9/11... A BIG FABRICATION?

[underscore]

1) If anything, the Pentagon is the only "questionable" one. But hell it might've just been a smaller plane but the gov't said it was a big jet to help fuel the anger. No clue.

2) There's tonnes of weight holding, holding, holding, falling. With so much of the design being around that one central beam, when it goes, it's going down hard. My $0.02.

3) From talking to my cousin (pilot) and watching shit like Mayday, flying a plane is pretty much flying a plane. The take-off/landing and other more technical bits can get more complex, but the actual steering of the thing is pretty consistent.

[kookoobird88]

the one plane that was headed for the white house the crashed in the field had almost little to no debris which is completely bogus. you watch mayday or w/e on discovery and they show videos of planes that crashed in to mountains, run ways, fields etc. This crash you couldnt even find 1 panel of the plane, or even a single suite case. like i said before, to me it doesnt make sense how the buildings fell in such perfection, but each to their own.
bush really messed up the usa

[- kT]

Originally Posted by cressydrift

I'm not a truther or some nut just logical.

1) No plane debris at Pentagon - ?????????

i'm pretty much on the same page as this guy
simply put, the government said it was a boeing 757 that flew into the pentagon. putting aside the lack of debris, the hole in the pentagon wasn't sufficient with the dimensions of a 757

so either: there was no plane, or it wasn't a 757. either way, there's something wrong with the story

[goo3]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/America...ines_Flight_77



Cockpit voice recorder

Originally Posted by cressydrift

I'm not a truther or some nut just logical.

Originally Posted by - kT

i'm pretty much on the same page as this guy
simply put, the government said it was a boeing 757 that flew into the pentagon. putting aside the lack of debris, the hole in the pentagon wasn't sufficient with the dimensions of a 757

so either: there was no plane, or it wasn't a 757. either way, there's something wrong with the story

Either this or that? Logic? Really. It's obviously option c.

[- kT]

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

and how much of the plane went in, only the nose? no? then why is there so little penetration into the building?

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by - kT

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

and how much of the plane went in, only the nose? no? then why is there so little penetration into the building?

No, it wouldn't go from wing to wing; it's a fucking plane against a hardened armoured building. The wings would have/did shear off on impact.

if you measure the length and size of the penetration, and compare it to the size of a 757 fuselage, then it does actually fit.

Oh, and the pictures showing that there's no engines are actually the post-action photos once the engines have been REMOVED.

The pentagon is a hardened building. If the planes' WINGS penetrated the building, it'd be a pretty shitty building.
Posted via RS Mobile

[underscore]

Originally Posted by - kT

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

and how much of the plane went in, only the nose? no? then why is there so little penetration into the building?

well looking at that, the nose managed to break in, with the whole fuselage plowing in behind it, which is why it managed to get that far in. looking at the sides around the hole, there's a bunch of burnt area, which would be from the wings (which are also fuel tanks) hitting and tossing fuel everywhere.

remember, these things were filled to the tits with fuel as they had just taken off and were going on longass flights. If anyone else saw the episode of Destroyed in Seconds where they slammed a tester plane full of fuel into these shredder things, there was next to nothing left. Now slam that into an armoured building, well fuck you're not gonna find a whole lot of stuff left.

Originally Posted by - kT

does this hole look like it fits a boeing 757, from wing to wing?

no, but your moms does

sorry I couldn't resist

[- kT]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

No, it wouldn't go from wing to wing; it's a fucking plane against a hardened armoured building. The wings would have/did shear off on impact.

i'm sure the wings would've left at least an imprint on the building even if they did shear off on impact

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by - kT

i'm sure the wings would've left at least an imprint on the building even if they did shear off on impact

And so those giant scorchmarks and the impact crunch to the right of the wall don't look like any damage?

[NJMR]

geez to all the people saying it would cost too much- didn't you know america is built on debt?

[- kT]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

And so those giant scorchmarks and the impact crunch to the right of the wall don't look like any damage?

scorchmarks are from the fire
and i meant something more along the lines of damage that resembles the shape of a wing, at the very least

[goo3]

LOL

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...ttack-usat.htm

"(The plane) was flying fast and low and the Pentagon was the obvious target," said Fred Gaskins, who was driving to his job as a national editor at USA TODAY near the Pentagon when the plane passed about 150 feet overhead. "It was flying very smoothly and calmly, without any hint that anything was wrong."

Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military.

'Nobody could believe it'

"There was a big boom," he said. "Everybody was in shock. I turned around to the car behind me and yelled ‘Did you see that?' Nobody could believe it."

Kizildrgli was found wandering in an Arlington neighborhood about five miles from the Pentagon an hour after the crash.

Flight 77 hijacked? check
Flight path over the pentagon? check
Leftover American Airlines debris? check
Human Remains? check (seriously, just google it. what's wrong with you?)
Eyewitness accounts? check

Case Closed? Yes

[matter]

imagine a bird slamming through a window...what kind of hole does it leave? where are the wing impacts? They pretty much shear right off unless you are flying through something really weak. You can definately see the wing imprints on the WTC towers, but the WTC =/= the Pentagon.

Originally Posted by - kT

scorchmarks are from the fire
and i meant something more along the lines of damage that resembles the shape of a wing, at the very least

[SlySi]

No it will never be case closed.
Conspiracy nutjobs have a hard time letting go what they read on the internet.
They have read what they believe is true and have fabricated this into their mind.
Its an addiction. They are very introspective and preoccupied with their fantasy.
They are so caught up with what they believe is right, the truth is ignored.
All conspiracy theorist replies above have clearly proven that.

Now not saying all conspiracy's are fake.
But this 9/11 nutcase story is ridiculous.
This thread will end soon.... within a year.. a new post will be back..
Some newb will read and watch a video and restart the nutjob theory again.
The web has created the largest mass of nutjobs. Its viral.
Every kid now believes they have this new acquired knowledge from something they read or watched on the internet.

In fact... its not the theorists that need to let it go.
Its us.
Specifically the 9/11 hoax.

[Presto]

Let the PCT's (Paranoid Conspiracy Theorists) have their fun. It's not worth our time to try and pull them away from the "truths" they believe in.

A blurb from Skeptic's Dictionary:

...it is pointless to argue here because the PCTs are expert pseudo historians: contradictory evidence is used to support rather than refute their notions. Does the U.S. Government go after the world's richest man, Bill Gates? Hah! It's a charade, aimed at getting us off the scent. Wasn't Hitler the one who thought he could rule the world and didn't the Allies stop him? Hitler was a dupe, used to advance the sinister plot to rule the world by the Illuminati.

One can only speculate as to why PCTs exist. It is easy to explain their proliferation: modern mass communications has made it possible for anyone to become his or her own press and propaganda machine. But why PCTs in the first place? The only other experience I've had with such thinking was when I had to get involved with some mentally ill people. I am not joking here. A relative had a "psychotic break" and severe paranoia. We (a group of relatives) were all targets of assassination by some unknown evil people. They could be partially identified by their license plate numbers. If the number started with a "5" then they were evil. No amount of logic or reasoning as to the preposterous of the notion that anyone would want to kill a person of absolutely no political significance was of any use. No amount of reasoning as to how license plate numbers are assigned was of any use. Phone calls could only be made from "secure" lines, which involved either going to the fire department or talking your way up through a series of supervisors until you got a "good one." Through my ill relative I met others who were also afflicted with delusions and incredibly faulty judgment. They did not lose their ability to reason--in fact, my relative seemed even more intelligent in some ways when manic--but their assumptions were taken from sources inaccessible to the ordinary mind. They put vast faith in their intuitions and thought their ideas were brilliant insights when they were little more than the fancies of diseased brains. When I compare reading the literature of the PCTs to entering Bedlam, I mean to be taken literally.

For example, many PCTs consider the Great Seal of the United States and the motto Novus Ordo Seclorum (new order of the ages) to be Masonic and to mean New World Order. These "facts" are considered evidence in the argument to prove the vast conspiracy of the Illuminati. It is useless to argue against these "facts" with PCTs. They consider us dupes who would note that the Latin is usually translated as New Order of the Ages and that the symbol of the eye in the pyramid relates to a poem in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.* Even granting that the Great Seal of the United States and the symbols on our dollar bill are Masonic (which they are not) and that novus ordo seculorum means New World Order (which it does not), nothing significant follows, certainly not that there is a vast conspiracy to take over the world.[url]

[underscore]

Originally Posted by SlySi

No it will never be case closed.
Conspiracy nutjobs have a hard time letting go what they selectively read on the internet.

fixt

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by ericthehalfbee

Since JD13 doesn't want to comment, perhaps you other experts will answer my question for me.

Why did they pour Pyrocool fire fighting foam into the wreckage of the WTC? Why did they care about using ultra-violet absorbing foam?

Sorry I don't live on RS so my reply is a little slow. I've never heard of these Pyrocool details you're talking about until you brought them up. Who gives a shit about that minor detail. If that point is your main rebuttal against the towers being demolished then power to you. Sorry but anyone trying to tell me that not one but TWO 100+ floor towers collapsed to the ground at the same speed, around 11 seconds from top to bottom, because of fire - I'll think they're idiots. But ignorance is bliss I guess.

As for the Pentagon, it wasn't hit by a plane. I won't speculate on what it was but it wasn't a fullsize airliner. Armoured walls or not there's no way it would have escaped with that little damage from being hit by an airliner going fullspeed. Here's one of the planes hitting the WTC:

Look at the holes punched by the wings. Look at the shape of the impact damage. Not even close to matching the damage at the Pentagon. The primary point of impact, before there's even an explosion, has gotta be like 60-70ft wide from the fuselage and engines and THEN the length of the wings. The hole at the Pentagon looked like this:

The fuselage plowing in behind the nose at the point of impact is what speared damage through 3 rings of the Pentagon with armoured walls supposedly so strong the fuel filled wings of the plane couldn't pierce them or blow them apart upon initial impact? Do some of you guys really believe the shit you're saying!? The final exit hole on the inside of C Ring sure looks like it was done by an airliner....

Let's not also forget that initially, the roofline at the point of impact remained and collapsed later while they were fighting the fire. And don't even get me started on the complete impossibility of the ability of the alleged pilot, who couldn't even get a private license in a Cessna, flying an airliner low and fast above the ground without bouncing or skidding off tarmac or grass before hitting the building.

[underscore]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

Sorry I don't live on RS so my reply is a little slow. I've never heard of these Pyrocool details you're talking about until you brought them up. Who gives a shit about that minor detail. If that point is your main rebuttal against the towers being demolished then power to you. Sorry but anyone trying to tell me that not one but TWO 100+ floor towers collapsed to the ground at the same speed, around 11 seconds from top to bottom, because of fire - I'll think they're idiots. But ignorance is bliss I guess

because of structural failure. dur.

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by underscore

because of structural failure. dur.

OK so let's say the central structure did fail completely. Do you think the roofline of one of the towers, falling through 100+ floors of resistance, would reach the ground as fast as a brick would if you dropped it off the roof free falling through the air? Because the towers came down almost as fast. Even given the immense weight of a collapsing WTC tower I find it hard to believe all that material, including the entire undamaged core of the building, would give out that fast with seemingly no resistance.

[underscore]

well from my understanding of the design, the part that failed was the primary support structure. essentially all of the load travelled through that column of steel. if you knock out that support it's gonna come down pretty fast.

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by underscore

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?

Yep. Plenty of eyewitness accounts from people on the scene saying there were lots of supplemental explosions inside the building.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

And so on, and so on.

If you watch video of the towers collapsing, or shortly before the collapses, you can see the outward detonations blowing out the buildings. Here are a couple good stills, look at how linear the blast line is!

YouTube- 9/11 North Tower collapse in slow motion show clear explosions

[Graeme S]

Originally Posted by JD¹³

Sorry I don't live on RS so my reply is a little slow. I've never heard of these Pyrocool details you're talking about until you brought them up. Who gives a shit about that minor detail. If that point is your main rebuttal against the towers being demolished then power to you. Sorry but anyone trying to tell me that not one but TWO 100+ floor towers collapsed to the ground at the same speed, around 11 seconds from top to bottom, because of fire - I'll think they're idiots. But ignorance is bliss I guess.

Actually, because of planes crashing into them, but that's just a nitpick. Also, isn't it logical to expect that two towers designed and built in the same way ("twin" towers) when struck with the same problem (a plane hitting them) would fall in the same manner? Especially given that gravity tends to be a constant.

As for the Pentagon, it wasn't hit by a plane. I won't speculate on what it was but it wasn't a fullsize airliner. Armoured walls or not there's no way it would have escaped with that little damage from being hit by an airliner going fullspeed. Here's one of the planes hitting the WTC:

Look at the holes punched buy the wings. Look at the shape of the impact damage. Not even close to the match of the damage at the Pentagon. The primary point of impact, before there's even an explosion, has gotta be like 60-70ft wide from the fuselage and engines and THEN the length of the wings.

Yep, I see a plane smashing into one of the WTC towers. I see aluminum smashing through glass and plowing its way into the main building.

The hole at the Pentagon looked like this:

The fuselage plowing in behind the nose at the point of impact is what speared damage through 3 rings of the Pentagon with armoured walls supposedly so strong the fuel filled wings of the plane couldn't pierce them or blow them apart upon initial impact? Do some of you guys really believe the shit you're saying!?

Ever punched a window? Chances are if you hit it strongly enough, it's gonna break. Ever punched a solid wood door? Chances are you've got cracked/broken knuckles. Comparing the effects of a plane on the exterior of a glass businesstower is quite different than that of a hardened building. Last time I checked, hardened buildings were designed to be protection against things like shelling, artillery fire, tanks, and the like. Seems like a bit better protection than glass, eh?

The final exit hole on the inside of C Ring sure looks like it was done by an airliner....

Let's not also forget that initially, the roofline at the point of impact remained and collapsed later while they were fighting the fire. And don't even get me started on the complete impossibility of the ability of the alleged pilot, who couldn't even get a private license in a Cessna, flying an airliner low and fast above the ground without bouncing or skidding off tarmac or grass before hitting the building.

So you're saying that the roofline collapsed afterwards...almost as though something plowed into it and tunnelled through...hunh. Who'da thunk it?

As far as skills...ever heard the story of how the cat learned to swim? When people find the need, people somehow find the means.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

OK so let's say the central structure did fail completely. Do you think the roofline of one of the towers, falling through 100+ floors of resistance, would reach the ground as fast as a brick would if you dropped it off the roof free falling through the air? Because the towers came down almost as fast. Even given the immense weight of a collapsing WTC tower I find it hard to believe all that material, including the entire undamaged core of the building, would give out that fast with seemingly no resistance.

Let's imagine, shall we, that we make a human pyramid about 50 layers high. But let's be awesome engineers and make it a tower type deal. Now let's knock out one of those layers about 1/3 from the top, meaning that all the layers above that fall down nearly directly on the bottom ones. All things being constant, and each person being (essentially) able to support what they were holding up are now facing a great number of people who are not just in need of support, but are also FALLING (representing a much greater mass); these impacts are sent down and as each level hits the sequential one they fall--those who fell apart from said human tower falling at NEARLY the same speed as those who are falling on top of it.

You find it hard to believe, I do not. There are numerous experts on physics and multiple other sciences who understand and agree. And a great number fewer who do not. A majority of the proponents of conspiracy theories are those who are not professionals in the field they are quoting information from. I find it hard to believe that such a great number of experts could be paid off. Occam's Razor.

Originally Posted by underscore

answer me this: if it was a controlled demo, would you not see some blasting or hear some explosions?

You would expect to, yes. And conspiracy theorists insist that you DO start to see/hear explosions as the building goes down.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

Yep. Plenty of eyewitness accounts from people on the scene saying there were lots of supplemental explosions inside the building.

Rich Banaciski -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Ladder 22]
... and then I just remember there was just an explosion. It seemed like on television they blow up these buildings. It seemed like it was going all the way around like a belt, all these explosions.

Ed Cachia -- Firefighter (F.D.N.Y.) [Engine 53]
we originally had thought there was like an internal detonation explosives because it went in succession, boom, boom, boom, boom, and then the tower came down.

Frank Cruthers -- Chief (F.D.N.Y.) [Citywide Tour Commander]
.. there was what appeared to be at first an explosion. It appeared at the very top, simultaneously from all four sides, materials shot out horizontally. And then there seemed to be a momentary delay before you could see the beginning of the collapse.

And so on, and so on.

If you watch video of the towers collapsing, or shortly before the collapses, you can see the outward detonations blowing out the buildings. Here are a couple good stills, look at how linear the blast line is!

Those quotes can be attributed to never having seen a building like this go down before--a collapse of a central support beam would result in simultaneous decompression/explosion on all four sides. The picture you've got up makes total sense--it seems that the air pressure of the collapsing building is smashing open the windows on the lower structure.





My turn now, though: why did nobody notice anybody setting up these massive amounts of explosives over the months and weeks before 9/11?

[underscore]

I agree with Graeme, as the floors smush together on the way down, everything that was occupying the space between them (mostly air) is going to be forced outwards, the only way it can go.

Originally Posted by JD¹³

I see two puffs of dust/debris on one part of one side of the building...

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by Graeme S

... isn't it logical to expect that two towers designed and built in the same way ("twin" towers) when struck with the same problem (a plane hitting them) would fall in the same manner? Especially given that gravity tends to be a constant.

Then why did the second tower collapse first? The first tower was hit straight on, the second as pictured was hit on an angle and the main impact damage would have only glanced the core of the building. The plane shot out the side of the building just as much as it did the backside, and the fires didn't burn as long as the plane that went straight through the middle of the first tower.

Yep, I see a plane smashing into one of the WTC towers. I see aluminum smashing through glass hardened steel beams and concrete pillars sand plowing its way into the main building.

This wasn't like throwing a rock into a glass house.

Ever punched a window? Chances are if you hit it strongly enough, it's gonna break. Ever punched a solid wood door? Chances are you've got cracked/broken knuckles. Comparing the effects of a plane on the exterior of a glass businesstower is quite different than that of a hardened building. Last time I checked, hardened buildings were designed to be protection against things like shelling, artillery fire, tanks, and the like. Seems like a bit better protection than glass, eh?

Then why did your hardened building allow the hallow and collapsible fuselage to punch through SIX exterior walls? All that came out the backside of the WTC towers was exploding jetfuel, no pieces solid enough to continue to punch through hardened walls of a secure building.

So you're saying that the roofline collapsed afterwards...almost as though something plowed into it and tunnelled through...hunh. Who'da thunk it?

So your airliner was powerful enough to tunnel through six exterior reinforced walls, but didn't hit hard enough to cause enough damage at the point of inital impact to bring the entire structure of the building down?

Do you know anything about military weaponry? Harpoon missles, bunker busters, armour piercing rounds? Uranium tipping? Anything?

As far as skills...ever heard the story of how the cat learned to swim? When people find the need, people somehow find the means.

I actually laughed, are you serious? A cat learning to swim, or "fight or flight" scenarios are in no way comparable to operating something as complex as a jet airliner. My dad flew them for 15 years and I've spent a lot of time in the cockpit. If the alleged pilot couldn't even fly a Cessna straight and level there is no way he piloted a 757 into the Pentagon with the precision flying he supposedly did.

Let's imagine, shall we, that we make a human pyramid about 50 layers high. But let's be awesome engineers and make it a tower type deal.

Comparing the strength of a human being to that of a structure designed to support all that is above it is a bit of a stretch don't you think? The compounding force argument is sound, but I still don't think a building of that height would collapse that fast even given that scenario.

There are numerous experts on physics and multiple other sciences who understand and agree. And a great number fewer who do not. A majority of the proponents of conspiracy theories are those who are not professionals in the field they are quoting information from. I find it hard to believe that such a great number of experts could be paid off. Occam's Razor.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. There are just as many experts who say the official story is BS as there are confirming it.

You would expect to, yes. And conspiracy theorists insist that you DO start to see/hear explosions as the building goes down.

Because people did hear, and you can see, the explosions taking place.

Those quotes can be attributed to never having seen a building like this go down before--a collapse of a central support beam would result in simultaneous decompression/explosion on all four sides.

True, but not before the building was actually collapsing and gaining steam. The firefighters I quoted were referring to the moments just before the building could be seen collapsing.

The picture you've got up makes total sense--it seems that the air pressure of the collapsing building is smashing open the windows on the lower structure.

If you look a the picture with the arrow, you can see where the actual frame of the building is failing. Look up the corner ridge, and right around where the bottom of the falling debris is you can see the line of the building corner is no longer straight. That's where the floors of the building are starting to fail. Remember that the falling debris is from high floors, and the approximate line of destruction would be drawn somewhere right through the middle of the "mushroom cloud". By your theory, the pancaking of floors blowing air out the windows, it would be a floor by floor downward blowout correct?

The bottom of the debris lines up with the bottom of where the structure is actually failing, you can see it in the picture. So why is there then a 10-15 floor gap and then a perfectly linear blowout of a floor? Shouldn't the 10-15 floors above it have blownout already? They still look perfectly intact and stable to me.

My turn now, though: why did nobody notice anybody setting up these massive amounts of explosives over the months and weeks before 9/11?

It's been documented that employees who worked in the "inner working" areas of the towers such as janitors were suddenly given restricted access to different areas on different floors of the towers over a period of months leading upto the attacks. Along with that was a massive increase in security within the building which suddenly disappeared a day or so before the attack. Now someone will say "no way that many security personnel were in on it". They didn't have to be, they just had to stand outside a door and only let people with certain credentials go through it no questions asked. There are a lot of details that could be argued about your question, noone will ever know the truth of those details.

[JD¹³]

Originally Posted by underscore

I agree with Graeme, as the floors smush together on the way down, everything that was occupying the space between them (mostly air) is going to be forced outwards, the only way it can go.

Then why is there such a big gap? Why isn't the air in the floors above being forced out?

K I'm done for tonight haha