9/11 and conspiracy theories

[Beto]

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]

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

No, I prioritize the damage of the building facade, to an insignificant piece of metal I could carry around myself. If you think it's just as relevant, or more, what can I say? Notice you continue to avoid the specific issue I asked to be focused on. To me, that demonstrates you're well aware that the damage observed can't come from a 757, in which case I have to wonder why even bother bringing up irrelevant red herrings.

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

The damage on the building facade shows it's impossible for a 757 to have hit it. Until you can demonstrate that it isn't so, nothing you present is more relevant.

You will beleive what you want.

We both know ourselves better than the other.

It just goes to show that people love conspiracy theories.

Your "rebuttal" of the "theory" with ad hominems and red herrings does little for your debating credibility.

[Goat]

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

No, I prioritize the damage of the building facade, to an insignificant piece of metal I could carry around myself. If you think it's just as relevant, or more, what can I say? Notice you continue to avoid the specific issue I asked to be focused on. To me, that demonstrates you're well aware that the damage observed can't come from a 757, in which case I have to wonder why even bother bringing up irrelevant red herrings.

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

The damage on the building facade shows it's impossible for a 757 to have hit it. Until you can demonstrate that it isn't so, nothing you present is more relevant.

You will beleive what you want.

We both know ourselves better than the other.

It just goes to show that people love conspiracy theories.

Your "rebuttal" of the "theory" with ad hominems and red herrings does little for your debating credibility.

You make a claim that people in the field who are NOT part of the government have refuted, don't even bother to check up their points and then repeat unsubstantiatned claims.

Let see, repeated insubstanated claims, refusing to look at the evidence provided that refutes it.. gosh , what does that remind you of.


One of my friends worked 3 blocks away and saw the plane pass overhead. .. she heard the impact. It was very traumatic for her.I suppose you are going to dismiss her eye witness report as 'part of the official story'.. as well as the thousands of other people who saw that to?

[Beto]

You make a claim that people in the field who are NOT part of the government have refuted, don't even bother to check up their points and then repeat unsubstantiatned claims.

I didn't bother to check up their points? Says you. You're the one arguing against theories without even knowing the official story, Mr. "the plane could've hit the roof".

Let see, repeated insubstanated claims, refusing to look at the evidence provided that refutes it.. gosh , what does that remind you of.

"Refutes it"? Are you serious? All my claims are visually substantiated, but you're dancing around that issue so much you have to be Travolta. There is no damage to the facade where the plane's wings are supposed to hit. There's no other way to put this. Why can't you acknowledge that? Why do you choose to dismiss a simple observation that completely invalidates all your "expert analysis"? Red herrings, red herrings, red herrings... that's all I'm getting from you.

One of my friends worked 3 blocks away and saw the plane pass overhead. .. she heard the impact. It was very traumatic for her.

I can imagine, and I'm sorry. But is this an appeal to emotion?

I suppose you are going to dismiss her eye witness report as 'part of the official story'.. as well as the thousands of other people who saw that to?

I don't expect you to dismiss the eye witness report of a friend. I'm just surprised you'd assume that it has any relevance to me. I'm still waiting for you to explain why any of these red herrings you keep throwing around are more relevant than the damage of the building facade, that demonstrates a 757 couldn't have gone through it. Care to address it?

[Furrowed Brow]

[irony]

July 28th 1945 B-25 with a 67ft wingspan flew into the Empire state building leaving a 20ft hole some 3.35 smaller than the B-25 wingspan.

C-45 with 47 ft wing span flew into a building on wall street and left another 20ft whole some 2.35 times smaller.

Link 1
Link 2

Some lying scoundrels say that on 9/11 a 757 with 124 ft wing span leaves hole 90ft wide some 1.38 times smaller than the width of plane. Impossible. The hole is twice the size it should be. Why can’t the government own up. Their hole’s too big. Dah! - if the scene were to have been stood any chance of being realisitic the hole should be between 37 and 53ft. 90ft is just not believable!

[/irony]

[Beto]

While I could live without the irony, since I take this matter seriously, I appreciate the links. To my dismay, I remain unconvinced. I rather not just get links to other pages, as I can also supply a number of web pages with in-depth analysis, like this one:

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php? ... cleId=2473

Honestly, I don't know how good it is, but the point is that there are several. I would actually like to discuss the details without being sent to the usual sites. If folks would like to address the points here, so much the better, if not... there are several other entertaining threads.

For example, aluminum alloys melt at what, around 600 ºC ? Less, perhaps? How much heat would a diesel explosion generate? Enough to vaporize the wings? Shouldn't there be large chunks of them? I won't deny that's a good argument, though. Oddly enough, a plane allegedly so light and weak managed to completely disappear into the building. In this situation it seems they want to have the cake and eat it. These planes have "thin aluminum sheets" but also manage to completely disappear into the ground in Shanksville. Both these crashes are very suspicious, and the Flight 93 crash site is even worse, leaving me with even less doubts than the Pentagon, but that's not the matter at hand.

Also, in the site FB provided the line they draw for the right wing span is a lot shorter than what can be extrapolated from the montage. One is grossly inaccurate. It seems to me the wingspan was shortened considerably to fit the damage observed.

And again, I must say I didn't expect folks I pretty much always agree with, to demonstrate such aggressive tactics to discredit the thread. I take serious insult to the use of irony in a discussion about 9/11, in which so many people died, as if to insinuate I take pleasure in conspiracy theories, as if to insinuate I enjoy a world in which governments plot against their citizens, or as if to insinuate I have no respect for the people that died. I'm not an atheist because I don't want to believe in "God", I don't have a choice in the matter. I don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy because I want to, I don't have a choice in the matter. I wish the United States government would just release the information people ask for, release the footage they have, so all doubts could be cast aside.

I hope both of you, and others, are able to convince me I'm wrong, and not simply make a mockery of the thread, which was started with the best of intentions.

[Beto]

Shucks, I may have gone a little overboard in the previous post, but I really get upset that I'm being treated like a dumbass by members I've come to respect greatly, and I'm not entirely sure I deserve it. Wouldn't put it past me, though.

Anyhoo, I've thought of something else. We all heard that the main culprit of the towers falling was the diesel that kept burning for a long time. Granted, but then we see the Pentagon, and the wings that supposedly hit the facade but don't go through it, leave absolutely no trace of burning diesel behind. We all saw the footage, there's an explosion and that's it. I mean, look at that explosion seriously, and try to imagine a wing with diesel hitting the facade. The wing hits, the diesel ignites, and flaming diesel should be spread around burning for a considerable amount of time, at least something remotely similar to what allegedly happened in the towers. Is that the wrong analysis of an impact with a wing full of diesel? Why the notorious difference between the towers and the Pentagon? Is there footage of burning diesel? I might have missed it. This youtube clip shows a plane hitting the ground and the way the diesel ignites and the whole thing goes up in flames. Remember, the official story states the left engine hit the ground at the moment the nose hit the building. Look at what happens when an airliner's engine hits the ground, then look at the Pentagon footage, and tell me if it's likely that happened.

[Fallibleone]

Can we all take a deep breath, please? I understand this is an emotive subject, but let's try to keep hold of the respect normally exhibited by you on this board.

[Furrowed Brow]

O Boy. Looks like I struck the wrong note.

I pretty much always agree with, to demonstrate such aggressive tactics to discredit the thread.

It did not feel aggressive when I wrote it. But if that is the way it read then I apologize.

I take serious insult to the use of irony in a discussion about 9/11, in which so many people died,

We all have different boundaries.

as if to insinuate I take pleasure in conspiracy theories, as if to insinuate I enjoy a world in which governments plot against their citizens, or as if to insinuate I have no respect for the people that died

Time for a neck massage Beto. No I do think that you do nor intend to insinuate you take pleasure from the conspiracy theory. Though I can now see how you might read my post that way. Though I still can’t see where the respect issue came in. But no I fully accept you are sincere and passionate on the subject.

I'm not an atheist because I don't want to believe in "God", I don't have a choice in the matter. I don't believe in a 9/11 conspiracy because I want to, I don't have a choice in the matter.

Okay let me explain myself. Don’t take this personally but I do not take conspiracy theories and particularly this conspiracy at all seriously. I’ll point you to another thread here where I state clearer my general attitude. My earlier post on this thread is also of an ironic tone; which again is indicative of my stance. My posts here are not a criticism of you but of this particular conspiracy theory. If you are heavily attached to the conspiracy I can see how someone with my attitude will seem aggressive.

The spark for my post was rereading this thread last night and the picture with the huge plane bearing down on the Pentagon. I felt and feel the pic needed debunking for the point it makes as to size of airplane versus size of hole is false. On reflection I suspect my tone was a response to how seriously I take that picture.

For example, aluminum alloys melt at what, around 600 ºC ? Less, perhaps? How much heat would a diesel explosion generate?

Diesel can ignite between 450k to 600k, or around 200c. Link
Apparently the exhaust gas of high performance diesel engines can reach 700=900c
Link You’ll have to zoom in to read this.

[Beto]

It did not feel aggressive when I wrote it. But if that is the way it read then I apologize.

No need. I'm sad you don't take the theory seriously, because you're definitely the kind of member I would very much like to discuss the whole thing with.

Time for a neck massage Beto.

I'm in good spirits.

But no I fully accept you are sincere and passionate on the subject.

Gracias.

Don’t take this personally but I do not take conspiracy theories and particularly this conspiracy at all seriously.

You know as well as I do "conspiracy theory" is a very loaded expression by now. It's almost as if conspiracies don't exist, never have, and anyone who thinks about them is delusional. Is it a matter of scale? Governments and their military routinely lie to their citizens "for their own good", and this is beyond dispute. When does "lying" become a "conspiracy"? People joke about how politicians seem like pathological liars, but when something bigger is at stake, it's automatically a silly "conspiracy theory"? Honestly, I don't understand this double standard.

The spark for my post was rereading this thread last night and the picture with the huge plane bearing down on the Pentagon. I felt and feel the pic needed debunking for the point it makes as to size of airplane versus size of hole is false. On reflection I suspect my tone was a response to how seriously I take that picture.

The problem isn't the size of the hole. That is a straw man. No one is claiming the hole should be as big as the wingspan, AFAIK. There was the vertical stabilizer consideration when looking at the pre-collapse pictures, but regardless, the issue is the damage observed where the wings are supposed to hit. It's an observable fact the left wing didn't go through the facade. The right wing might have, as some damage can be seen, albeit less than the wingspan. At this point, I'm more interested in the diesel stored in the wings. The available footage is appropriate as it shows the left side of the explosion. Disregard the picture for a while if you don't take it seriously. Look at the Pentagon footage. A couple of frames after the initial blast we can observe the explosion isn't concentrated on the engines or wings, and is already coming from inside the Pentagon. I put up the link to the footage of an airliner's engine touching the ground and the ball of flames that follows. None of that was observed, either when the engine allegedly hit the ground, or when the left wing hit the facade. There's no diesel burning like what allegedly happened in the towers, not even for a few seconds. There's an explosion and that's it. These are two important points, and no amount of red herrings makes these considerations go away.

This is the analysis I would like you to make. Does the Pentagon footage look at all like what should be expected from a 757 hitting the facade, one engine touching the ground when the nose hits the facade, and at least one of the wings being left behind?

[C-Nub]

The Pentagon;


I think the most critical pieces of evidence or right here. First and foremost, the fact that the gov't refuses to release most of the footage they have of the incident. They should actually have quite a bit. They also refuse to reveal much of what they carted away under tarps shortly after the crash, which there is ample evidence of them doing.


Mostly, though, I'm concerned with the engines. The fuselage of a 757 is designed to be as light as possible, which is why, when a plane hits a building, it generally leaves a hole smaller than you'd expect. The aircraft is designed of lightweight material, none of which is particular impact resistant. The floors are made of a honeycomb material that relies on geometric strength rather than material strength to support the weight on it, and the walls and body of the plane are composed largely of aluminum. The mass of the plane's body far outweighs that of the wings and engine, but that couldn't possibly have been directed against the pentagon wall all at once. In fact, a significant percentage of the energy would have been spent collapsing the mostly-hollow interior of the plane in on itself, and basic impact physics will hold that to be true. Nothing in the body of the plane has the mass-to-size ratio of the engines, which would impact with a lot of energy.

Here's the math:

E(Energy in Joules) = 1/2 Mass(KG) x Speed(meters per second)Squared.

To save anyone the calculations, I've done some basic ones here. Each engine weighs roughly a ton, which is .907 metric tonnes. Moving at 856 mph translates to roughly 240 meters per second. (That was a fun piece of math to do...)

So, Energy in Joules = 2/907kg x 240^2

E = 453.5 x 57,600

E = 26,121,600 Joules per engine, or over 50 million joules.

So what does that mean? Well, one Joule is roughly the energy needed to, according to wiki, is the energy required to lift one apple one meter off the ground at sea-level (more or less), so this is more than enough energy to launch an apple into space.

That, for the record, is a lot.


Ignoring for a moment that I'm not a math-expert, and could have made a mistake here, when we look at actual amounts of energy involved in the official story, the idea that the engines wouldn't even break the windows where they hit the walls, let alone plowing through them like an orbit-bound-apple through butter, is impossible and not worth considering. Say what you will about the twin towers, cast or deny whatever doubts you can about the plane on which the passengers supposedly fought back, there is no getting around the energy that would have been involved in two 767 engines crashing into the pentagon. There isn't a reinforced wall on earth that would stand up to that kind of impact, there isn't an armor on earth that would resist it. The math doesn't lie, and we all know governments do.

This isn't idle speculation, this isn't a wild theory, this is a serious question regarding the laws of physics. What happened at the Pentagon is very much a mystery, one that cannot be explained by the 'official' account of what happened with the intercession of, for lack of a better word, 'magic'. That energy has to be accounted for, it didn't simply vanish, nor was it absorbed by what I'm sure is the very high quality glass of the pentagon's bottom floor windowpanes.

You can have all the eyewitness accounts, some of which, by the way, are of a missile hitting, and one of which was a military man claiming he smelled whatever explosive it is that's actually used in bunker-busting missiles. People lie, governments lie, video-tape can be doctored, but the average mass of a 757 engine cannot be retroactively changed, the speed at which a plane such as that needs to move in order to stay airborne doesn't and cannot be changed, and the kinetic energy of two 1 ton engines impacting a vertical wall at over five hundred miles an hour cannot be changed. Until someone can explain that to me, I simply cannot accept the government's version of the story.

I could, of course, be COMPLETELY wrong with my math, I might not even have the right equation, but I sure as hell know that I can break a window with an apple.