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.

[JoeyKnothead]

I was fortunate enough to visit that area back in Jul 07. It was quite overwhelming. I visited the small memorial they have there. One of the things I'll never forget is seeing folks crying as they wrote messages to their loved ones (in like a little room in the basement). I remember a lady who broke down, and her male companion had to finish writing the note. I also saw a man who cried as he wrote his message.

I personally do not believe anything other than those bastards did what they did. Its common in these kinds of things for folks not to want to believe aspects of the events. I find it hard to believe that building was blown up. The damage caused by falling debris would be plenty enough to cause the damage described.

This is one reason I abhor religion with the fervor I do. The sane members thereof just allow a legitimacy that would otherwise not exist for the fundamentalist member. It creates scenarios where if someone like me speaks out against religion, the sane members think I'm just a 'hater'. When what really is happening is I am speaking out specifically because it creates fundamentalist attitudes.

[Beto]

I find it hard to believe that building was blown up. The damage caused by falling debris would be plenty enough to cause the damage described.

Intuitively, a building does not implode like that from falling debris. Not even the NIST makes this suggestion. Their explanation is:

"Our study found that the fires in WTC 7, which were uncontrolled but otherwise similar to fires experienced in other tall buildings, caused an extraordinary event,� said NIST WTC Lead Investigator Shyam Sunder. “Heating of floor beams and girders caused a critical support column to fail, initiating a fire-induced progressive collapse that brought the building down.�

http://www.physorg.com/news138546437.html

And my point is, firefighters were walking away from an "extraordinary event"? This explanation took a while to surface if the firefighters figured it out at the time.

[Furrowed Brow]

Scenario 1/ Jet plane laden with fuel crashes head on into tall building where bulk of plane disappears inside with some bits coming out the other side. The tall building shortly afterwards collapses.

Scenario 2/ Jet plane laden with fuel crashes head on into tall building and bulk of plane disappears inside with some bits coming out the other side. The tall building shortly afterwards collapses due to many tonnes of well hidden demolition explosives planted by the authorities....just in case the planes missed?

[JoeyKnothead]

7 didn't implode so much as it toppled over. The massive damage it sustained, combined with fires was all it took. Notice as it fell, it did so in the direction of the damage. Had it imploded, or collapsed onto its footprint I could consider other ideas.

Destroying the towers would be plenty message for any nefarious organization, and tying 7 into that just seems like too much else to complicate the 'towers issue'. Of course the plot involved more than the towers, but these were targets outside the immediate twin towers area. It just doesn't seem necessary to also plot and plan for the destruction of 7, when you have the twin towers to go after.

The towers represented the great American financial engine, 7 could at best seen as just a support for the TTs. There is just too much to go wrong with a plan to fly planes into the TT to complicate it with also destroying 7. Had the TTs been attacked by bombs, then we could ask about 7, but lacking a clear reason to include 7, it is IMO only logical to say it was collateral damage.

[C-Nub]

I don't like to draw conclusions about what happened on 9.11, I don't like to pretend as if I know the answers to the questions I have.


My largest concern, though, and what I think to be the most staggering piece of physical evidence against the official story, is the rate at which the building fell.


A 'pancake' collapse, in which layers of collapsing debris from the top of the tower crush the floors below one at a time, would use a tremendous amount of energy at each floor. This energy would be taken from the mass and momentum of the falling debris, with each floor requiring a significant sacrifice in the rate of descent.

Each floor would take a second, or a fraction of a second, to collapse the one beneath it. Ignoring for a moment the likelyhood of an even collapse, wherein the floors collapse uniformly instead of at some sort of angle, which is just a lot more likely, the rate of descent for each tower, when captured on video tape, gives no evidence of this exchange of energy, aside from the 'puffs of smoke' from lower levels which they claim are the compressed air and shockwave of the falling debris above. (Not really likely, since pressurized air would take the path of least resistance, and that is almost never 'down'.)

The fact that Nato was running simulations of terrorist hijackings that day is pretty suspicious. The fact that George Bush's cousin (I think) was the head of security at the tower right up until September 10th is a little questionable. The removal of the until-then standard bomb-sniffing dogs from the towers several weeks prior to the events in question raises some eyebrows.

Multiple video-sources indicate that there's some inexplicable 'shapes' and 'flashes' on each of the two planes that crash into the building.

Many of the police and firefighters reported the lobbies of the towers being intact when they entered and devestated by what looked like a bomb as they left, and several news outlets and probably hundreds of eye-witnesses described hearing subsequent blasts well after the planes had crashed.

The pentagon crash has a bunch of video evidence we haven't seen and the damage to the building and lawn was in now way reminiscent of a plane crash. The hole was the wrong size, the debris was the wrong size, the penetration was too extensive for a plane to have managed and there was no evidence of the MASSIVE engines that should have slammed into the sides of the building nearly a hundred feet apart.

The crash sight for flight 93 is questionable. The multiple phone-calls from the passengers using their cell-phones are ridiculous. Multiple experiments have proven that it's impossible to make connections from a moving Jet Liner at altitude. Interestingly enough, a military commander at one point, in a taped speech, admitted they shot it down as if that were common knowledge.

[JoeyKnothead]

I appreciate your willingness to admit you can't know or have all the answers.

I too really have no way to disprove the theory, and I am quite skeptical of media and government.

If the TTs were destroyed with additional bombs, it still leaves me wondering why complicate the issue with 7. The towers falling almost directly on themselves is weird, and I have no way to know why they didn't fall 'away' more. As to the pancaking, and the speed, doesn't additional weight falling account for their not slowing down?

I would like to have more info about the shooting down of 97. What about the conversations is amiss? Cell phones do work on airplanes, so whomever said that's a problem is wrong (lacking further info at least).

So really for me I need to know why 7 would be a necessary target.

(coupla grammatical edits)

[Beto]

7 didn't implode so much as it toppled over. The massive damage it sustained, combined with fires was all it took. Notice as it fell, it did so in the direction of the damage. Had it imploded, or collapsed onto its footprint I could consider other ideas.

But you know what's interesting? Many people claim the collapse was too neat if it was meant to be "accidental". Doesn't mean much by itself, but a demolition expert was interviewed and asked about it. He thought it was a controlled demo.



Not that I care much, or have reason to believe this man and the interview are legit. I've seen enough demolitions to compare.

It's my personal opinion that the collapse seems a lot like an implosion. You don't see it falling straight down, without the slightest inclination? I see a slight rotation and that's it.

Destroying the towers would be plenty message for any nefarious organization, and tying 7 into that just seems like too much else to complicate the 'towers issue'. Of course the plot involved more than the towers, but these were targets outside the immediate twin towers area. It just doesn't seem necessary to also plot and plan for the destruction of 7, when you have the twin towers to go after.

If insurance fraud was part of the conspiracy they all had to come down, I think. I'm not entirely sure what difference WTC 7 standing would have. Are you familiar with the insurance issue surrounding 9/11?

The towers represented the great American financial engine, 7 could at best seen as just a support for the TTs. There is just too much to go wrong with a plan to fly planes into the TT to complicate it with also destroying 7. Had the TTs been attacked by bombs, then we could ask about 7, but lacking a clear reason to include 7, it is IMO only logical to say it was collateral damage.

Wasn't Silverstein pushing to have the entire complex demolished for years? There has always been great controversy surrounding the WTC right from the start. Lot's of people didn't want it there in the first place.

[JoeyKnothead]

My take on the videos:

'Pull it'

To me this one is only a matter of 'verbiage', lacking any further info I will benefit of the doubt it and say I see nothing to support the conspiracy theory.

'It's blowing boy"

By this time it is obvious the building has suffered serious damage, and it would be fair to say folks were concerned about it falling. To say 'blow up' could be damning if there were any other evidence. Again, looks like verbiage is to blame.

Flight 93

The 'scar' is consistent with a plane going nose in into the ground. A hijacker who knows folks are coming for him, as the passengers were claimed to have done, would know that a straight, direct flight into the ground would be the fastest, and most assured path to total destruction. This is a fairly remote area, combined with the confusion of the day, and so it is reasonable to assume the fire has burned out by the time rescuers arrive.

[Beto]

I remembered another thing.



Apparently, and I can't infer this with 100% accuracy, Bush claims to have witnessed the first plane hit, before the second one did. How could he, if footage of the first only surfaced after the second one? Never mind his posture...