9/11 and conspiracy theories

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Mon Sep 01, 2008 2:34 pm

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."

People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."

"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.

Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Sat Sep 06, 2008 11:08 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?dif ... d=50132865

This seems like another little convenience.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 7:24 am

I'm sensing a "let sleeping dogs lie" policy, but I'm gonna keep poking that sucker.

Let us focus our attention on this one:

Will someone please explain how this picture does NOT prove beyond reasonable doubt that no Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon? Please don't ask me where it is, and where the people are, and what about the engine parts and the PRISTINE fuselage bits on the lawn... all of that is irrelevant if a single piece of evidence shows it's not possible.

Fallibleone · Post by **Fallibleone** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:09 am

The only thing I can think of is that the building somehow knocked off the wings upon entry. But then where did they go? *shrug*

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 8:55 am

Fallibleone wrote:The only thing I can think of is that the building somehow knocked off the wings upon entry. But then where did they go? *shrug*

Even unlikely as it is, it can be readily dismissed by the available footage that shows no wings being left behind at the moment of impact.

So, what else?

Fallibleone · Post by **Fallibleone** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:20 pm

I've got nothing.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 12:30 pm

Beto wrote:
Fallibleone wrote:The only thing I can think of is that the building somehow knocked off the wings upon entry. But then where did they go? *shrug*
Even unlikely as it is, it can be readily dismissed by the available footage that shows no wings being left behind at the moment of impact.

So, what else?

How do you know that the plane hit the front of the building, and not the roof?

In that picture, the roof of the building is very conspicuously absent in the photo.
The line goes just right up to the top of the roof, and no further. If I wanted to
remove evidence that it hit the roof, and promote a conspiracy theory, that is what I would do.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 2:52 pm

goat wrote:How do you know that the plane hit the front of the building, and not the roof?

That point of impact is the official version. They should know, they have the footage.

goat wrote:In that picture, the roof of the building is very conspicuously absent in the photo.
The line goes just right up to the top of the roof, and no further. If I wanted to
remove evidence that it hit the roof, and promote a conspiracy theory, that is what I would do.

It doesn't seem likely.

What else?

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 3:57 pm

I would like the following to be explained (away)

this photo

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/pho ... 7F-001.jpg

and how about the eye witnesses, and the recovered dead bodies.

Beto · Post by **Beto** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 4:55 pm

goat wrote:I would like the following to be explained (away)

this photo

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/pho ... 7F-001.jpg

Explain away a tiny piece of unscorched metal, notoriously far away? Even I could carry that thing around. What is that supposed to prove? It's an insignificant red herring, put up to avoid having to admit the damage on the building facade was not possibly done by a 757.

goat wrote:and how about the eye witnesses, and the recovered dead bodies.

I'm presenting evidence people can check for themselves, and you're telling me about other people say happened. It's not required, we all know the official story.

Goat · Post by **Goat** » Fri Sep 12, 2008 5:06 pm

Beto wrote:
goat wrote:I would like the following to be explained (away)

this photo

http://www.news.navy.mil/management/pho ... 7F-001.jpg
Explain away a tiny piece of unscorched metal, notoriously far away? Even I could carry that thing around. What is that supposed to prove? It's an insignificant red herring, put up to avoid having to admit the damage on the building facade was not possibly done by a 757.

goat wrote:and how about the eye witnesses, and the recovered dead bodies.
I'm presenting evidence people can check for themselves, and you're telling me about other people say happened. It's not required, we all know the official story.

Well, I see you like to dismiss evidence that does not fit into your preconceptions.

Here is a computer simulation from perdu university that shows how a plane would react with hitting a reinforced building
http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4eve ... tagon.html

and here is some analysis by an engineer and an astrophsyic professor on the
physics.

You will beleive what you want. It just goes to show that people love conspiracy theories.