1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

911 conspiracy

Discussion in 'Speaker's Corner' started by conundrum, Jan 29, 2006.

  1. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    The United Airlines jets were not deregistered in the FAA database until something like 2005.

    However, the NTSB did in fact note that they were fatal crashes and they had noted that fact for quite some time before the FAA and UA got around to correcting the record regarding deregistration.
     
    Last edited: Apr 20, 2006
  2. G_Wizz

    Hitman

    Joined: Mar 30, 2004

    Posts: 879

  3. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    Direct eyewitness accounts of the crash

    "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Additional curriculum vitae of Kilsheimer.

    Recorded flight path of flight 77

    When I used the term liquefied, I am sorry. I did not mean that the plane melted immediately into liquid form. Rather, it is the term used to describe the degree of disintegration that most of the plane went through in the crash with the structure and the entire plane did not, at once, become liquefied upon contact of the nosecone with the wall. While a matter of only a few seconds if even whole seconds, the progress of the plane into the bulding and the force of its accumulated inertia, punched the hole into the building through to ring E if you count the landing gear.

    I don't think that anyone has said that the plane actually vaporized. It was,however, shattered into fragments (liquefied in that sense), far more so than resulted at the WTC because of the fact of the 9' of reinforced concrete.

    The opening at initial point of contact was estimated to have been some 75 feet wide. This an extrapolation based upon the number and distribution of structural piers inside the building that were damaged. While this is less than the total wingspan of a 757 but also is far wider than the diameter of the fuselage of the jet. The fuselage having far greater mass than the wings or tail, it is not inconsistent with the physics involved as people claim that it punched through the reinforced concrete of the building. Given the swept back nature of the wings, it also is not inconsistent to find that the wings did not contribute much to the widening of the initial opening into the building, contrary to arguments that have abounded that the plane's wings should have made the opening as wide as the plane's wingspan sort of in the same fashion as often depicted in cartoons..

    By out of scale, I used imperfect language as photography is not my strong suit. What I mean to say is that the majority of photographs used to disprove the fact of debris from the crash were taken from a long distance, using some form of magnification. In so doing, the relative distances of what is shown are not realistically depicted. What looks like mere feet from the damaged wall of the building showing no debris actually is much farther away in reality.
     
  4. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    He was the chief economist for the Department of Labor. He has been well noted for disbelieving that the Towers collapsed due to the ensuing damage from the jet plane strikes. He has always made the case that the buildings were demolished. He doesn't have the "beans" to spill, unfortunately.
     
  5. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,967

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Hehe - he'll be speaking about a mile down the road from me :)

    Unfortunately, I'm down in Chicago then....or I would have gone :(
     
  6. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,734

    I believe of Aliens of whatever shape living on their own worlds but I don't believe that any have come to Earth.

    Anyway, if I was in charge of the USA I wouldn't have done what Bush did.
    I'd choose 4 planes that I wanted to attack my own country with but obviously one of them is going to be a patsy and instead I'm going to use a rocket.
    So, whats the best time to carry out this attack so that the world thinks its Al Qaeda? Lets do it at 3am in the morning when everybody is in bed, theres no witnesses and we can lay as much debris as we like.
    Nah, instead we'll do it just as everybody is off to work and there will be 1000's around the Pentagon. We'll easily fire a rocket into it without any of those people seeing it.

    Owned.
    Don't know why you're bothering - the theorists have got a 1000 more just like it.
     
  7. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    It wouldn't have provided the same powerful imagery that it did during the daytime, so wouldn't have had the same effect on people.
     
  8. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,734

    I knew that was coming off someone.
     
  9. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    It's the logical response, even as Devil's advocate. *If* the US government did carry it out or were complicit, it would only have the desired effect if it happened during daylight hours, both in order to provide powerful TV and to have sufficient casualties. Do you think it would have been as much of a big event if people woke up to the news, where they just showed a pile of rubble and said a few hundred people had been killed?
     
  10. Mulder

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 10, 2004

    Posts: 3,856

    Location: London

    And why not? It's the logical explanation as dirtydog describes above. You may have already heard of them but check out the Operation Northwood's documents which are now declassified (Wiki). The American's wanted to firebomb and sink their own ship in order to justify military action against Cuba and Castro. Doesn't sound too different to 9/11 does it?

    Here's an article describing how Charlie Sheen now questions the official 9/11 story.
     
  11. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,734

    Sounds completely different.
    Al Qaeda admitted to it.
    Osama admitted to it.
    Moussaoui admitted to it.
    Richard Reid admitted to it.
    I believe Saddam said Al Qaeda did it
    and so on and so on.

    But obviously their words mean nothing because they are mad.
    If Osama had any evidence at all that the USA were involved we would know about it because
    it would bring down the USA and it would be a great victory for Islam - instead theres nothing because there is nothing.
     
  12. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    Unless he is working with the USA, as we know he used to.

    The Northwoods document sounds like an outrageous conspiracy theory too, doesn't it? Yet we know it is genuine.
     
  13. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,734

  14. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    This isn't GD, you seem to have forgotten. If you don't want to debate in an adult fashion I suggest you go back to GD where you'll be more at home. I can't be bothered wasting my time discussing this with you if you can't provide sensible responses.
     
  15. Nixeh

    Hitman

    Joined: Jun 3, 2005

    Posts: 874

    Location: Bristol/Portsmouth, England

    When the most pwoerful people in the world want to create an event on their own soil that would secure public backing for their agenda and ideaologies and actually be able to blame some other people and get away with it then of course they want to hide it, and theyre not going to cover it up in some half assed manner.

    They would do anything to keep this cover up. Suprised?... well if they can kill their own citizens and get away with it then im sure they will do most other things.

    To get a full idea of the 9.11 conspiracy its best to watch a few videos, such as loose change, rise of the police state and various others i have watched then its a lot better. Yeah some can be dismissed or could be a maybe they did do that maybe they didnt but a large majority of the evidence is pretty strong.

    Shows like this wont get on the tv in america easily because the media is mainly controlled by people that have the same view as the current US administration. so if it does get on its always on 'less credible and believable' stations.

    Its a crying shame that some americans get so frustrated at people even thinking of this being an 'inside job' but then if ** government was involved in slaughtering innocent citizens wouldnt you want to know?
     
  16. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,734

    It seems to me that posters can come out with the most ridiculous statements and conspiracy theories with absolutely no proof or evidence whatsoever.
    Other posters have given proof against the conspiracy theories but still they persist.
    However, when I come out with equally stupid conspiracy theories I get told off.
    Either we have a total ban on such threads eg Moon landings didn't happen, Aliens living amongst us, USA attacked itself, Elvis is still living etc or we non believers should be able to give our views.
    Somebody saying USA attacked itself is as ridiculous as me saying Elvis is working in Tesco's.
    I've watched hours and hours and read for hours and hours on this 9/11 subject concerning the conspiracy sides BUT I have also given time to the countless documentaries and written word for explanations against the conspiracy theorists and I have made my judgement - the USA did not attack itself, Al Qaeda did it.
    If posters say stupid comments then surely I should be allowed to make them.

    And Curio -
    I'm posting in this thread because its a debate and I'm trying to get my point across. If I keep posting one of you may say "I see where he's coming from now".
    I want to be proved wrong. It would be absolutely brilliant to see it all come out and it brings the US Govt down and then the UK can think for itself.
    I want somebody to say "Theres the proof dmpoole and you can't deny it".
    Its not going to happen.
     
  17. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    Thanks for the clarification on the scale thing Indy - I understand what you mean now. Like a long lens compresses the apparent distance between objects and a wideangle opens them up. Sorry for not replying earlier - bloody electricians turned off the power while typing this morning :rolleyes:

    Although on the liquify thing, something that acts as a liquid would splash, not penetrate surely? The opposite if you like of the very hard and heavy anti armour penetrators (tungsten/DU) that the US used in the Balkans, Afghanistan and Iraq. I don't see how they would need such to get through armour if a hollow aluminium shell, possibly filled with petrol, would have the same effect. As the US military don't use hollow aluminium shells I think it totally reasonable to assume that the reason for that is that they don't work. To penetrate armour you need either a heavy kinetic penetrator or a shaped explosive charge, not a flimsy lightweight aluminium structure. Hence why the US is researching (if not already building) tactical nuclear bunker busters, intended for use against buried Iranian facilities.

    On the subject of the original damage - the hole was originally ~16' in diameter, it only became a 75' wide gap when the roof and its supports collapsed shortly after the impact and the explosion.
    Also, re the explosion. Jet fuel, as seen at the WTC, burns in air. It doesn't carry its oxygen in with it as a rocket does, nor decompose violently like an explosive - it burns. And it can only burn where fuel and air are in contact with each other. Yet the official story tells us that all the fuel went up at once in such a destructive fire that it incinerated the aircraft and contents. No hundreds of gallons of burning fuel splashed around the area, not a single eye witness AFAIK reported the smell of jet fuel - the smell of which was reported downwind from the WTC. As the main fuel tanks are in the wings, which, even if the fuselage did somehow get drawn through a 16' hole, were outside that area and would have hit the walls, ruptured and spilled thousands of gallons along the front of the Pentagon and onto the lawn. From there I can see no earthly reason why this amount of fuel would fail to catch fire from the explosion at the point of impact.

    While the fuselage would probably have more mass than the wings (depending on how much fuel in the wings and how much cargo was in the fuselage - the fuselage being mainly empty space), the structure of it also needs to be taken into account. Planes are made to be as light as practical for a given strength, the design is of a strong, load bearing frame covered by a skin of aluminium panels. As an analogy consider a drinks can and a ball bearing of equal mass. If fired at the same speed at a window for example, the bearing is likely to smash it, the can very unlikely to. So why would a similar design but scaled up be likely to penetrate the Pentagon wall? To expand on my point about the wings: the centre of mass of the wings being roughly 1/3 of the way along from the root; as the fuselage entered the building and the foremost part of the wings come into contact with the wall their inertia would cause them to try to carry on forward, not to swivel around inline with the fuselage and be drawn in. Even if the angle of approach means that one wing was in such a position to be drawn in, this would mean that the angle of the other wing to the wall was that much greater and so that much less likely to have this happen.

    Reading through the eyewitness reports there are ones that say that the plane bounced off the lawn, that it dragged (I refuse to say "drug") one wing leaving a gouge in the lawn which are clearly refuted by many photos taken before the fire crews etc got there. Most of them say they saw a plane go overhead and then heard a bang, not that they saw AA77 hit the Pentagon. Another one says it looked like a cruise missile with wings! Others report that the engine noise they heard sounded like a small jet, possibly military, rather than a large airliner. Because of the conflicting reports and photos it follows that some people's stories were not factually accurate - but which ones? On balance it seems to me that: there was a plane there at that time and (most likely) it kamikazied the Pentagon, or (less likely) fired a missile with a bunker-buster type warhead and sneaked off to land somewhere else; and, the damage caused is highly unlikely to have been caused solely by an aluminium aircraft + fuel. Which means either it was a 767 but with something added, or it was not a 767 but another plane specifically intended to cause the damage. Maybe to test how strong the newly refurbished (and almost empty) section of the Pentagon really was? Or to test how effective a particular type of explosive was against hardened buildings?

    In a nutshell, the physical properties of the materials involved is the main reason behind my doubt of the official story.
     
  18. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    To be brutally honest, your post about Elvis and Bruce Lee isn't even a hypothesis though. Not wishing to be insulting, but to me it came across as petulant sarcasm.
    Unless you have something to back up your assertion (like Elvis' clockcard) as those who disbelieve the official 9/11 story have done, then the Elvis/Tesco idea is far more ridiculous.
    With all due respect, just because you consider the comments made by other posters to be stupid doesn't make them so. I'm glad to hear that you have put the time and effort in to review reports and make a decision based on what you consider to be the true happenings of that day. But that doesn't give you the right to assume that your opinion is the last word on the matter, or that everyone else is automatically wrong just because you think so.
    Personally I think it most likely that the US allowed, possibly turned a blind eye or even helped, Al Qa'eda to carry out the attack in order to give themselves an excuse, a "new Pearl Harbour" if you like, to wage an undefined war (on terrorism) for an indefinite time (the long war) against a non-national enemy (based around Africa/Asia). This gave them the perfect excuse to invade and occupy two countries which posed no threat to the US, and to stir up international feeling against another by claims that it is trying to make nukes. The so-called spreading democracy is shown to be a sham when the US install pro-US dictators and depose anti-US democracies. As they did in Iran in 1953 with Premier Mohammed Mossadeq and the Shah.

    Although enriching fuel for power is guaranteed under the NPT, and Mohammed el-Baradai has said that there is no evidence that Iran is trying to make a bomb, the US still insists - on its word alone - that the rest of the world should join with them in condemning Iran and taking action against them.

    You come across as totally convinced without a shadow of a doubt that there is zero US involvement in the events of Sept. 11th. I'd be interested to know what in particular so convinced you of this.
     
  19. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,967

    Location: Brit in the USA

    I understand where you're coming from completely. However, how is the truth supposed to come out unless we investigate things and form theories? I'm guessing the NeoCons aren't going to come clean (if they did have a hand in 9/11, which of course they may not have...) so what are we supposed to do? So it's a bit unfair to ask for proof and then rubbish people's theories, when all they're trying to do is uncover the truth. If you're after something completely, 100%, concrete then you'll probably never get it. But that doesn't mean there isn't a conspiracy or lies.....we may never know the truth.

    Also, you say that the idea of the USA attacking itself is ridiculous - but didn't you read or watch any of the stuff about Project Northwoods? They never followed through on that particular project, but it shows the military/intelligence agencies are more than capable of coming up with such ideas.
     
  20. Nixeh

    Hitman

    Joined: Jun 3, 2005

    Posts: 874

    Location: Bristol/Portsmouth, England

    Yeah just like the nazis did with the reichstag building.

    Im not comparing the US to the atrocities that the nazis done, but the nazis didnt like jews, and atm most can say that the US... well their Government doesnt have an exactly fair and nice view about Arabs, muslims.. etc etc