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

ceadaoin. · 12-09-2014 04:27PM

I was 19 and had a day off work that day and watched it live. I still remember how surreal it felt at first and the shock when the first tower fell. Seeing stories of people being in school or only babies when it happened reminds me I'm old

It's unbelievable to think that cockpit doors were unlocked before 9/11. Seems like a basic security measure.

I'm not sure what to think about the conspiracy thing. I watched one documentary which made a compelling case that it wasn't a plane that hit the pentagon. It seems to make sense. The hole that could be seen on the outside of the building is no way wide enough for a plane that size to fit through, plus there was a conspicuous lack of plane debris, or certainly less then would be expected from a large jet plane.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-09-2014 04:29PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

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

The BBC link details 4 (not 'the majority') of the hijackers had not been identified, ten days after the attack while it was still being investigated.

As for topinfopost, given that they also detail:

Hitler and Eva Braun fled to Argentina in a submarine

Details of what happens when you die including people who incredibly agreed with each other about seeing a bright light etc.

A City 6000 feet under the sea

then that can be written off as sub-Weekly World News claptrap and sensationalism.

tigger123 · 12-09-2014 04:29PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

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/aftendex.php/Hijackers_still_alive

The BBC link is from September 23rd 2001, less than a fortnight after 9/11.

The other two links are conspiracy websites.

Greyjoy · 12-09-2014 04:35PM

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.

Prior to Sept 11th the standard scenario for a hijacking would be for the attackers to land the plane at an airport and make their demands. The hijacking would typically end with either the terrorists giving themselves up or security forces storming the plane. In either case it would make more sense for the crew & passengers to just obey the hijackers and wait it out.

IvaBigWun · 12-09-2014 04:41PM

TwoShedsJackson wrote: »

The BBC link details 4 (not 'the majority') of the hijackers had not been identified, ten days after the attack while it was still being investigated.

tigger123 wrote: »

The BBC link is from September 23rd 2001, less than a fortnight after 9/11.

You both seem to be guilty of what most conspiracy theorists are usually accused of. That is picking out bits of the debate to fit the frame of your own argument.

TwoShedsJackson · 12-09-2014 04:44PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

You both seem to be guilty of what most conspiracy theorists are usually accused of. That is picking out bits of the debate to fit the frame of your own argument.

The artice is from 10 days after the attacks whilst it was still being investigated. Note that it states that the hijackers had been mis-identified.

It does not state that they did not exist or were not on the plane at all.

tigger123 · 12-09-2014 05:33PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

You both seem to be guilty of what most conspiracy theorists are usually accused of. That is picking out bits of the debate to fit the frame of your own argument.

Not being selective at all. You provided three links, I commented on the three links.

If you're going to make a claim you should back it up with something that's in some way impartial. Not link a bbc story from a few days after the attacks and some conspiracy websites.

ClovenHoof · 12-09-2014 05:44PM

Dr. Bre wrote: »

more likely that the americans let it happen as it would give them the power to go into countries and get what they want... weird theres no footage of a plane going into the pentagon one of the most photographed buildings in the world

That to me is more likely that it was planned.

The Bush administration were warned of the actual technical details of the attacks by the Japanese, French and Israelis.

They did nothing. That's always going to be a issue for me until it is explained why they did not heed very complex and specific dossiers given to them.

oh, and why the Bin Laden family were smuggled out. That bothers be too.

and then two countries invaded and robbed...

tigger123 · 12-09-2014 05:50PM

ClovenHoof wrote: »

That to me is more likely that it was planned.

The Bush administration were warned of the actual technical details of the attacks by the Japanese, French and Israelis.

They did nothing. That's always going to be a issue for me until it is explained why they did not heed very complex and specific dossiers given to them.

oh, and why the Bin Laden family were smuggled out. That bothers be too.

and then two countries invaded and robbed...

Supposing this is true, do you ever think about the people that knew about the attacks and allowed them to happen? How many people do you think it might be? 10? 20? 100? 1,000? How could the US Government keep them silent for so long afterwards? Do they themselves have no conscience and would allow innocent people to die like that?

In a world where we have Snowden, Julian Assange and wikileaks, there's still no argument with any merit that leads to a conspiracy on 9/11.

IvyTheTerrible · 12-09-2014 05:58PM

ceadaoin. wrote: »

It's unbelievable to think that cockpit doors were unlocked before 9/11. Seems like a basic security measure.

I remember watching one of those programmes that reconstructs an airline disaster, this one was about an Ethiopian airlines plane that was hijacked in the early to mid nineties. One of the major recommendations in the accident report was to have the cockpit doors locked. It was essentially for financial reasons that it didn't happen.

bucketybuck · 12-09-2014 06:21PM

ClovenHoof wrote: »

That to me is more likely that it was planned.

The Bush administration were warned of the actual technical details of the attacks by the Japanese, French and Israelis.

All of them at the same time? Or were they just cc'd in on the email?

ClovenHoof · 12-09-2014 06:28PM

tigger123 wrote: »

In a world where we have Snowden, Julian Assange and wikileaks, there's still no argument with any merit that leads to a conspiracy on 9/11.

That's assuming these are all legit and not CIA creations designed to create a false counter culture. Having their pictures on the cover of Wired Magazine is not enough for me to have unconditional faith in their sincerity in terms of what they allegedly represent.

We only 'trust' them to be legit because the USA and other NATO warlike states tell us they are trouble-makers. They have also released nothing we didn't already know. We already knew that war is not nice and war crimes are the norm.

ClovenHoof · 12-09-2014 06:35PM

bucketybuck wrote: »

All of them at the same time? Or were they just cc'd in on the email?

So clever. The level of erudite quips only a lifetime spent in the civil service can cultivate.

I bet you stood on College Green with a misty eyed expression on your face as you believed Obama would usher in a 1000 years of peace and prosperity for all mankind.

If Obama tuned out to be a warmongering fake, how could George W. Bush possible be the same?

So, so very clever you are.

bucketybuck · 12-09-2014 06:52PM

ClovenHoof wrote: »

That's assuming these are all legit and not CIA creations designed to create a false counter culture. Having their pictures on the cover of Wired Magazine is not enough for me to have unconditional faith in their sincerity in terms of what they allegedly represent.

We only 'trust' them to be legit because the USA and other NATO warlike states tell us they are trouble-makers. They have also released nothing we didn't already know. We already knew that war is not nice and war crimes are the norm.

Ah, so if we know about a whistleblower they must be fake, even though public knowledge is almost the very point of being a whistleblower! Your logic is impeccable and I am glad you have seen through this dangerous conspiracy for us.

tigger123 · 12-09-2014 07:48PM

ClovenHoof wrote: »

That's assuming these are all legit and not CIA creations designed to create a false counter culture. Having their pictures on the cover of Wired Magazine is not enough for me to have unconditional faith in their sincerity in terms of what they allegedly represent.

We only 'trust' them to be legit because the USA and other NATO warlike states tell us they are trouble-makers. They have also released nothing we didn't already know. We already knew that war is not nice and war crimes are the norm.

:pac:

George Bernard Shaw wrote:

I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and besides, the pig likes it.

bnt · 13-09-2014 11:00AM

This idea that the plane would just crumple up on the face of the building doesn't work, once you factor in how much sheer kinetic energy is carried by a 100-tonne aircraft. That energy has to go somewhere, and it did. It's possible to go in to a lot more detail, but suffice to say that the columns in the facade of the WTC towers were steel only (no concrete), designed to carry the vertical load of the building, not designed to resist an impact from the side. The columns were already loaded (by the weight of the building above), so only a fraction of the strength of the steel was available to resist the impact. The designs included safety factors, but these were real-world buildings, not some lab experiments or textboox exercises.

I wonder if some folks are thinking of a certain Beastie Boys album cover ..? Ill. :cool:

miss no stars · 13-09-2014 12:12PM

bnt wrote: »

This idea that the plane would just crumple up on the face of the building doesn't work, once you factor in how much sheer kinetic energy is carried by a 100-tonne aircraft. That energy has to go somewhere, and it did. It's possible to go in to a lot more detail, but suffice to say that the columns in the facade of the WTC towers were steel only (no concrete), designed to carry the vertical load of the building, not designed to resist an impact from the side. The columns were already loaded (by the weight of the building above), so only a fraction of the strength of the steel was available to resist the impact. The designs included safety factors, but these were real-world buildings, not some lab experiments or textboox exercises.

I wonder if some folks are thinking of a certain Beastie Boys album cover ..? Ill. :cool:

Also need to remember that the airplane is a thin walled pressure vessel. Not just little sheets of aluminium as some people like to purport :rolleyes:

smurgen · 13-09-2014 01:45PM

i watched a documantary about it, think it was 9/11 the lost tapes it was call, where they interview the actual NEADS commanders on the day as well as fighter pilets sent to intercept the planes and they all came across really weird in it.im not saying that it didn't happen or anything like that but I find the level of incompetency shown by the different departments on the day to be suspicious.

IvaBigWun · 13-09-2014 06:07PM

bnt wrote: »

but suffice to say that the columns in the facade of the WTC towers were steel only (no concrete), designed to carry the vertical load of the building, not designed to resist an impact from the side.

Several layers of steel. All as thick as a tank.

Calibos · 13-09-2014 07:01PM

Look up how an anti tank round works and the size of one. Christ on a bike!

rob316 · 15-09-2014 03:27PM

I think people look for a conspiracy theory as it was so shocking and unbelievable what happened. Not in your wildest thoughts could you have imagined something like it.

To be honest the whole thing doesn't sit right me still, those buildings shouldn't of collapsed, the way they fell, reluctance to release video evidence of the pentagon strike, its just all too secretive.

The conspiracy theory looses any weight though when you just consider the extent, size and number of people required for an inside job. Its impossible that someone wouldn't talk.

If something else sinister did happen, it will be a long time till someone breaks there silence.

miss no stars · 15-09-2014 07:02PM

rob316 wrote: »

To be honest the whole thing doesn't sit right me still, those buildings shouldn't of collapsed, the way they fell, reluctance to release video evidence of the pentagon strike, its just all too secretive.

Can we put this one to bed now? They fell exactly as they would be expected to fall. Fcuk sake.

IvaBigWun · 15-09-2014 07:15PM

Calibos wrote: »

Look up how an anti tank round works and the size of one. Christ on a bike!

We could go forward and back with this kind of thing for days but Im not going to go there. I'll sum up some my thoughts on the whole thing:

On the day it happened I thought to myself: "that looks like a demolition job" and Ive thought ever since that WTC 1, 2 and 7 didnt come down of their own accord.

Over 80 cameras pointing at the Pentagon and no proper footage released to prove it wasnt a missile.

Flight 93 was shot down.

WTC 7 is the main thing that stands out for me. This building wasnt even hit!

Planes definitely hit the buildings but some of the amateur footage of the second strike was faked.

Anyway. I now realise that Im in the AH minority about what they feel happened that day. But so be it

miss no stars · 15-09-2014 07:22PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

On the day it happened I thought to myself: "that looks like a demolition job" and Ive thought ever since that the planes didnt come down of their own accord.

I had just turned 13 and I heard some idiot hack on sky news saying just that. At the time my response was "no it doesn't".

13 years and a structural engineering degree later, it still doesn't look like a planned demolition.

Christ on a bike, it collapsed from the fcuking impact zone down. You can even HEAR the floors collapsing on top of each other all the way down on some of the footage.

But some people like tinfoil too much.

Calibos · 15-09-2014 08:52PM

Your not going to go there! Lol. You started the feckin thread. I learnt a decade ago it was a fools errand getting too involved in these threads or arguing with truthers.

I'll give you flight 93. That's the only part where I think there is the possibility of conspiracy. ie. that it was shot down and a story about the passengers overpowering the terrorists concocted to give their deaths meaning in the public eye. Still think it more likely that the actually did hear what was going on elsewhere and did realise their only hope was 'let's roll' as Hollywood a storyline as it sounds.

Calibos · 15-09-2014 09:03PM

miss no stars wrote: »

I had just turned 13 and I heard some idiot hack on sky news saying just that. At the time my response was "no it doesn't".

13 years and a structural engineering degree later, it still doesn't look like a planned demolition.

Christ on a bike, it collapsed from the fcuking impact zone down. You can even HEAR the floors collapsing on top of each other all the way down on some of the footage.

But some people like tinfoil too much.

I think the morons seem to think an impact 2 thirds up should have cracked it near the base and toppled it over like a tree.

What they need to think of it like is building a model of the towers out of matchsticks for the internal steel supports, ceramic tiles for the floors and the outside of the model wrapped in chicken wire. 2 thirds up set the matches floor supports on fire. They give way and the weight above impacts that floor causing the supports on the floor below to give way and so on all the way down. The chicken wire skin keeps most of the force contained in the vertical and the building concertinas down on itself.

And I don't have a degree never mind an engineering degree and even I can grasp the concept. I despair for those that can't.

How it came down isn't a sign of demolition it's a sign of the genius of the engineers and architects. It's the contractors 30 years previously who are to blame for scrimping on the specified fireproofing for the steel supports. Real parallels to the movie 'the Towering Inferno' in more ways than the obvious.

The second tower hit came down first. Why? The conspiracists just decided to push the detonation plungers in that order? lol. It came down first because it was hit lower down and there was an extra few million kilograms bearing down on the melting softening steel supports causing them to fail sooner.

rob316 · 15-09-2014 11:05PM

miss no stars wrote: »

Can we put this one to bed now? They fell exactly as they would be expected to fall. Fcuk sake.

They didn't though, both planes struck each tower at different levels. Don't you find it strange they both fell in the exact same manner?
They fell just like a controlled demolition wether it was or not I have no idea.

It's just the whole thing doesn't sit quite right with me.

miss no stars · 15-09-2014 11:17PM

rob316 wrote: »

They didn't though, both planes struck each tower at different levels. Don't you find it strange they both fell in the exact same manner?
They fell just like a controlled demolition wether it was or not I have no idea.

It's just the whole thing doesn't sit quite right with me.

No I don't find it strange. Being struck at different heights doesn't change gravity or the laws of physics.

Hulk Hands · 15-09-2014 11:19PM

miss no stars wrote: »

No I don't find it strange. Being struck at different heights doesn't change gravity or the laws of physics.

What does your structural engineering degree tell you about World Trade Centre 7?

Calibos · 15-09-2014 11:21PM

The clue is in the fcuking nickname. 'The Twin Towers' both hit by fcuking airliners. Jesus H.

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

Comments