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

Reindeer · 12-09-2014 09:18AM

miss tickle wrote: »

Except of course the fact that a passenger jet would crash into the steel structure, break up and fall to the ground. It is physically impossible for a plane to have crashed through the steel structure and skin of the WTC, as was apparently depicted on TV.

Stoner

Reindeer · 12-09-2014 09:41AM

mickdw wrote: »

I am a civil Engineer and i buy very little of his argument. He seems to be attempting to further his own agenda.
The argument that the plane will simply fold back in on itself due to the nose hiting about 3 14 inch columns is not a runner imo.
I do agree re the Pentagon though.

Surely thousands of ordinary everyday people on the street saw a large jet hit the second tower that morning?

People can't really have it both ways. You can't say a 767 will hit the trade center and bounce off or disintegrate, and then say a jet hitting one of the most fortified buildings ever created by man should have done more damage and not disintegrated.

Asking for footage of a jet traveling at near the speed of sound from CCTV pointed at the grounds of a building seems disingenuous. Even the pentagon did not expect jets to be flying into it, only missiles. Why would they have CCTV cameras pointing nearly straight into the sky?

Do yourselves a favour and take all the jet questions you have to your physics professor. Because, dear Lord, the ignorance of scientific knowledge in this thread could fill the pentagon even before it had a hole.

Hoop66 · 12-09-2014 09:49AM

The jet that hit the Pentagon - there is no argument here (amongst the rational) - hit light poles as it came low across a road. One of the lightpoles it hit fell onto the road and destroyed a taxi. There are many eyewitness reports that describe a large silver airliner.

As far as CCTV goes - CCTV cameras are not designed to catch something travelling at over 700kmh.

Quite a good post here

Sunny Dayz · 12-09-2014 09:56AM

Where was I?

I was just settling into 5th year in secondary school.

Was in school all day and did afterschool study with my friends in the school hall. Afterwards I walked down to my dad's work place for 6pm to get a lift home.

In the car on the way home, Dad was talking about what he had seen on the tv on his dinner hour on about planes crashing into towers. I thought he was on about some film on the tv but thought it was a bit strange as he wouldn't be into movies..

Anyway I got home and mam had sky news on so I found out about it then.

When I look back its hard to believe something like that could happen and we could go the whole day in a bubble not hearing anything. We did have mobile phones back then but no internet use or emails back then. Even I don't recall the school teachers saying anything. I suppose the age I was then (16), you are oblivious to the world around you.

Laois_Man · 12-09-2014 09:56AM

take everything wrote: »

Never thought I'd say this but that'd make you miss Dubya.
The mad bastard.

Dubya only fed the conspiracy theories himself

miss no stars · 12-09-2014 10:02AM

Fozzie Bear wrote: »

You are witnessing such travesties on an almost weekly basis alas. They are just not as dramatic or eye catching as 9/11 for the media in general. Palestine for example or much the middle east for that matter. Ukraine? Large swathes of Africa?

3000 people were wiped off this planet within minutes in an unprovoked and unexpected attack. Then put that in the context of all who have died as a consequence of that attack.

I'm sorry, but it's horrific in a way that other things aren't.

You can cry about other parts of the world all you like, but humans are a community/tribal based species. Affiliating with other groups of humans appears to be what gave us the survival edge over the physically superior (and potentially mentally at least equal) Neanderthals. It's worse when it's your own tribe that's hit and being part of the western world, that was our "tribe" that got hit. Plenty of Irish people and their relatives living, working and holidaying in the USA. It's worse because it's closer to home. On an academic level, all lives are equal. That goes without saying. But on a real level, we naturally value the lives of those closest to us more than those most distant from us. It was worse, because we all watched the firefighters filing into the buildings and we watched that knowing they were going in to help people, to try and save people. Good people walking into a burning building that collapsed on them. It was worse because it was a horrific, violent attack on a society that lives in peace (at least within itself). That's an attack on every society where violence doesn't rule.

Over 3000 western lives taken at the drop of a hat IS worse to someone in the western world than 3000 lives in separate conflicts and events elsewhere in the world with no close connection.

You can cry about it all you like, but you can't change human nature.

miss no stars · 12-09-2014 10:08AM

Sunny Dayz wrote: »

Where was I?

I was just settling into 5th year in secondary school.

Was in school all day and did afterschool study with my friends in the school hall. Afterwards I walked down to my dad's work place for 6pm to get a lift home.

In the car on the way home, Dad was talking about what he had seen on the tv on his dinner hour on about planes crashing into towers. I thought he was on about some film on the tv but thought it was a bit strange as he wouldn't be into movies..

Anyway I got home and mam had sky news on so I found out about it then.

When I look back its hard to believe something like that could happen and we could go the whole day in a bubble not hearing anything. We did have mobile phones back then but no internet use or emails back then. Even I don't recall the school teachers saying anything. I suppose the age I was then (16), you are oblivious to the world around you.

Yeah, it was weird. I was just starting into 2nd year and nobody knew anything about it all day, teachers said nothing. Suppose they couldn't really - what if someone said "OMG my cousin works in the twin towers!". Plus, by the time news broke the school day was almost over (unless you were in Study).

I first got wind of it on the bus, but dismissed it as some hysterical american on the radio (with a little niggling voice at the back of my mind saying "smoke coming from towers does sound weird though...").

Then got home and sky news was on.

bucketybuck · 12-09-2014 10:09AM

miss tickle wrote: »

Except of course the fact that a passenger jet would crash into the steel structure, break up and fall to the ground. It is physically impossible for a plane to have crashed through the steel structure and skin of the WTC, as was apparently depicted on TV.

This is one of the most retarded posts I have ever had the misfortune to read.

Laois_Man · 12-09-2014 10:34AM

take everything wrote: »

Never thought I'd say this but that'd make you miss Dubya.
The mad bastard.

The thing that struck me when I first saw that documentary was how the Bush administration always said they didn't identify any potential culprits of the attacks initially - and it's said again in this documentary (24:30) when Bush says the first indication he got that this was Al Quieda's work was when he arrived at Offutt Air Force Base in Nebraska

Yet earlier in this documentry, it shows he had already decded earlier in the day than that, within an hour or two of the attacks, when Bush landed at Barksdale Air Force Base in Louiseanna, that Al Quieda did it (21:24)

And why tell lies about having seen the first plane crash on TV before he went into the classroom in Florida?

Lesson: If you are covering something up, make sure this twit isn't in on it, he's a disaster.

MadYaker · 12-09-2014 10:40AM

miss tickle wrote: »

Except of course the fact that a passenger jet would crash into the steel structure, break up and fall to the ground. It is physically impossible for a plane to have crashed through the steel structure and skin of the WTC, as was apparently depicted on TV.

Gotta laugh at the conspiracy theorists saying there was no plane. My Aunt lived in Manhattan at the time and she saw the second plane hit the tower with her own two eyes. She didn't see the first one hit, but she heard the sound of the engines and then the massive explosion. So has she been brainwashed by the US government or what??? Whatever about claiming it was an inside job (which nobody in their right mind believes) but saying that there were no planes in the first place is beyond moronic and frankly it's an insult to the thousands of people who died and all those who were there that day.

I was 12 years old when it happened, my mum was off work that day for some reason and she picked me and my sister up from school and I remember she was freaking out because she couldn't contact her sister whom I mentioned above since all the phone lines were clogged with so may people tryng to contact loved ones.

Laois_Man · 12-09-2014 10:59AM

Hoop66 wrote: »

As far as CCTV goes - CCTV cameras are not designed to catch something travelling at over 700kmh.

It seems to have come out remarkably clear in the Evan Fairbanks clip of the second plane hitting the second tower all the same. Much of a difference between the quality of Fairbanks' camera and CCTV cameras at The Pentagon?

donegaLroad · 12-09-2014 11:04AM

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

btw OP, it was a conspiracy. A group of individuals somewhere, somehow, conspired to fly planes into the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon (allegedly).

miss no stars · 12-09-2014 11:05AM

Laois_Man wrote: »

It seems to have come out remarkably clear in the Evan Fairbanks clip of the second plane hitting the second tower all the same. Much of a difference between the quality of Fairbanks' camera and CCTV cameras at The Pentagon?

That's not CCTV?

sadie06 · 12-09-2014 11:07AM

More importantly, where were you when the 2013 9/11 "where were you" thread was posted…..oh wait, this is it!

Laois_Man · 12-09-2014 11:25AM

miss no stars wrote: »

That's not CCTV?

No it's not. I've just said it's Evan Fairbanks' clip

Hoop66 · 12-09-2014 11:40AM

Laois_Man wrote: »

No it's not. I've just said it's Evan Fairbanks' clip

The difference would be in the frame rate of the cameras. Even a fairly crappy video camera (and that is obviously quite a good one) films at 25fps. A CCTV camera isn't designed to capture motion in detail, so has a much lower frame rate.

mickdw · 12-09-2014 11:51AM

Reindeer wrote: »

People can't really have it both ways. You can't say a 767 will hit the trade center and bounce off or disintegrate, and then say a jet hitting one of the most fortified buildings ever created by man should have done more damage and not disintegrated.

Asking for footage of a jet traveling at near the speed of sound from CCTV pointed at the grounds of a building seems disingenuous. Even the pentagon did not expect jets to be flying into it, only missiles. Why would they have CCTV cameras pointing nearly straight into the sky?

Do yourselves a favour and take all the jet questions you have to your physics professor. Because, dear Lord, the ignorance of scientific knowledge in this thread could fill the pentagon even before it had a hole.

What are your technical qualifications?
My point was that the jets we see entering the towers behaved exactly as I would expect. Do you disagree with this. Do you also believe that the jet would just fold like an accordion on meeting the face of the tower. I certainly don't.
Your argument re speed of jet does not account for the total lack of footage of it approaching the building. I'm open to the possibility of it being a jet but government were so quick to gather all footage from surrounding area that nobody has seen an image of the jet.
Now if you argue that the jet clipped lamp posts on route to the Pentagon it took a reasonably flat approach for the last portion of the flight.
That being the case, a low cost cctv system like installed at any home would have picked up an image of the jet as long as there was a single camera pointing along each face of the Pentagon building. The speed would only be a factor if poor time lapse or low frame rate cameras were used (that was the one that was released) or if a very narrow shot was captured roughly perpendicular to the flight line.
It is quite likely that one of the Pentagon cameras would have had a somewhat face on view of any approaching aircraft and as such would have had the jet in view for a second or more and so should be readily identified.

Laois_Man · 12-09-2014 12:20PM

Hoop66 wrote: »

The difference would be in the frame rate of the cameras. Even a fairly crappy video camera (and that is obviously quite a good one) films at 25fps. A CCTV camera isn't designed to capture motion in detail, so has a much lower frame rate.

That may be true for CCTV cameras securing normal buildings. But the Pentagon is not a normal building with normal security

What they released was 2 FPS video tape. It doesn't mean that's what was taken. Furthermore, CNN have said there is other video tape of the Pentagon getting hit. But the US government won't let anyone see it!

miss no stars · 12-09-2014 12:31PM

Laois_Man wrote: »

That may be true for CCTV cameras securing normal buildings. But the Pentagon is not a normal building with normal security

What they released was 2 FPS video tape. It doesn't mean that's what was taken. Furthermore, CNN have said there is other video tape of the Pentagon getting hit. But the US government won't let anyone see it!

Footage of their intelligence HQ being subjected to a terrorist attack and they don't want to release high quality footage of the event to the general population. Yeah I wonder why that is. Definitely couldn't possibly be something reasonable, like not wanting to release sensitive footage considering the nature of the building, must be a conspiracy!

renegademaster · 12-09-2014 12:35PM

miss no stars wrote: »

Footage of their intelligence HQ being subjected to a terrorist attack and they don't want to release high quality footage of the event to the general population. Yeah I wonder why that is. Definitely couldn't possibly be something reasonable, like not wanting to release sensitive footage considering the nature of the building, must be a conspiracy!

1 still photo would suffice but alas not even that was afforded to us all

Laois_Man · 12-09-2014 12:36PM

miss no stars wrote: »

Footage of their intelligence HQ being subjected to a terrorist attack and they don't want to release high quality footage of the event to the general population. Yeah I wonder why that is. Definitely couldn't possibly be something reasonable, like not wanting to release sensitive footage considering the nature of the building, must be a conspiracy!

I haven't said the word conspiracy. Stop making assumptions!

What's so sensitive about it? Do they think people are suddenly going to get the idea to do it again only when they see the footage? Does it give away big magical security secrets? Why release any footage at all if it's over sensitive?

IvaBigWun · 12-09-2014 03:55PM

AllGunsBlazing wrote: »

The plane that went down in the field. That one was a bit sketchy as well. Wouldn't be too surprised if she was downed by a military that was taking no more chances and a myth about hero passengers spun for public consumption.

And then make a Hollywood film about it.

Question: if your flight was taken over by people armed with only box-cutters, dont you think all the men on the plane would easily overpower them?

Hoop66 · 12-09-2014 03:57PM

Depends how many people you'd seen killed in front of you first I guess.

If the first person to try had been slaughtered, it's going to make the rest think twice.

IvaBigWun · 12-09-2014 04:04PM

Hoop66 wrote: »

Depends how many people you'd seen killed in front of you first I guess.

If the first person to try had been slaughtered, it's going to make the rest think twice.

Why then was the cockpit door opened for them? Surely security protocol says that even if they threaten to kill all the passengers the pilot must not open the door.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-09-2014 04:04PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

And then make a Hollywood film about it.

Question: if your flight was taken over by people armed with only box-cutters, dont you think all the men on the plane would easily overpower them?

You wouldn't know they only had box-cutters, you wouldn't expect them to be on a suicide mission (thinking it's just a hijacking), and I think you are vastly over-estimating the bravery of the average person.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-09-2014 04:06PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Why then was the cockpit door opened for them? Surely security protocol says that even if they threaten to kill all the passengers the pilot must not open the door.

It wasn't required to be closed/locked before September 11th.

IvaBigWun · 12-09-2014 04:07PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

You wouldn't know they only had box-cutters, you wouldn't expect them to be on a suicide mission (thinking it's just a hijacking), and I think you are vastly over-estimating the bravery of the average person.

There was what, 5 hijackers per plane? Versus how many men on board?

All that aside: the BBC have proven that the majority of these hijackers are still alive! So they werent even on the plane in the first place.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-09-2014 04:11PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

There was what, 5 hijackers per plane? Versus how many men on board?

All that aside: the BBC have proven that the majority of these hijackers are still alive! So they werent even on the plane in the first place.

OK lets look at it from the logical fallacy point of view then: just because the men on board three of the planes did not overpower the hijackers, it does not follow that 9/11 was a massive conspiracy. It just means that they did not overpower the hijackers.

Can you point us to where the BBC have proven that the majority of the hijackers are still alive?

Duggy747 · 12-09-2014 04:20PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

All that aside: the BBC have proven that the majority of these hijackers are still alive! So they werent even on the plane in the first place.

Source?

IvaBigWun · 12-09-2014 04:22PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

Can you point us to where the BBC have proven that the majority of the hijackers are still alive?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1559151.stm

http://topinfopost.com/2013/05/06/911-fbis-blunder-the-hijackers-were-alive-and-well

http://www.911myths.com/index.php/Hijackers_still_alive

"It is now known that at least 10 of the 19 alleged hijackers are alive according to multiple, credible news accounts by the BBC, CNN, the Telegraph, the Independent, and other international media."

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

Comments