Topic: There is nothing worse than a conspiracy theorist

[GBF]

Obviously, but if the steel is damaged then it's reasonable to me that the damaged edges may take less effort to melt than the undamaged centres.

I know what you mean....a block of steel will take more time to melt than a sheet of steel...but that is because the heat transfer is quicker in a sheet than a block, but both need same temperature in order to reach melting point (depending of the type of alloy) ~1300C to ~1500C. 

If relates to the WTC, then worth to point out that maximum temp reached by plane fuel is 980C

Im not saying is conspiracy or propaganda...but if those two planes manage to bring down 60k tons of steel in less than 1 hour, its probably a new david vs goliath story

[Party Phil]

So here's the challenge: Provide answers to these questions and we'll review things:

no. I'm not going to start answeing those questions because I'm not convinced at all that the buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition. I can happily accept that flying large airliners at high speen into a building will cause vast amounts of damage, regardless of the 'expert' opinions from either side of the argument, by using my own common sense.

For me, the interesting questions come into play around what level of involvement the US administration had in the attacks. Maybe they deliberately ignored the warning signs about the attacks, maybe they were inadvertently funding the backers of the terrorists, maybe they staged the whole thing or maybe they are completely innocent and were all genuinely blissfully unaware. At the moment I have no idea which is closest to the truth. However the historical precedents of Northwood, Gulf of Tonkin and possibly the Lusitania suggest that they are capable of having some level of involvement, however tiny. That in my opinion is worth discussion as I think we'd all like to know what, if any, information our governments are keeping from us and whether the wars that are being fought in our name are in any way justified or simply engineered for the gain of others.

[Alan_X]

I know what you mean....a block of steel will take more time to melt than a sheet of steel...but that is because the heat transfer is quicker in a sheet than a block, but both need same temperature in order to reach melting point (depending of the type of alloy) ~1300C to ~1500C. 

If relates to the WTC, then worth to point out that maximum temp reached by plane fuel is 980C

Im not saying is conspiracy or propaganda...but if those two planes manage to bring down 60k tons of steel in less than 1 hour, its probably a new david vs goliath story

I keep reading that but the fires were clearly burning at extremely high temperatures. I'm not a rocket scientist or jet engine specialist but having a quick search around it seems that in a jet engine, kerosene burns at up to 1,700ºC and in rocket engines it burns at over 5,000ºC. I assume it's to do with the exact circumstances but the WTC was unusual, could someone explain what "maximum temperature" means in this context?

[coffeehead]

I've said it many times Phil. If someone can provide real evidence that the WTC was destroyed by controlled demolition. Or even suggest a plausible way in which it could be carried out then I'd let it go. I'm not flaming the thread. I find those films Loose Change, ZeitGeist etc genuinely offensive for what represent. The triumph of idiocy and style over good sense.

1. What was the explosive used to cut the steel columns? (hint it was definitely not thermite, thermate or even marmite).

2. What are the different techniques and types of explosives used to demolish a) concrete and b) steel? For example how much are steel columns usually notched in preparation for demolition?

3. What preparation would have been required to prepare the buildings for demolition. How much of the internal structure is removed and how are the detonation cords arranged? As a supplementary question for extra points  - what length of detonation cord to the nearest mile, would be required for a demolition job of that size?

4. How was the impact of the planes and the demolition explosives coordinated? As the initial collapse was on the floors which were hit by the planes... how were the explosives, detonators and detonation cords protected from the impact?

5. Were the people above the impact of the planes building occupants or stooges? It is often said by conspiracy theorists that the fires weren't that hot (the example of the woman standing in the hole in the building is often cited here) and could not be responsible for the collapse of the building. If that is the case the phone calls from people complaining of the incredible heat and the people throwing themselves out of the building must have been stooges. Yes or no?

6. The point of controlled demolition is to create as little damage to surrounding buildings as possible. Why was there so much damage to adjacent buildings? Huge sections of the external skin peeled off like banana peel creating widespread damage - surely in a controlled demolition charges on the external steel columns would have been used to break them up into smaller section?

7. Why did the buildings collapse from the top down? That is, from the point of impact of the planes? Again it would have been more sensible to demolish from the bottom - take out the structure at low level initially and the spread of debris would have been much smaller.

8. What is the pattern and nature of the explosions used to demolish a steel framed building? There are reports of explosions... booms... but controlled demolition uses a sequence of small charges at tight intervals. Why were there no reports of a series of sharp cracks?

9. What are the puffs that are visible as the building collapses? If they are the result of explosions, why do they look like the explosions associated with the demolition of concrete structures when this was a steel framed building? Why are they relatively low velocity rather than explosive velocity?

10. What would have been the expected pattern of damage to to the WTC following the impact of a commercial airliner loaded with fuel at high speed? Give two other instances to support your conclusions.


I've got a few thousand more that I could ask. All questions that I know the answer to.

I think the unanswered questions are all on your side mate.

Just one question to "your side" though in return. Assuming for one minute that there was something more to the WTC story than we have been told and say, for arguments sake, that the government were involved. Exactly what evidence do you expect people to put forward?

A memo titled "Top Secret Plan to Destroy the WTC and blame it on the Arabs. Please keep this secret; honestly don't tell anyone?"?

What I mean is that IF (and it's a big if) there was a plot of this kind by the government then I think they're EITHER more than capable of doing it in a way that cannot be detected, and certainly in a way by which there'll be no proof that you or I could find or they WON'T be doing it.

If they couldn't be 100% sure they'd get away with it they wouldn't do it; there'd be too much risk.

So what I'm really saying is that all this to-ing and fro-ing between so called conspiracy theorists and those who think they're nutters is futile. Maybe sinister things go on, maybe they don't. We'll never be able to prove it either way, so why waste time and effort on it?

Attendant to this is the nature of the so-called conspiracy theorist. Some people above have said that CTs are gullible or stupid or lack imagination or whatever because they believe dubious 'proofs'.

Personally I think this is coming at it from the wrong direction. There will always be a few credulous nutters in any sample, of course, but IMO generally those people normally called conspiracy theorists don't tend to become so initially because they're convinced by proofs, but rather because they believe for one reason or another that , say, governments are liable to act in this way.

Maybe they've had run-ins with government and seen some small-scale cover ups going on; maybe they follow the cui bono path in cases like 9/11, which can be interesting but not proof of anything; maybe there's some other reason, rational or irrational. But whatever it is it makes them believe that there could be more to a story than meets the eye. Either way it's an unprovable; they're free to think these things but they should be aware that proving them will be almost impossible even if they are true.

And that's where they go wrong IMO; they allow themselves to be goaded by the sceptics into proffering 'proofs'. And they fail because 90% of the time those 'proofs' are going to be flawed or, at best so equivocal or ambiguous as to not be worth adducing.

IF any deep conspiracies exist there's not going to be any proof lying around. So my view is just forget about it; it's not worth the effort. Spend your time and energy instead in trying to create a better world where 'government malfeasance' is less likely to happen. That's an almost equally difficult task, of course, but far more achievable than ever convincing the world of high level conspiracies, assuming there are any.

[GBF]

I keep reading that but the fires were clearly burning at extremely high temperatures. I'm not a rocket scientist or jet engine specialist but having a quick search around it seems that in a jet engine, kerosene burns at up to 1,700ºC and in rocket engines it burns at over 5,000ºC. I assume it's to do with the exact circumstances but the WTC was unusual, could someone explain what "maximum temperature" means in this context?

but it was a jet and not a rocket that went into the buildings...at least what are shown to believe

[Party Phil]

methinks coffeehead deserves Alan_F's custom title

I do't believe it's never going to be possible to prove either side's argument completely, which is why the doubts about the official line spring up in the first place. So in that respect I agree to a point with coffeehead that it's futile to argue amongst ourselves over trivial details. But on the other side, if we never were allowed the opportunity to express such doubts then we are perhaps putting ourselves in an even worse situation, where whichever groups orchestrate such events (be they terrorist organisations, governments or private business), have already won. The 'conspiracy theorists' need to be open to the possibility that the government aren't the only people capable of commiting atrocities and the 'conspiracy deniers' should entertain the remote possibility that there may be people out there with the power and motivation to engineer such occurences for themselves.

I'm sure this thread will be locked soon enough but I do enjoy reading these discussions. But annoys me when both sides put across hearsay, opinion and conjecture as plain fact and it descends into a slagging match. I'd suggest that people on both sides of the fence need to be a little more open minded to the other's point of view.

[Party Phil]

I keep reading that but the fires were clearly burning at extremely high temperatures. I'm not a rocket scientist or jet engine specialist but having a quick search around it seems that in a jet engine, kerosene burns at up to 1,700ºC and in rocket engines it burns at over 5,000ºC. I assume it's to do with the exact circumstances but the WTC was unusual, could someone explain what "maximum temperature" means in this context?

Do you mean 1700F maybe? Which would make GBF spot on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

From my short time working at Rolls-Royce, I think the maximum temperature inside a jet engine is around 1400C, which is partly due to the burn temperature of the fuel and partly due to the huge compression ratios. I'm happy to be corrected on this though.

Whether that has any real meaning in this discussion, I'm not really sure. I don't know enough about materials and certainly not enough about thermodynamics to make any bold claims on the matter. I would suggest that 980C would easily be enough to damage the integrity of structural steels.

Anyway, it illustrates to me that both sides are putting across their 'facts' without a real understanding of them so it seems resonable to have equal doubt in both sides of the story.

[MrPlow]

Let me ask u something. Why are conspiracy theorists portraid in such a bad light? Is it genuinely peoples' opinions, or is it the media, forcing u 2 believe they are all full of bullshit?

Food for thought....

[Alan_X]

Just one question to "your side" though in return. Assuming for one minute that there was something more to the WTC story than we have been told and say, for arguments sake, that the government were involved. Exactly what evidence do you expect people to put forward?

A memo titled "Top Secret Plan to Destroy the WTC and blame it on the Arabs. Please keep this secret; honestly don't tell anyone?"?

What I mean is that IF (and it's a big if) there was a plot of this kind by the government then I think they're EITHER more than capable of doing it in a way that cannot be detected, and certainly in a way by which there'll be no proof that you or I could find or they WON'T be doing it.

If they couldn't be 100% sure they'd get away with it they wouldn't do it; there'd be too much risk.

So what I'm really saying is that all this to-ing and fro-ing between so called conspiracy theorists and those who think they're nutters is futile. Maybe sinister things go on, maybe they don't. We'll never be able to prove it either way, so why waste time and effort on it?

Attendant to this is the nature of the so-called conspiracy theorist. Some people above have said that CTs are gullible or stupid or lack imagination or whatever because they believe dubious 'proofs'.

Personally I think this is coming at it from the wrong direction. There will always be a few credulous nutters in any sample, of course, but IMO generally those people normally called conspiracy theorists don't tend to become so initially because they're convinced by proofs, but rather because they believe for one reason or another that , say, governments are liable to act in this way.

Maybe they've had run-ins with government and seen some small-scale cover ups going on; maybe they follow the cui bono path in cases like 9/11, which can be interesting but not proof of anything; maybe there's some other reason, rational or irrational. But whatever it is it makes them believe that there could be more to a story than meets the eye. Either way it's an unprovable; they're free to think these things but they should be aware that proving them will be almost impossible even if they are true.

And that's where they go wrong IMO; they allow themselves to be goaded by the sceptics into proffering 'proofs'. And they fail because 90% of the time those 'proofs' are going to be flawed or, at best so equivocal or ambiguous as to not be worth adducing.

IF any deep conspiracies exist there's not going to be any proof lying around. So my view is just forget about it; it's not worth the effort. Spend your time and energy instead in trying to create a better world where 'government malfeasance' is less likely to happen. That's an almost equally difficult task, of course, but far more achievable than ever convincing the world of high level conspiracies, assuming there are any.

You won't be surprised that I disagree. It's simply not the case that neither side can prove things. On one side you have clear evidence that something happened in a particular way on the other... nothing. I've never denied that governments do bad things and that there are deep lying conspiracies but the only way to fight against them is through the truth and the best way to get to the truth is through asking questions and examining the evidence.

I do that. When someone suggests a theory I'm happy to investigate but so far, without fail, when you examine the theories put forward they fall down on the evidence. I'm not talking about some evidence that the Bush administration had foreknowledge and didn't act on it, I'm talking about the theories that 9/11 was some form of controlled demolition, that the Pentagon wasn't hit by a plane and that there was no plane at Shanksville. If any of that was true there would be some evidence and there is none. What you get instead is ignorance, stupidity (sorry but when talking about Dylan Avery there is no other word) and misrepresentation.

I object to being told lies whether its by the government or by some prick on a website. And at least the government is accountable and open to question. We still live in a society where we can ask our politicians questions, examine documents and if we're dissatisfied vote them out of office.

Loose Change and Zeitgeist are made by people who are wholly unaccountable and let's be clear here, those films are full of lies. They are the crudest form of propaganda and I have no idea what the motives of the people who made them are.

There's nothing wrong with expressing doubts, I'm all for that but for how long do you let people promote blatant lies and misrepresentation as "doubts"?  At what point should they be held to account and questioned about their motives?

[Alan_X]

Do you mean 1700F maybe? Which would make GBF spot on. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

From my short time working at Rolls-Royce, I think the maximum temperature inside a jet engine is around 1400C, which is partly due to the burn temperature of the fuel and partly due to the huge compression ratios. I'm happy to be corrected on this though.

Whether that has any real meaning in this discussion, I'm not really sure. I don't know enough about materials and certainly not enough about thermodynamics to make any bold claims on the matter. I would suggest that 980C would easily be enough to damage the integrity of structural steels.

Anyway, it illustrates to me that both sides are putting across their 'facts' without a real understanding of them so it seems resonable to have equal doubt in both sides of the story.

I wasn't saying that I knew what happened. Just that a bit of light googling suggested that the temperatures reached inside a jet engine are higher than the figure quoted in a lot of conspiracy theories to "prove" that the WTC was not caused by the planes hitting them.

You've confirmed what I read, which was that the temperatures in a jet engine are higher than the "maximum temperature" and that therefore quoting it suggests a lack of detailed understanding of the what that term means.

It's not important to my understanding of the reasons for the towers' collapse. Simple observation of the close-ups of the towers shows that the temperatures on the burning floors was intense and clearly not the result of a pool of burning aviation fuel but a combination of flammable material and the openings on both faces of the buildings allowing air to flow through. 

[Paul_h]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html

[Alan_X]

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.ht

The usual load of bollocks. I know what shaped charges look like & how they work. I also know how much preparation is needed to blow a building and there was simply no evidence of it. As I've pointed out, the external skin of the building was made up of steel box sections, which were part of the structure. If the building was being demolished - surely there would have been cutting charges on all of the external columns? I've attached two plans - one showing the structure on a typical floor. As you can see, there is a central core with the columns marked in red and around the perimeter the columns are numbered - each facade having a prefix 1, 2, 3 & 4 and each face has 60 box sections. I love to see someone describe the pattern of explosive charges that would be used to cause the demolition - cutting 240 columns on the external skin without it a) being visible to the building occupants and b) it not being apparent when the building was "demolished".

The second picture shows the outline of a 767 on the floor plate and the structural damage to the external skin caused by the impact. It's pretty fucking obvious just how serious the impact would have been and that something as massive as a commercial jet flying at high speed would have seriously damaged anything in its path. Compare the "massive columns" to the size of the plane.

David Ray Griffin uses the old nonsense about "almost free-fall speed" as if it actually means something. If tens of thousands of tons of steel and concrete are collapsing what the fuck is going to stop them falling under gravity? Why should they behave differently than any other massive object.

Like I say - if someone could offer a single coherent explanation of how the buildings were demolished I'd be receptive. Until then, all they offer is coincidence and circumstantial evidence. The fact that firemen heard a noise that sounded a bit like a shaped charge means fuck all. They are filmed after the collapse and it was a single sound. If there was a recording of the rapid series of multiple explosions it might suggest controlled demolition by explosives. Isn't it odd that
 despite the numerous film crews filming the event - there was no such recording?

I have to say I'm really disappointed. After 7 years, the best they can come up with is the same weak shit. Even if they can't find the documents, with all the money they've been raking in over the years, why haven't these seekers for truth paid someone to produce a model demonstrating the way it was done and open it up to scientific analysis?

Probably because they know they're pissing in the wind and they actually have nothing. Better to stand on the sidelines pointing fingers and showing the same, tired old videos of buildings being demolished, of John Tickle doing Thermite experiments and other nonsense.

[Dr Cornwallis]

Alan, do you believe that the wings of the plane remained intact after the initial impact with the buildings?

[neilem]

Didn't read this whole thread yet, but I've watched both "911 Mysteries" and "Loose Change" on Google Video a couple months back, and it looked pretty convincing that something suspicious was at play behind the scenes.

[Alan_X]

Alan, do you believe that the wings of the plane remained intact after the initial impact with the buildings?

What do you mean "intact"? The plane would  have disintegrated as it passed through the building but it's pretty clear from the photographic evidence of the damage to the exterior of the building, that all elements of the plane, including the wings, continued forwards in the direction of flight. Tons of high grade aluminium don't just stop dead - they would continue in the direction of travel and the kinetic energy would be transfered to the building's structure.

The analysis of the impact to the pentagon's structure shows how a building (concrete frame admitedly) reacts to the impact of a large commercial plane impacting at high speed. Here's an overlay I did in a previous thread showing the outline of a 757 and the damage to the structure of the Pentagon. It shows how deep into the plan there was significant structural damage to columns. The significant difference between the Pentagon and the WTC is the different construction steel rather than concrete, and the fact that once the planes penetrated the external skin in the initial impact, there was nothing to slow them down before they impacted the central cores whereas at the Pentagon there was a dense matrix of columns that gradually took the impact.

Just one more try then I'll fuck off home. If you have problems with the size of the plane then ok.... The outer rings of the pentagon are 220 feet. The wingspan of a 757 is 124 feet. Two 757s next to each other would be 250 feet. This is indisputable I think and verifiable form external sources.

So...

I've overlaid two 757s to scale and then added in a 757 to the same scale travelling in the direction of the impact. Looks to me like the fuselage and engines are exactly the right size to cause the damage indicated. A cruise missile is 18 ft long and has a wing span of 9ft.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/smart/bgm-109.htm

Global hawk has a wingspan of 116.2 ft.

http://www.northropgrumman.com/unmanned/globalhawk/techspecs.html#4A

I've stuck them on too. What do you think? Should I try a small passenger jet? or a UFO? the only one that fits is a 757....

http://www.redandwhitekop.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=116040.0;attach=68054

[Alan_X]

Didn't read this whole thread yet, but I've watched both "911 Mysteries" and "Loose Change" on Google Video a couple months back, and it looked pretty convincing that something suspicious was at play behind the scenes.

What is so convincing? Seriously which part of the evidence do you believe and what have you done to search out any other opinions?

[Dr Cornwallis]

I've seen other sites where this angle of entry was also shown.  However, there are eyewitness statements saying that the plane first touched down on the helipad outside the Pentagon and then bounced before hitting the Pentagon between the 1st and 2nd floor.  Others say that it crashed into the ground, just short of the Pentagon before bouncing into it.
Tim Timmerman was an eyewitness, and a credible eye witness as a pilot.  Here is his version of events.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1jq6e_pentagon-eyewitness-tim-timmerman_news

[lachesis]

lol, I love these threads I think you have to break it down - as this seems to have centred on 9/11 it's pretty weak but speaking in general terms here:


Conspiracy theories exist because of primarily two things:

• Non-disclosure of all the facts;
• Independent theories put forward on the basis of unsubtantiated evidence.

Now, non conspiracy theorists will argue that the independent and disclosed reports, support the most widely given scenario and outcome. These are congruent and supportive of released evidence and documentation.

However in the absence of such materials like the Pentagon videotape then speculation will be rife. In the same way it is in the summer transfer window. When you consider that the West will reveal videotapes of testing nuclear warheads and footage in Iraq, they show the two planes fly into the twin towers actually killing 3000 people or whatever the exact number was, yet choose to withhold footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Which would be more distressing to the the public from a governmental point of view, so therein lies the problem. Why the unreleased information. Personally I think it's good that people question things like this, however wrong and outlandish their views may be.

It really is that simple.

On a sidenote, Alan your views are intelligent and articulate but I feel you do yourself no favours in certain threads by invoking Godwin's Law. It cheapens your otherwise well thought out posts.

[Alan_X]

So you'd accept that it was an American Airlines 757, that the plane was flying low, that it accelerated as it neared the building and although in his opinion it might have hit the helipad or the ground immediately in front of the Pentagon, there's little doubt that it would have hit the Pentagon. His opinion was that if it hit higher it might have caused more damage.

"The building didn't look very damaged initially, but I do see looking out my window now, there's quite a chunk in it. But, the blessing here, might be that the plane hit the ground and a lot of energy might have gone that way..."

Tim Timmerson 13:49, 11th September 2001

Taking that back to the WTC - the damage caused to the Pentagon was quite possibly reduced because the plane hit the ground and possibly started to disintegrate before hitting the external skin. As there was nothing to reduce the impact of the planes hitting the towers it's reasonable to expect even more damage. Yes?

[Alan_X]

lol, I love these threads I think you have to break it down - as this seems to have centred on 9/11 it's pretty weak but speaking in general terms here:


Conspiracy theories exist because of primarily two things:

• Non-disclosure of all the facts;
• Independent theories put forward on the basis of unsubtantiated evidence.

Now, non conspiracy theorists will argue that the independent and disclosed reports, support the most widely given scenario and outcome. These are congruent and supportive of released evidence and documentation.

However in the absence of such materials like the Pentagon videotape then speculation will be rife. In the same way it is in the summer transfer window. When you consider that the West will reveal videotapes of testing nuclear warheads and footage in Iraq, they show the two planes fly into the twin towers actually killing 3000 people or whatever the exact number was, yet choose to withhold footage of a plane hitting the Pentagon.

Which would be more distressing to the the public from a governmental point of view, so therein lies the problem. Why the unreleased information. Personally I think it's good that people question things like this, however wrong and outlandish their views may be.

It really is that simple.

On a sidenote, Alan your views are intelligent and articulate but I feel you do yourself no favours in certain threads by invoking Godwin's Law. It cheapens your otherwise well thought out posts.

Questioning isn't a problem. I just think the same level of questioning should be applied to these theories and when they are found to be full of holes, as they invariably are, there's nothing wrong in saying it.

It's interesting you bring up the Pentagon videotapes. One of them was released but is inconclusive. I think it actually shows the tailfin of the 757 as it approaches the Pentagon but it could be a truck on the Highway. The fact still remains that whatever is on those tapes, there are over a hundred eyewitnesses who saw the plane hit the Pentagon with a fair number identifying the type of plane and the fact that it was an American Airlines plane. The damage is consistent with a commercial airliner hitting it and the debris and bodies discovered at the scene were from an American Airlines plane and its passengers. The withholding of video tapes may tell us something about the unnecessary secrecy that is endemic in modern government. It also might tell us that there was nothing of value on those tapes. It tells us nothing about secret plots, neither does it validate idiotic conspiracy theories.



Oh, and I don't know - the occasional reference to Goebbels or Goering never goes amiss.

[neilem]

What is so convincing? Seriously which part of the evidence do you believe and what have you done to search out any other opinions?

It has been a while since I watched it, so can't remember everything.

From what I do recall though, was the sheer velocity of the fall, not to mention how tidy in the way it collapsed. The surrounding buildings were not harmed, so one would think something crashing from that height would at least of swayed a given direction. Plus it was a straight freefall, instead of a bumpy struggle, questionable since the lower floors beneth the impacted area were sound, surely this would prevent a direct freefall from happening.

The building itself was designed and contructed to support multiple crashes involving much bigger planes than the ones used during 9/11. Plus Tower7 suffers an identical tidy freefall collapse when it wasn't even struck by anything, pretty hard to digest when these towers were built to suffer alot of impacts during its lifetime.

Version of events from a technician employed in the WTC, saying there was a blackout for the entire weekend not long before 9/11. So all CCTV and other security stuff inside would have been inoperable, but allegedly  a crew were working on something during this blackout, and no I haven't looked much into it (taking this with a pinch of salt).

Finally, the lease for the WTC was purchased by someone (can't remember the name) about six-months prior 9/11, these buildings required around $200m worth of rennovations and improvements due to health hazards (asbestoes being reason for this) or it would be closed. Instead of servicing this debt, the lease holder now has an insurance payout of up to $4.5b since the incident.

I kept an openmind while watching, and I felt there was enough information to raise an eyebrow.

[Dr Cornwallis]

As there was nothing to reduce the impact of the planes hitting the towers it's reasonable to expect even more damage. Yes?

*squirms*
Yes and no, I don't know.  Why don't I know?  Because there is a vast difference between the buildings and when they were built.  The Pentagon was bricks and mortar basically.  The 'outer rings' design was thought to be more beneficial than actually strengthening the building itself, which is fair enough.
Whereas the WTC was built to withstand, they thought, a jet collision with a 707.

Upon assessing the structure of the WTC, it was down to FEMA to do so in the aftermath of the event.  Some years later, NIST did a review and found that there were some inaccuracies in FEMA's report, though they still backed up the general view that the core structure was damaged.  But...NIST came out with this statement...

In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires.
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

Melting was reported by many servicemen who went into the building, and the photograph in Zeitgeist of a support beam was also seen to have melted. 

[lachesis]

It also might tell us that there was nothing of value on those tapes. It tells us nothing about secret plots, neither does it validate idiotic conspiracy theories.

Oh, and I don't know - the occasional reference to Goebbels or Goering never goes amiss.

I agree, personally I think the withholding of the tape is a morale/political one. Whatever hit the Pentagon, be it commercial airliner or missile casts doubt on the actual security of the Pentagon as a whole.

The Americans don't take too kindly to losing face on the world stage, and although playing devils advocate above, it is clear that both the Iraq and war tapes are already in the media domain so can be publicly broadcast. CCTV footage has been confiscated - there is a difference, they can stop the footage falling into the medias hands, but they cant stop the broadcast of acquired footage unless there's another conpisracy theory that bush controls all American media and sends subliminal messages via Jerry Springer

[Dr Cornwallis]

I have see the stills that you speak of Alan, showing a check-point and the Pentagon in the background.  Let's face it, there isn't a plane in those pictures.
The footage of a 757 flying in just a few feet above the freeway and then speeding up and ploughing into the Pentagon would be rude!

I can't see the point in withholding video evidence due to national security, it's not exactly a secret, if you fly a jet into a building then it's going to do some damage.
Still, that's one hell of a manouvre for a cessna-trained pilot to pull off under pressure, agreed?

I get the strong feeling that the video evidence shows something that perhaps people did not notice upon first viewing, but was sufficiently worrying for the government to hide.  The Pentagon is not easy to find at high speed as you near it, the place is an urban sprawl.


We're still not even touching on Shanksville.

[BIGdavalad]

Still, that's one hell of a manouvre for a cessna-trained pilot to pull off under pressure, agreed?

If you do your driving test in a Corsa you can drive a Ferrari can't you?

[Dr Cornwallis]

If you do your driving test in a Corsa you can drive a Ferrari can't you?

Yes, but if you do your test in a Corsa then I don't think that necessarily makes you any good at parallel parking with a monster truck.

[BIGdavalad]

Yes, but if you do your test in a Corsa then I don't think that necessarily makes you any good at parallel parking with a monster truck.

They were deliberately crashing, it's not that difficult a manouevere really, is it? I've never even flown a Cessena, I'm sure I could crash a 757 if I tried.

[neilem]

If you do your driving test in a Corsa you can drive a Ferrari can't you?

If you do your driving test, it doesn't mean you're an expert stunt car driver. Which is what he was indicating, the manouvre involved, not how to fly different type of planes.

They were deliberately crashing, it's not that difficult a manouevere really, is it? I've never even flown a Cessena, I'm sure I could crash a 757 if I tried.

I'm not sure you're aware of the complexity of doing so. Highly experienced pilots have commented on the close to impossible manouevere made.

[Party Phil]

If you do your driving test in a Corsa you can drive a Ferrari can't you?

More like if you pass your test in a Ferrari can you drive a bus, an HGV or even a tank? The answer being maybe, but probably not very well.

They were deliberately crashing, it's not that difficult a manouevere really, is it? I've never even flown a Cessena, I'm sure I could crash a 757 if I tried.

I'm sure you could. But could you fly it at 300mph over several miles in a banked turn and then crash it directly into the side of an object barely any taller than the plane itself?

A Cessna is a very different thing from a commercial airliner. The 'terrorist' flying the plane either got very lucky or did a lot of extra-curricular learning.

[Alan_X]

I have see the stills that you speak of Alan, showing a check-point and the Pentagon in the background.  Let's face it, there isn't a plane in those pictures.
The footage of a 757 flying in just a few feet above the freeway and then speeding up and ploughing into the Pentagon would be rude!

I can't see the point in withholding video evidence due to national security, it's not exactly a secret, if you fly a jet into a building then it's going to do some damage.
Still, that's one hell of a manouvre for a cessna-trained pilot to pull off under pressure, agreed?

I get the strong feeling that the video evidence shows something that perhaps people did not notice upon first viewing, but was sufficiently worrying for the government to hide.  The Pentagon is not easy to find at high speed as you near it, the place is an urban sprawl.


We're still not even touching on Shanksville.

Not that one - though that does show the plane if you know what to look for - the one I'm referring to was sited by the Hotel and is from across the freeway looking towards the Pentagon.

I'll ignore the dig about a Cessna trained pilot. If you can explain who else other than a fanatical suicide bomber would have flown an airliner into a building I'd love to hear it. Why do you boys take as gospel what you are told? Who says it was a highly skilled manouvre to carry out? It would take a highly skilled pilot to reproduce it exactly a number of times. As you pointed out, the pilot apparently fucked up by bouncing off the ground and reducing the impact and also didn't strike the building in the optimum place to cause most damage. Seems to indicate an adequately trained but not highly skilled pilot.

You really need to spend more time looking at the way governments behave. Secrecy is obsessive. Our government (and the US) and its agencies will conceal anything if they have the chance regardless of its value. It's as much to do with risk assessment culture as anything else. When any piece of information might possibly be used against you, the first instinct is to restrict the number of people who can see it. In general, CCTV footage obtained as criminal evidence is not made available to the general public for reasons which include privacy.

I would also say that they probably see little benefit in releasing the videos. Those who want to believe that it was a conspiracy and that there was no plane wouldn't be convinced by any evidence that doesn't fit into their view of what happened. If a video was released that clearly showed an American Airlines plane hitting the Pentagon with a terrorist waving at the window, it would be dismissed as a fake. For example, I'm pretty sure NASA gave up trying to prove the moon landings were real because they realised it was a pointless exercise.

[Party Phil]

For example, I'm pretty sure NASA gave up trying to prove the moon landings were real because they realised it was a pointless exercise.

because they were faked

[Alan_X]

because they were faked

Oh dear. To quote Omar Little.... "do tell..."

[Party Phil]

Oh dear. To quote Omar Little.... "do tell..."

just winding you up





although I do have my doubts....

[Paul_h]

Alan F

What is your understanding about Money? how it is created? who controls it? A previous post refered to international bankers. Does this have any bearing on things....

you say you have a good understanding of shaped charges, etc. not doubting this. but,  Does your knowledge extend to military grade explosives? Or just used in comercial demolitions?

do you belive that technolyogy exists to fly commercial airlines by remote control, from the ground?

if you support the pancack theory of collapse, then what about the central cores?  surely the central cores have no right to collapse like the floors , offering no resistance..

building no.7. you may have your own theory, point to pieces of wtc 1&2 falling on it, diesel fuel inside etc. But are you not just a wee bit suspicious that the offical report didn't mention it all. Like it never happened? And the Complict MSM also didn't question  this...

Answer these questions please, Mr 9-11      ta

[BIGdavalad]

you say you have a good understanding of shaped charges, etc. not doubting this. but,  Does your knowledge extend to military grade explosives? Or just used in comercial demolitions?

Are military explosives invisible and allow you to demolish a building without any of the normal preperation or without any one of the 50,000 workers and God alone knows how many visitors every day in the tower noticing?

do you belive that technolyogy exists to fly commercial airlines by remote control, from the ground?

It does, in fact the RAF proved the technology in one of their aircraft not long ago. What do you suggest happened to the pilots and crew of the planes though? Not to mention the ground crews that would have prepared the planes for flight that day somehow without noticing all of the additional equipment that had been fitted to the plane?

Unless you're suggesting they found crews who were happy enough to die, managed to silence all of the ground crews who prepared the plane (or found ground crews who were also all prepared to be involved in killing however many people were going to be on the plane) and the crews who fitted the equipment (without anyone every noticing), the people who built the equipment and everyone else who was involved in the planning and preperation of the event?

[Alan_X]

Alan F

What is your understanding about Money? how it is created? who controls it? A previous post refered to international bankers. Does this have any bearing on things....

you say you have a good understanding of shaped charges, etc. not doubting this. but,  Does your knowledge extend to military grade explosives? Or just used in comercial demolitions?

do you belive that technolyogy exists to fly commercial airlines by remote control, from the ground?

if you support the pancack theory of collapse, then what about the central cores?  surely the central cores have no right to collapse like the floors , offering no resistance..

building no.7. you may have your own theory, point to pieces of wtc 1&2 falling on it, diesel fuel inside etc. But are you not a wee bit susaspicious that the offical report didn't mention it all. Like it never happened? And the Complict MSM also didn't question  this...

Answer these questions please, Mr 9-11      ta

 


No offence mate but have you been paying attention. What is the point in me pointing out all of the answers when it will make no difference whatsoever to your blind acceptance of utter shite?

Not sure about the relevance of banking and the creation of money? I posted recently that bankers are in general a bunch of utter c*nts but that has nothing to do with 9/11

I am not an expert on explosives but I know enough and have observed enough, including the opinions of well-regarded demolition experts, to know that controlled demolition of the two towers without anyone noticing the preparation was impossible. What the fuck have "military grade explosives" got to do with anything? If the premise is that the building was demolished by controlled demolition then why would they not use the right tools for the job. Do tell me about these "military grade explosives" and how they would have been used. Are they like the magical thermite/thermate that has never been used in demolition but was somehow used in a special magic mixture in this instance? maybe Harry Potter was responsible. Suggesting the towers were demolished by magic is as sensible (and supported by as many facts) as suggesting that some mystical special explosive was used that needs no preparation or detonation cords and doesn't show on the outside of the building when it shears through the 240 steel box sections that form the external skin of the building.

Fly a military plane from the ground by remote control? of course it's possible. Predator drones are flown by remote control from the ground. In fact you may or may not be aware that they also use "automatic pilots" to fly planes and land them. Is there any evidence that that is what occured on 9/11?" No. The evidence is that 19 Arab hijackers hijacked the planes and flew them into their targets. Why is that so hard to believe?

If you could actually be bothered to use your own eyes you'd see that the cores are actually left standing as the floors collapse around them. You would also see that large sections of the cladding peel away and fall at free fall speed. Look at this picture



See the debris below the huge dust cloud. That is falling at free fall speed - slowed only by the atmosphere. Look how much of the building is above it. See if you can understand this. The debris is falling at free fall speed.... but the mass of the building is above it.... it is falling slower... that's slower... than the debris which is falling in free fall. So try to remember that when your conspiracy mates tell you it fell at near free fall speed. It didn't.


and so on... and so on...

[Party Phil]

All these arguments about missiles, controlled demolitions, remote controlled planes, government agents posing as hijackers, etc, etc are pointless. They are almost certainly all founded in nonsense and pseudo-scientific bullshit. In my eyes there's no concrete evidence that the events of September 11th 2001 occurred in any way other than as we saw on TV and as has been officially explained.

The question is, whether people other than Bin Laden and Al Quaeda were masterminding the attacks. Was somebody else providing funding, passports, training etc? Was somebody else planting ideas in the heads of Osama and pals? Were certain entities deliberately hindering the intelligence gathering and treat response process that could have caught these terrorists before the attacks began? This is the kind of thing that is not so ludicrous to believe, does not rely on farcical made-up physics to explain and would be relatively easy to cover up. This is surely a more probable and worrying scenario than secret agents placing demolition charges and remote controlled airliners with non-existant passengers and crews.

[Paul_h]

don't agree Alan F. Money is the root of everything. If you havn't got firm grasp on how it is created, etc. then you need to educate yourself, And all things will become more clearer. Anyone who hasn't grasped by by now that the American MSM is completly controlled,  is, quite frankly, a fool.

military grade = miniturization. as opposed to the big chunky explosive devices you posted before and said this is how it has to be...chuckel.
 
there was a weekend powerdown just before 9-11 . security was handled by G W younger brother, Marvin who was also responsible for security at Dulles airport  and united Airlines (again, this is ignored by our MSM)

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/911security.html

Davo, did you see these piccs
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html

And about the planes. Are you not a wee bit suspicious yhat out of 4 planes that were supposedly hijacked, not 1 managed to press the sos button and raised the alarm

the planes could possibly have been switched at some military base enroute...

[wacko]

That's why I asked, I think the point is missed.  What I am saying is that people who blindly believe that their governments would not undertake such coverups as Nazi Germany and the one I was talking about (both of which have overwhelming evidence to prove the coverup happened) are much more dangerous than the conspiracy theorists that they say there is nothing worse than.  It was the propoganda that lead to the Holocaust, many who spoke about it at the time were accused of being conspiracy theorists because people did not believe that their government would do such things.  This is the whole point.  Alan disagreed with it in my understanding, saying that the title of the thread was correct, i.e. there is nothing worse than conspiracy theorists.

Most Germans tried to pretend it wasn't really happening, mostly borne of fear. The whole Jewish propaganda thing was just a more extreme version of the anti-immigrant sentiment in Britain today. If things were as bad economically as they were in Germany in the 30's, that sentiment would be a lot stronger, too.

Fear kept the general population in line. A few years back, I interviewed a couple of former members of the SPD Jugend (kind of the Jedi to the Hitler Jugend's Sith). They were taken to the Gestapo prison near what is now Hamburg's airport, beaten to a pulp for a few weeks, and then released so everyone could see what opening your mouth brought.

When faced with the actual reality of what the Nazis were doing, the Germans were just as appalled as we are now. At the concentration camp in Hamburg, Neuengamme, where they had an official policy of literally working the prisoners to death, they had the inmates dig a canal all the way to the Elbe. When they were behind the houses of local residents, these people took every gram of food they had, gave it to the children and told them to run amongst the prisoners and give it to them. An old lady smacked the shit out of an SS officer with her brolly.

At that time, there was no small interest in eugenics in the US. In Virginia, for example, imbeciles were routinely sterilised. There was considerable contact with the Nazis until they started murdering the disabled.

That's why we must never forget: it can happen to any of us. There was nothing unusually evil about the Germans.

[BIGdavalad]

military grade = miniturization. as opposed to the big chunky explosive devices you posted before and said this is how it has to be...chuckel.

See, I've seen the explosive charges our Royal Engineers play with a couple of times. The kind of thing you'd use to put a 'mousehole' in a wall or something similar. To be honest, if military grade = miniturization, I'd be scared to see how fucking big civvie explosives are. The things the Wedgeheads drag round with them are pretty fucking big. Not to mention the fact that they'd still need miles and miles of det cord to detonate all of those explosives and weeks of work to prepare the building...

Davo, did you see these piccs
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/wtc_charges.html

There's nothing in those pictures that's new, is there?