. The Purdue video fails because no significant part of the Boeing 767 or engine thereon could have penetrated the 14 inch steel columns and 37 feet beyond the massive core of the tower without part of it falling to the ground. The Purdue video misrepresents the construction of the core of the building and depicts unidentified parts of the airplane snapping the core columns which were 12"x36". The Purdue video also misrepresents what would happen to the tail when the alleged fuselage contacted the core. The tail would instantaneously separate from the empennage (aft fuselage). Further, the Purdue video misrepresents, indeed it fails to show, the wing box or center section of the wing in the collision with the core. The wing box is a very strong unit designed to hold the wings together and is an integral portion of the fuselage. The wing box is designed to help distribute the loads of the wings up-and-down flexing in flight.
5
G. My analysis of the alleged cutout made by the Boeing 767 shows that many of the 14-inch exterior steel box columns which are shown as severed horizontally, do not match up with the position of the wings. Further, several of the columns through which the horizontal tail allegedly disappeared are not severed or broken. In addition, the wing tips of the Boeing 767 being of less robust construction than the inner portions of the wings could not possibly have made the cookie-cutter pattern as shown in the aftermath photos. The wing tips would have been stopped by the 14 inch steel box columns and fallen to the ground.
H. The debris of the Boeing 767, as found after the
collapse, was not consistent with actual debris had there really been a
crash. Massive forgings, spars from both the wing and horizontal and vertical stabilizers, landing gear retract cylinders, landing gear struts, hydraulic reservoirs and bogeys oxygen bottles, a massive keel beam, bulkheads and the wing box itself cold not possibly have 'evaporated' even in a high intensity fire. The debris of the collapse should have contained massive sections of the Boeing 767, including 3 engine cores weighing approximately 9000 pounds apiece which could not have been hidden. Yet there is no evidence of any of these massive structural components from either 767 at the WTC. Such complete disappearance of 767s is impossible.

Also here is an interview with a retired army general regarding the pentagon attack, and the tiny hole for such a large airplane, and the lack of debris, and the evidence in said hole that it was a missile not a large passenger jet that made the aforementioned insufficient hole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nid2BtwWlhI

MadYaker wrote: »

Good interview that bush gave in 2011 about the whole event.