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. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,892

    Location: Brit in the USA

    The problem here is the possible levels of government involvement. I'm willing to accept that 9/11 went down exactly as we saw it happen - the real conspiracy may have been behind the scenes. For example, maybe some terrorists did actually plan the whole thing and some people in high up positions of the US intel world (it wouldn't take many...) made sure it happened......hence NORAD pretty much standing down or being bogged down in some exercises that morning, which coincidentally involved hijacked planes crashing into buildings. In which case it would be almost impossible to prove. And then it could be any level of involvement above that - including some things that may seem far-fetched.
     
  2. Indy11

    Gangster

    Joined: Dec 6, 2004

    Posts: 270

    Location: New York, NY

    The cruising speed of a 757 is around 475 mph which would be almost 700 feet per second. Assuming that the jet was actually flying into the building at something less than cruising speed it still would be travelling in excess of 200 feet per second.

    Bone dry and empty, the plane weighs 188,000 lbs. when in passenger configuration. Take off weight is 220,000 lbs. Payload is about 39,000 lbs.

    The plane hit the building at an angle (around 50 degrees from parallel), not in a direct perpendicular line to the face of the wall. So, is the fuselage a featherweight compared to the wings loaded with fuel? No.

    Again, I did not mean tha the plane turned into liquid in the sense of melted, or some form of alchemic process of changing a solid into a liquid. But it became a mass that shattered, travelling anywhere from 200 to 700 feet per second into the reinforced concrete building. Having become shattered, the fuel load was quickly exposed to the air and was entering into suspension with the air as would be needed to ignite it into a fireball.

    And as far as the initial opening size is concerned, we will have to disagree based upon whose evidence one prefers to accept. I tend to accept the investigating engineers' extrapolation.

    The eyewitnesses, as in almost every case, are not the most reliable but they do provide a basis of understanding what happened. When the first plane struck the North Tower of the WTC, it was reported that a commuter jet had hit it. If the witnesses say they saw a large passenger jet hit the Pentagon, I tend to think that it is what they saw in that for them to mistake something that actually is rather large for something smaller seems to be more likely than the other way around, that they saw something actually small as something much larger.
     
  3. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    That's 227,000 lbs without fuel, unless you're counting fuel in with the payload

    I prefer the photos that were taken at the time over an extrapolation. Interesting little .swf here that shows the initial hole before the collapse.
    Again, that understanding results from which eyewitnesses you feel to be more credible. There's a few accounts in the .swf as well.

    On the size issue, having had an executive type jet go over very low while waiting at lights (A45/A46 junction, plane landing at Coventry) the thing looked bloody massive, easily 737 size. So my experience is that it is quite easy to believe a plane to be larger than it is when seen unexpectedly close. Whether that's generally the case or not I don't know though.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2006
  4. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    Do you have any idea of the security protocols in place for the Pentagon?

    Do you know what contingency plans are in place?

    Does it strike you as credible that Pentagon security people know EXACTLY what CCTV there is, independently owned/operated or not, that covers the Pentagon?

    Do you think it likely that security plans would include seizing such material, in the event of a major incident involving the Pentagon? After all, the notion that it just may be a target at some point would surely cross the mind of even the most dim-witted security type?

    Why have they not been released? Do you have any idea how long bureaucratic inquiries take? Is it not possible, even likely, that material seized by Federal authorities is kept while there is ANY chance of it being used or needed for criminal prosecutions? After all, such seizures of any available video material would be one of the first things any competent investigator would order?

    Do you even know who know holds any such tapes? DoD? FBI? DoJ?

    Is it possible that such material is mired in an inter-departmental peeing contest?


    There are numerous possibilities as to why such tapes were seized, and why they're still being held, including the boring and mundane one that people were just doing their jobs when seizing them, and that they are now sitting in a storage center somewhere in case they're needed for an inquiry, or whatever.

    Of course, it's far more fun to assume it's evidence of a conspiracy or cover-up. But to do so isn't evidence, it's speculation, and knowing the way government circles work, my personal opinion is that it's highly fanciful speculation at best.

    I don't expect anyone that follows conspiracy theories, or likes notions of rocket attacks, etc., to believe me, and I am NOT going to expand on why I say this, but I will say categorically that it was an AA airliner, in AA livery, that hit the Pentagon, without any shadow of a doubt. I'm not going to expand on it, or explain it, and you can believe me or not, but I KNOW what hit the Pentagon, and it wasn't a rocket.
     
  5. dirtydog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 47,398

    Location: Essex

    You KNOW it was? But you're not going to tell us how you know? Surely you don't mean you know because a past member here called Harley said he happened to be in the vicinity and saw it all happen because that holds no credibility with me personally.
     
  6. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    As I said, I'm not explaining it any further, and as I said, I don't expect people to believe it. I don't blame you if you don't believe what Harley said, if he said what people have said he said. I'm not surprised. I probably wouldn't either. It's just someone on a forum, who could be saying anything, for any reason.

    But that's precisely why I'm not going into any detail as to why I said what I said. If I start doing so, I'll be expected to prove everything I say because, after all, I'm just another voice on a forum. And I'm not prepared to do that. Without utter proof, why should what I say have any more credibility than anyone else, just because I say it?

    So I'm not going to explain it or attempt to justify it, because to do so would be an exercise in futility. I therefore say it for what's it's worth. I know what hit the Pentagon, and it was an AA plane. People can take that statement for what it's worth and, frankly, I expect most people to give it about as much credibility as I would if someone that I didn't know said it on a forum, which is about as much credibility as you give it. None the less, it's the case.
     
  7. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595


    I've followed every link in every thread about this subject in the past 4 years and read virtually every word. I'm about 3/4 through the Loose Change documentary and I've watched countless documentaries on the SKY channels.
    Up to yet nothing has made me raise my eyebrows.

    I can't be arsed to go through everything but about a page ago somebody came out with the rubbish that two of the planes that had been used were still on the record books and being used. Somebody came on and said thats because they didn't take them off the lists until 2003 or whatever - nothing to see move along.

    Operation Northwood - this just proves that the USA are capable of doing these terrible deeds.
    No - it proves that some men came up with these ideas and they were squashed and people got fired.
    The documents were released to the public domain in 1997 - nothing to see move along.

    Quite a few have suggested there was no plane debris on the Pentagon lawns but I've seen loads in documentaries and pictures.
    OK - there wasn't enough then?
    Well how much do you want?

    We are not the cleverest people in the world on these forums but I reckon if we took the main 10 contributors to this thread, sat us around a table and worked out an attack on the BT Tower in London with a plane, we would be able to cover up all evidence and leave no stone unturned.
    A few days later somebody would have a website saying - there were bombs let off in the basement, there were rockets fired from the plane, it was actually a drone plane, BT took out a big insurance policy on it a year ago etc etc.
     
  8. Treefrog

    PermaBanned

    Joined: Nov 7, 2004

    Posts: 2,828

    Location: Up a tree - where else?

    Oh right, you've seen everything. But you cant put together a reasoned argument like I asked you to but have just trotted out a few more assertions.

    As you've convinced yourself that it was all perfectly natural and there's absolutely nothing even remotely suspicious about anything at all that happened that day I'll leave you to it.
     
  9. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,892

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Seriously? Forgetting all the stuff about missiles, drones, bombs in the basement and other "exotic" claims, what do you thing about the goings on that morning with NORAD? The fact they just happened to be running a drill at that very time which involved planes being hijacked? A drill which pretty much cleared the way for the planes to fly unchallenged to their targets. The fact that the pilot of the 757 that hit the Pentagon had been involved in an exercise in the past which involved........a 757 crashing into the Pentagon. How about the terrorists passport flying out of the fireball at the WTC and landing unscathed on a street for the FBI to find? I could probably list off a bunch more...

    There are so many little things that stink - and none of them are far-fetched theories. For the record, I don't believe a lot of the 9/11 conspiracies...I think a 757 did hit the Pentagon.....I don't believe for a second that the WTC planes fired missiles.....I think there may have been bombs in the basement. But I am sure that the US government was involved in some way....to some degree.

    The biggest evidence to me is simply looking at a map of the Middle East now. If The US attacks Iran (which it almost certainly will) then the US has placed itself very strategically where 80%+ of the worlds oil is. It occupies two countries and is about to neutralise a third.....maybe 4 if they take on Syria next. None of that would have happened without 9/11.

    As I've tried telling you (although you seem to have "selective vision") what if such men are now in charge of the White House? Are you seriously telling me that Rumsfeld and Cheney aren't capable of thinking such things?
     
    Last edited: Apr 23, 2006
  10. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    I think you've answered it yourself.
    It would be the stupidest thing in the world to do those things with the whole world watching.
    Perhaps Al Qaeda had an inside man who knew about the NORAD drill (I've just made a conspiracy up) and thats why they picked that day.
    A pilot in an exercise of a plane hitting a famous landmark - I reckon most French pilots have hit the Eiffel Tower and most Egyptian pilots have hit the pyramids in exercises (and so on).
    I know when I used to go on Microsoft Flight Simulator I spent more time hitting famous buildings than flying.

    I reckon I've only seen 1% of the nonsense that is out there.
    There must be sites where the Lizard People did it.
     
  11. phykell

    Mobster

    Joined: Oct 18, 2002

    Posts: 4,410

    rm
     
    Last edited: Aug 6, 2007
  12. Scania

    Capodecina

    Joined: Nov 25, 2004

    Posts: 23,779

    Location: On the road....

    Best place to hide something is right under the nose of the seeker. ;)


    Martians. The Lizard People have just taken the hit for JFK and Jim Morrison. :p :D :D :D
     
  13. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    Sorry, but no.

    I don't blame anyone for not giving it credibility, and I said so in pretty much exactly those words.

    As for why I said it, well, there's been an extensive discussion of what hit the Pentagon (among other things), and not for the first time both on this forum and others, and I've said I give the rocket theories, etc absolutely no credit at all. The reason I give them no credibility is because I know what did hit the Pentagon. That's why I said it. And, as I said earlier, if I start to explain it, people are only going to ask more and more questions and eventually I either end up getting into precisely the territory that, for very good reasons of my own, I'm not able or willing to get into, or they say "well, if you can't justify that, why should we believe you?"

    The point is, I don't expect people to believe me, and I'm not asking them to. I'm also not trying to convince anybody of anything. If I was trying to persuade people or get them to believe what I said, I'd expect to have to provide the basis for my assertion. But I'm not.

    Phykell, there are aspects of this conspiracy stuff that nobody is going to be able to convince me are anything more than utter garbage. Among those are the notion that it wasn't an AA airliner that hit the Pentagon. They aren't going to be able to convince me no matter how many websites or TV documentaries hypothesising all sorts of wild rubbish get produced. Why? Because I know what I know.

    But Dirtydog raised another point. It's one thing to say the US government, or people in it, organised 911 but it's entirely another to say, for instance, that those people had some hand in it, or perhaps just that they knew it was coming and didn't seek to prevent it because it played into their needs. I've been very specific in what parts of the conspiracy theory I utterly debunk as cobblers, and what parts I either do not comment on, or have said I remain unconvinced because I haven't seen any credible evidence.

    I don't know what happened in all aspects of 911. I don't know for a fact whether any person or persons had some or total knowledge of the attacks and I don't even know if the US government orchestrated it. I know what I believe, and what I'm not convinced by, but that's opinion. I do know, however, what hit the Pentagon and, as I've said right from the start, I'm not going to even start trying explain why or how.

    I fully expect people to either say, or at least think, "if you won't explain it, why should we believe you?" By all means don't believe me. I'm not trying to convince anybody. I'm trying to explain why they are not going to convince me it was a rocket .... or anything ther than an AA airliner.

    And besides, in the absence of cast-iron categoric, verifiable proof, whatever explanation I give isn't going to cut any ice, is it? Dirtydog has already said that Harley said he saw it hit, and Dirtydog doesn't believe him. Fine, I can see no reason why he should. But why should it be any different if I explain why I said that? Why should I be believed? I'm simply not going there.
    If I start giving an explanation, people are going to want a bit more, or more detail, or independent verification, or .... well ,whatever. So I give that, and someone wants a bit more explanation, so I give that, and so on. Ultimately, most people believe what they believe and aren't going to change that belief in the absence of cast-itron evidence and that, I either can't or won't provide, so as a result, I'm not even going to start.

    So while I'm sure it might be nice if I explained why I know what I know, everyone will just have to settle for knowing why I'm not going to explain it. After all the dust settles some people may accept what I say, without proof, in which case they didn't need the proof. And others aren't going to change their view in the absence of such proof which, for reasons I won't or can't give, I can't supply. In which case, I've wasted my time trying to satisfy them anyway.

    And that's it, I'm afraid. I'll justify why I won't explain it, but I'm not providing any further detail whatsoever of why I say I know what I know. People can take my word for it, or not, entirely as they wish. I have no expectations either way.
     
  14. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    Oh, and Phykell ..... JFK got himself shot in front of hundreds of witnesses, large numbers of press, and on film. Yet, despite exhaustive investigations, there are still conspiracy theories, many of which relate around whether the investigations were investigations or cover-ups.

    People love conspiracies, regardless of evidence, and chief among those are the people making money from it, like Michael Moore.

    If all that investigation doesn't convince the conspiracy fans about what happened with JFK, what do you think I can provide that's going to convince them about a far juicier conspiracy theory like this?
     
  15. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,892

    Location: Brit in the USA

    The whole world wasn't watching. It was yet more declassified stuff - and how many people know about it? Here's an exercise for you - go out into the street and ask 100 people if they know about those exercises. I think it was called Project Moscow. Now ask a 1000 people. The ones that have will instantly be dismissed as nutters just because it surrounds a "conspiracy".

    Yeah, cos that's not as far-fetched as it being an inside job...

    We're not talking basic flight training. We're talking secret government exercises. I would imagine there have been a handful of French pilots (probably with military backgrounds) involved in drills about planes crashing into the Eiffel Tower for the French government. If one of those pilots was then supposedly in charge of a plane that did crash into the Eiffel Tower I would call it very suspicious.

    Of course. But that's another problem - any serious research into this subject is generally lost beneath the piles of far-fetched rubbish that go along with it. People like yourself then use this as defence. It's a shame.
     
  16. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,892

    Location: Brit in the USA

    Sequoia - I don't see the point in you posting anything then. Obviously people are going to push you on how you know. Obviously people will not take your word for it. And obviously it will provide some "intrigue", which people love. I could be mean and suggest you're just an attention seeker who gets off on people thinking he's a secret agent or something :) I'm not saying that tho...I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

    Not that I believe a missile hit the Pentagon or anything. I'm 99% sure it was a 757.
     
  17. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    My point exactly. By declassifying they add another potato to the pot.
    You just don't see the big picture.

    Then again why did they declassify it?
    Was it to throw the conspiracy theorists off what they are really up to?

    "How are we going on with our super duper secret stuff?"
    "It looks like the public might find out"
    "You know those secret drills we were accidentally running at the same time as 9/11 - lets declassify them"
    "But that would stir up a hornets nest"
    "Yeah, but it will keep the theorists running up their own arses while we keep them off our real agenda".
     
  18. Curio

    Sgarrista

    Joined: Mar 14, 2004

    Posts: 7,892

    Location: Brit in the USA

    It's called disinformation. From Wiki...

    A classic tactic is to release possibly incriminating evidence to get the masses interested, then tear it all down with some well placed BS and bury the real evidence under piles of rubbish. It's simply "misinformation 101". In simple terms, what better way of proving your innocence than to release info on a training exercise which could potentially place the smoking gun in your hand? Because you wouldn't be that stupid......would you?

    I also have a simple question for you. Let's cut through all this carp for a second. Do you believe the US government had anything to do with 9/11? I don't mean the far-fetched stuff - just at a most basic level. Or do your believe it was planned and executed 100% by Al Queda? It's not a trick question - I'm just trying to see where you're coming from.
     
  19. SexyGreyFox

    Man of Honour

    Joined: Mar 29, 2003

    Posts: 49,595

    And the classic is releasing information about Aliens at Area 51 when the real stuff is far worse.
    They would prefer you to believe in Aliens than what they're really up to.
     
  20. Sequoia

    Wise Guy

    Joined: Aug 15, 2005

    Posts: 2,948

    I've told you the point - to explain why I'm not remotely interested in conspiracy theories about rockets hitting the Pentagon.

    They can push or not push all they like. No explanation is going to be given. It simply isn't going to happen. And I said so.

    Nor do I expect them to. As I said, I'm not trying to convince anybody.

    At no point have I implied or suggested there's anything mysterious about it either. If people take that from it, it rather implies why they like conspiracy theories - the simple explanation that I've already given isn't enough, so they have to look for convoluted ones that don't exist. I simply said I'm not giving any explanation, and I said it in advance - yet people still push for an explanation. They're in for a rather long wait, if they expect anything more on the subject, because it isn't coming. I can't be much clearer than that there is NOTHING more I'm going to say, so any further speculation on it is wasted.