The Lightning RoundIf you're looking for a highly charged debate, this is the place to find it. But be forewarned, rules infractions are taken very seriously here.
Promote then, as an object of primary importance, institutions for the general diffusion of knowledge. In proportion as the structure of a government gives force to public opinion, it is essential that public opinion should be enlightened.
I have been researching the 9/11 conspiracy for about 2 weeks now, and I've come up with some interesting concepts, and there are some anomalies.
I do feel that there is suspiscion of sorts regarding 9/11
But I have yet to come to a definite conclusion.
I know that there will be some flames because of some narrow minded individuals that refuse to take it in consideration.
If, I'm not mistaken, I *think* that 5,300 gallons of jet fuel would ignite instantly....not sure though.
__________________
Last edited by JustinC939 : 08-29-2004 at 07:20 PM.
the states has some kind of penetrating missiles,made to go tru sand and concrete and into saddam's deep hideouts,then boom..looks like something liek that hit the pentagon,alto it didnt boom,mi think...
Maybe aliens did it. Conspiracy theories However, all conspiracy theories aside, I do believe the plane was hijacked by the terrorists and hit the Pentagon. There were pieces of the plane and bodies (pieces) recovered from the site. If the final second of the flight ended because the plane hit the building, or because a missile hit the plane before it hit the building, is really irrelevant at this point. The New World Order is coming, the Illuminati are in control, and the Rothschilds and the International Monetary Fund are controlling the world economy.
"While making few explicit allegations, the authors argue, in effect, that based on photographic and physical evidence, the damage to the Pentagon on September 11, 2001 could not have been caused by a crashing jetliner, contrary to the official and overwhelmingly accepted explanation.
The argument is weak. For starters, it conveniently ignores some of the most obvious, compelling evidence. For example:
Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon
The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage
The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77
Of course, the evasion of bedrock evidence is standard fare for conspiracy theorists. If pressed they would doubtless claim that all of the above must have been planted or manufactured, but they can't even prove such a claim plausible, let alone true beyond a reasonable doubt."
"Eschewing plain facts and common sense, they ask us to focus instead on misleadingly posed condundrums such as the following:
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"
Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. According to the Washington Post, structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?"
Answer: It didn't just crash into the ground floor. According to official statements and news reports, it took out both the first and second floors on impact.
Question: "Can you find debris of a Boeing 757-200 in this photograph?"
Answer: No, but we can in this one taken by an Associated Press photographer. Bear in mind, eyewitnesses say the Boeing 757 virtually disintegrated when it struck the reinforced wall of the building. Given that, and the tremendous forward momentum of the aircraft on impact, the assumption that a significant amount of debris ought to be visible in front of the Pentagon wouldn't seem justified.
According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes). "No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.
One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)"
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring." http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole." http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
"More importantly, the question focuses on the plane’s size and weight, making it sound extraordinarily heavy, but leaves out the size and weight of the Pentagon – America’s largest office building with three times the floor space of the Empire State Building - as well as the difference in relative stiffness and energy absorption between a building and an airplane. Each side of the Pentagon contains over 100,000 tons of Potomac sand mixed into the steel-reinforced concrete under its limestome facade. There are nearly 10,000 concrete piles anchoring each side of the building. And in the wake of bombings in Oklahoma City and Saudi Arabia, that portion of the Pentagon had just been reinforced with a computationally modeled lattice of steel tubes designed to prevent it from collapsing after an explosion.
By contrast, the plane is only 100 tons of custom alloys stretched thin enough to fly. It’s not like a giant bullet; more like a giant racing bike. Even so, the plane knocked down 10,000 tons of building material - 100 times its own weight - in the crash and subsequent collapse. Another 57,000 tons of the Pentagon were damaged badly enough to be torn down. The Brobdingnagian scale of the Pentagon makes the total area of damage seem small, but it would hold several Silicon Valley office buildings, or an airport terminal. " http://urbanlegends.about.com/gi/dyn...com/2002/03/14[/quote]
__________________
AMD AthlonXP 3000 (Barton) @ 2.3GHz
ASUS A7N8X-E Dlx 1.08 w/ 1024 RAM
Memorex DVD-R/W, DVD-ROM
80 GB & 160 GB SATA & 120 GB PATA Hard drives
ATI Radeon 9800 Pro
Samsung 19" Monitor 955DF
Eyewitness testimony of bystanders who saw and/or heard American Airlines Flight 77 approach and collide with the Pentagon
What about the witnesses who said it looked/sounded something like a commuter plane?
Also, what about the witnesses who said it sounded like a missile hit the Pentagon?
Quote:
The recovery of both black boxes belonging to the Boeing 757 from the Pentagon wreckage
Albeit completely destroyed from the impact, I thought they were supposed to survive. A
passport from 1 of the terrorists involved in the WTC attack survived, hmmmm.
Quote:
The recovery and identification of the remains of all but one of the people known to be aboard Flight 77
Why were no remains of the approximately sixty passengers and crew on the jet which
allegedly hit the Pentagon returned to relatives for burial?
Quote:
Of course, the evasion of bedrock evidence is standard fare for conspiracy theorists.
Apparently it's standard fare for government fanboys, too.
Quote:
Question: "Can you explain how a Boeing 757-200, weighing nearly 100 tons and travelling at a minimum speed of 250 miles an hour only damaged the outside of the Pentagon?"
Answer: It didn't only damage the outside. According to the Washington Post, structural damage extended at least 150 feet inside, well into the third ("C") ring of the building.
Follow up question: Can you explain how the outside wall simply does not look as if it was
hit by a 757?
Answer: No.
Quote:
According to a CNN article published the day after the attack, Michael Tamillow, a battalion chief of the Fairfax County, Virginia Fire Department, reported that parts of the Boeing 757 fuselage had indeed been recovered from the wreckage by FBI investigators (the same team that later found the black boxes).
How come we never saw any of the wreckage? It was as if the recovery by the FBI was a
stealth op. Perhaps there was something we didn't need to see, or they didn't want us
seeing...
Quote:
"No large pieces apparently survived," the article said.
Uh huh....
Quote:
One visitor who surveyed the crash site a few days later, Representative Judy Biggert of Illinois, told reporters she saw remnants of the jetliner: "There was a seat from a plane," she said, "there was part of the tail and then there was a part of green metal, I could not tell what it was, a part of the outside of the plane." (Chicago Sun-Times, 16 Sep, 2001)"
A seat survived but a large piece of the fuselage did not? Ok....
Quote:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole." http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
It would be funny if it was a cover up. I mean, most non-Americans were only really disturbed by the planes hitting the New York towers. Why would they lie about it?
The conpiracy theorists believe that it's their goal to bring about a new world order.
History has proven that it takes a disaster or a crisis to unite people, whether the purpose is malign or not.
Adolph Hitler burned down the Reichstag in 1933 to bring about the Third Reich.
And soon after 9/11 bills were passed that comprimise our constitution.
SILVERSTEIN Properties, the company which bought a 99-year lease on the World Trade Centre in April, organised a $1.5 billion (£1 billion) deal last month that securitised the rental income from tenants.
The conpiracy theorists believe that it's their goal to bring about a new world order.
History has proven that it takes a disaster or a crisis to unite people, whether the purpose is malign or not.
Adolph Hitler burned down the Reichstag in 1933 to bring about the Third Reich.
And soon after 9/11 bills were passed that comprimise our constitution.
I've researched the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and I was really surprised as to how much ground it holds....It isn't like the more flimsy ones such as did we really land on the moon.. It actually proposes alot of legitamate questions...They don't seem to offer an alterior reasoning for what ACTUALLY happened...if the convential wisdom about 9/11 is flawed..then what did happen??
__________________ "If we gave Olympic medals for fiscal irresponsibility, President Bush would take the gold, the silver and the bronze, because he's got the three highest record deficits ever."."He sets records in every single category: 2009 would be the gold; 2004 the silver; 2008 the bronze."
I've researched the conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 and I was really surprised as to how much ground it holds....It isn't like the more flimsy ones such as did we really land on the moon.. It actually proposes alot of legitamate questions...They don't seem to offer an alterior reasoning for what ACTUALLY happened...if the convential wisdom about 9/11 is flawed..then what did happen??
Many inconsistencies with the Pentagon attack. Check it out.
911 in Plane Site
__________________ George W. Bush <--- Al Qaeda's #1 Recruiter GWB - "Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job!"
On Nov. 6, 1963, Laura Welch (now Bush) ran a stop sign and murdered Michael Douglas. republiKan values: mark foley, tom delay, jack abramoff, john rowland, duke cunningham, david safavian, bob taft, brent wilkes, james tobin, scooter libby and ernie fletcher. Poster CRIMINALS and PEDOPHILES of the repug party. The only two things you ever need to know about GWB: "The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, 9/13/01
"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, 3/13/02
I've been reading this thread and decided to post my own comments. I've worked on aircraft for the last 18 years and am familiar with their construction and operation. I looked at pictures in several of the links, and I could see pieces of aircraft in ones that showed close ups of damaged areas. As for the "100 foot crater" that was mentioned in one, if you read the account of the incident; the plane struck the helipad which does show some damage.
As for what happened to the larger portions of the aircraft, you'd be amazed at what happens to aricraft on impact. It's not like the movies where the hero has something to go into. These big pieces of machinery will shred themselves into little pieces given the proper curcumstances. The bigger the aircraft, the more open volume it contains, the easier it is to crush. Also, if the steel sturctural members of the buildings suffered heat damage, what do you think happened to the aluminum of the aircraft when it has a lower melting point than the steel. Aircraft also contain magnesium in some components that burns very hot when ignited adding to the temperature.
If you wonder how a plane made of aluminum could penetrate concrete, just ask someone in physics to show you the formula for energy derived from weight versus speed. It's not a linear scale it goes up fast.
Wife of Solicitor General alerted him of hijacking from plane
September 12, 2001 Posted: 2:06 AM EDT (0606 GMT)
By Tim O'Brien
CNN
WASHINGTON -- Barbara Olson, a conservative commentator and attorney, alerted her husband, Solicitor General Ted Olson, that the plane she was on was being hijacked Tuesday morning, Ted Olson told CNN.
A short time later the plane crashed into the Pentagon. Barbara Olson is presumed to have died in the crash.
Her husband said she called him twice on a cell phone from American Airlines Flight 77, which was en route from Washington Dulles International Airport to Los Angeles.
Ted Olson told CNN that his wife said all passengers and flight personnel, including the pilots, were herded to the back of the plane by armed hijackers. The only weapons she mentioned were knives and cardboard cutters.
She felt nobody was in charge and asked her husband to tell the pilot what to do.
Ted Olson notified the Justice Department command center immediately.
He told CNN that his wife had originally been booked on a flight Monday, but delayed her departure because Tuesday was his birthday and she wanted to be with him in the morning.
Barbara Olson was a former federal prosecutor and served as Chief Investigative Counsel to the House Committee on Government Reform and Oversight during its probe into the Clinton Administration "Travelgate" scandal.
She had appeared frequently as a commentator on CNN.
How do the conspiracy believers explain this one... ...
That's the beauty of a good conspiracy theorists--facts are irrelevant, so there is no need to "explain" anything. Just counter it with a line of questioning to take it in a different direction.
See above where JasonG06 had plenty of questions in response to the quotes from the links I included in my earlier post. Each question impossible for me to answer, as I was not a witness, am not a structural engineer, nor do I work for the FBI or am I a forensic expert. It does not matter what factual information is posted, it is always countered with the postings of opinions and conjecture from a conspiracy website as the "absolute truth".
EDIT:
Oh, and to answer the question, I am sure that there is a good "conspiracy" explanation, as the plane was landed at a secret military installation and the passengers executed so there would be no witnesses. "THEY" would not want any witnesses that would expose the master plan of blowing up the Pentagon with a cruise missile to hurry along the coming of the New World Order.
Last edited by mwessinger : 08-30-2004 at 10:01 AM.
What's really comical is that you've got a bunch of people who know little to nothing about mechanics, dynamics, engineering, etc., all postulating what happens when a plane hits a building. These people (specifically the ones who buy into to other's "research") haven't a clue how to separate fact from fiction in these areas. It would be like me trying to translate Arabic for the FBI. I haven't got any training in the field and would be clueless.
AFSOCmech stated earlier about dynamic energy. It's an easy equation. Kinetic energy = mass * velocity^2 / 2. You go twice as fast and you have four times the kinetic energy. Now you take a bunch of material (manipulated to form an airplane) and you've got all these masses moving the same general direction and speed. When things start colliding with that much energy available, things tend to break. Funny thing is, stuff with the least strength and, more importantly, the least stiffness is often the most liable to survive.
There's an old story for engineers to relate things like mass, energy, stiffness, etc. Drop a mouse 100 feet and it bounces. Drop a man 100 feet and he dies. Drop a horse 100 feet and it splatters. There's another story for engineers called the KISS principle. It stands for Keep It Simple, Stupid. It means the simplest, most straight-forward explanation/solution is generally correct.
The biggest "anomoly" in this whole thing are the hoardes of people who don't know any better buying into a fantastical story simply because it sounds so enticing. Allow me to post some examples from this thread. Sorry to sound like I'm picking on people, but hey, someone's gotta point out the obvious.
JustinC777,
No, 5300 gallons of jet fuel won't simply "ignite instantly". It's a chemical reaction. It needs oxygen to complete, and 5300 gallons needs a *lot* of oxygen. If it gets sufficiently spread around it'll burn really fast and not very long. If it's concentrated in a sphere (least surface area for a given volume) you'll have a heckuva time getting it to burn effectively. Obviously a crash would tend to spread stuff around a bit, but you need oxygen to burn it.
JasonG06,
So a passport survived in NYC. So? It's light and flexible. Provided you don't burn it or run it through a shredder it will survive darn near anything. It's the proverbial "mouse" from the story above. A blackbox is a concentrated mass. They're designed for a lot of g-force, but not a direct impact into thousands of tons of concrete.
"Witnesses said it sounded like a missile hit the Pentagon." Okey-dokey. How many people here have heard a missile explosion? Bonus points for hearing one strike a reinforced concrete structure? What? None of those people have ever heard one? Hundreds and thousands of tons colliding at hundreds of miles per hour makes a loud "bang".
"Can you explain how the outside wall doesn't look like it's been hit by a 757?" Well gee Wally, it doesn't look like the *last* time a 757 hit a building. Oy, what does the average person know about impact mechanics?
"Where's the debris?" Well, a lot would be in/under the remains of the building. Most would not be recognizable. "Soft" stuff that didn't get burned is the most likely to survive, ala the seat example.
What happened at the Pentagon makes sense to people who research impact dynamics for a living. It makes sense to engineering sorts who study dynamics, strength of materials, etc. When one has no frame of reference I guess it's possible to believe anything.
See above where JasonG06 had plenty of questions in response to the quotes from the links I included in my earlier post. Each question impossible for me to answer, as I was not a witness, am not a structural engineer, nor do I work for the FBI or am I a forensic expert. It does not matter what factual information is posted, it is always countered with the postings of opinions and conjecture from a conspiracy website as the "absolute truth".
So just because it's on the news it's the "absolute truth"? Unless you work for the news (I'm
not sure if you do) you can't make that call, just like each question is impossible for you
answer because you weren't there and don't have any expertise in the fields you mentioned.
Quote:
Originally Posted by myv65
JasonG06,
So a passport survived in NYC. So? It's light and flexible. Provided you don't burn it or run it through a shredder it will survive darn near anything. It's the proverbial "mouse" from the story above. A blackbox is a concentrated mass. They're designed for a lot of g-force, but not a direct impact into thousands of tons of concrete.
Is the black box mounted on the front nose of the plane? No, it wasn't as if the black box
took a direct impact. There have been so many plane crashes, and the black box always
survived. Granted, those crashes weren't into the Pentagon, but how much of a disparity in
force of impact could there be? The passport still seems odd. And even if it did survive, what
would be the odds of finding it?
Quote:
"Witnesses said it sounded like a missile hit the Pentagon." Okey-dokey. How many people here have heard a missile explosion? Bonus points for hearing one strike a reinforced concrete structure? What? None of those people have ever heard one? Hundreds and thousands of tons colliding at hundreds of miles per hour makes a loud "bang".
There are still those who say they saw/heard a commuter plane both in D.C. and N.Y.C.
Quote:
"Can you explain how the outside wall doesn't look like it's been hit by a 757?" Well gee Wally, it doesn't look like the *last* time a 757 hit a building. Oy, what does the average person know about impact mechanics?
Well gee Beaver, unless the plane lost a lot of weight, that hole doesn't really look big
enough for a 757.
Quote:
"Where's the debris?" Well, a lot would be in/under the remains of the building. Most would not be recognizable. "Soft" stuff that didn't get burned is the most likely to survive, ala the seat example.
I see, a large part of the fuselage probably no more than a few yards away from that seat
melted, but the seat was there for Biggert to see. The 1 thing that surprises me is the fact
there was even enough fuel to melt that thing, then what's more, it was accurate enough
It's funny everything that has happened under Bush is a conspiracy to the left, it's akin to the paranoia you'd expect from extremists.
As to the passenger log, yes 5 of the 19 that hijacked planes that day were on flight 77, and there were lives lost (passengers and crews), wonder how the families of the deceased would react to the "reports" (LOL) that 77 didn't exist.
Is the black box mounted on the front nose of the plane? No, it wasn't as if the black box took a direct impact. There have been so many plane crashes, and the black box always survived. Granted, those crashes weren't into the Pentagon, but how much of a disparity in force of impact could there be? The passport still seems odd. And even if it did survive, what would be the odds of finding it?
For the "disparity in force", again you need to understand impact dynamics. The "hardness" or "stiffness" of the object one hits goes a long way in determining what happens to the crashing object. Hitting the earth or even water at 250 mph will kill everyone many times over, yet not yield the same forces as hitting reinforced, thick concrete (at the same speed, angle, etc.). Or as they say, it isn't speed that kills it's that darned deceleration. In "conventional" crashes, the boxes normally survive but it isn't like there haven't been failures in the past where some or all data could not be retrieved.
As for "the odds of finding it", I'd say pretty darn high. Agents would be going over everything with a fine tooth comb. Provided something didn't get blown too far from the scene (and body parts were indeed recovered a ways from the WTC), and provided the item didn't get found/removed by a bystander present during the accident, it's probable that agents would find it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonG06
Well gee Beaver, unless the plane lost a lot of weight, that hole doesn't really look big enough for a 757.
Maybe we should ask Ward and June. Anyways, the hole only needs to be big if the plane is going to go through intact.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JasonG06
I see, a large part of the fuselage probably no more than a few yards away from that seat melted, but the seat was there for Biggert to see. The 1 thing that surprises me is the fact there was even enough fuel to melt that thing, then what's more, it was accruate enough just to melt the fuselage, wow!!
It's easy to confuse "melted" with "yielded". A common manufacturing process with metals is "cold working". It means you put enough force into a "cool" metal to permanently deform it. With enough force you can cause that metal to take on any shape, including masquerading as melted. That's just one explanation. Thermal gradients can be quite high near fires resulting in melted aluminum (melting point ~<=1215°F, depending on alloy) with "preserved" plastic a mere few feet away. So there's logical explanations and there's fanciful explanations. I choose logic.
It's easy to confuse "melted" with "yielded". A common manufacturing process with metals is "cold working". It means you put enough force into a "cool" metal to permanently deform it. With enough force you can cause that metal to take on any shape, including masquerading as melted. That's just one explanation. Thermal gradients can be quite high near fires resulting in melted aluminum (melting point ~<=1215°F, depending on alloy) with "preserved" plastic a mere few feet away. So there's logical explanations and there's fanciful explanations. I choose logic.
So it didn't melt, then why, according to the fire chief, did they not find a lot of it? Some
went underground? Don't you think they'd dig it up? No, it's much more logical to just leave
major evidence pertaining to one of the most grave and tragic events to ever occur in U.S.
So just because it's on the news it's the "absolute truth"? Unless you work for the news (I'm not sure if you do) you can't make that call, just like each question is impossible for you answer because you weren't there and don't have any expertise in the fields you mentioned.
I never said that "just because it's on the news it's the "absolute truth". However, I guess I paid attention enough in school to be able to understand the forces at work in such an impact, and can look at the situation logically. I don't have to have an expertise to make up my mind based on the evidence presented.
Do you know the qualifications and education of Gerard Holmgren? (That is the author you linked in the post.) Is Gerard and expert, or does he just write well, and it is something you believe?
"One of the wilder stories circulating about Sept 11, and one that has attracted something of a cult following amongst conspiracy buffs is that it was carried out by 19 fanatical Arab hijackers, masterminded by an evil genius named Osama bin Laden, with no apparent motivation other than that they "hate our freedoms."
"According to the practitioners of the fruit loop, 19 Arabs took over the 4 planes by subduing the passengers and crew through the use of guns, knives, box cutters and gas, and then used electronic guidance systems which they had smuggled on board to fly the planes to their targets."
That's the beauty of a good conspiracy theorists--facts are irrelevant, so there is no need to "explain" anything. Just counter it with a line of questioning to take it in a different direction.
"Can you explain how the outside wall doesn't look like it's been hit by a 757?" Well gee Wally, it doesn't look like the *last* time a 757 hit a building. Oy, what does the average person know about impact mechanics?
In other words, there is no precedent for a 757 hitting a building, namely the Pentagon.
Quote:
For the "disparity in force", again you need to understand impact dynamics. The "hardness" or "stiffness" of the object one hits goes a long way in determining what happens to the crashing object. Hitting the earth or even water at 250 mph will kill everyone many times over, yet not yield the same forces as hitting reinforced, thick concrete (at the same speed, angle, etc.).
Since a plane hitting a building and hitting land/water are 2 different things, and since there
is no precedent for a plane hitting a building, how can you accurately assess what
i dont know enough to take sides on this debate at all, well i guess i slightly lean towards the "conspiracies" being wrong but really im unsure.
the following was posted on another forum though, and this guy knows his stuff, and also happens to be quite right leaning (bush supporter as well), so its not just "anti-bush" stuff getting in the way.
that said, who knows if hes right.
Quote:
I never believed a 757 hit the Pentagon. Although most of you know where I politically stand. If you ask any pilot about this, they'll tell you a 757 was never there... We all saw the 767s hit the WTC, you can't lie about that... As I remember from the early morning, there were 4 hijacks. And 4 planes were reported missing by the ATC. 2 hit WTC, one was shot down by a F-16 in Pennsylvania (Bush made that statement, but shortly after it was "corrected", so it reflected more on the passengers being heros as they took over the plane in a vicious fight, but could not regain controls of the airplane). And the other hit the Pentagon. I made up my own opinion a few months after 9/11 that there were 2 airplanes shot down in Pennsylvania. I mean the wreckage span for MILES and MILES apart... That's crazy, especially when you had a mid air collision with the Russian TU-154B with the B757-200 2 years ago and the wreckage of both planes wasn't that much apart... Even the d**n space shuttle that burned up on re-entrance, the wreckage was kind of in a straight line... The one in Pennsylvania was like all over the place... I beleive 2 planes went down over there and some kind of missile hit the Pentagon... Also I don't believe in 2 greatly engineered buildings to collapse from those 767 impacts... I mean they were built to withstand 6 frikken 747s each...
note: the part regarding the WTC collapsing was sort of later corrected by him.
__________________
Abit NF7-S rev 2 - 1700+ tbred B @ 2.4 ghz - 512 mb OCZ PC3500EL - ATI 9800 Pro
"see it, believe it, never stop working to make it happen"
In other words, there is no precedent for a 757 hitting a building, namely the Pentagon.
Since a plane hitting a building and hitting land/water are 2 different things, and since there
is no precedent for a plane hitting a building, how can you accurately assess what
happened?
That is the whole point. Few if any of the "conspiracy theorists" have sufficient training to understand the situation. Like a bunch of amatuer Nancy Drew's they point out supposed oddities and say, "See, here's evidence of a coverup!"
One can learn to make educated guesses based on the governing physics. One can simulate situations, as has been done crashing jets (commercial and military) intentionally into all manner of things including reinforced concrete.
The former takes little effort and an vivid imagination. The latter takes much effort and yes, imagination as well, for one must make a concerted effort to apply known results to the unknowns involved. The latter doesn't make for much juicy debate (unless you're a real gear-head) and doesn't draw the conspiracy crowd like pigs-on-slop the way the former does.
Intelligent people can debate about how things happened and dissect the milliseconds involved. Only the grandly disillusioned would argue whether or not a 757 crashed at the site.
One can learn to make educated guesses based on the governing physics. One can simulate situations, as has been done crashing jets (commercial and military) intentionally into all manner of things including reinforced concrete.
So using my eyes to see that it really doesn't look like a plane hit it isn't an educated guess?
Simulations only go so far in recreating the situation, and they'll never be able to have it
100 percent exact.
Quote:
Maybe we should ask Ward and June. Anyways, the hole only needs to be big if the plane is going to go through intact.
Ok, so perhaps it didn't go through intact. In that case, where's the other stuff that came
Take this into consideration:
Before you disregard all of these conspiracy "theories"; are we to believe that a handful of cavemen from Afgahnistan hijacked 4 planes with box cutters?
I'll post a general reply to some of the comments from earlier. I have been up close and personal with destroyed aircraft. One example is an F-16 that sustained a ground impact. The aircraft bounced back into the air and came apart. wreckage was spread over a very large distance and in very small pieces. No weapons were on board to aid in the destruction of the plane. The only easily identifiable pieces of the plane were the vertical tail, the (twisted) landing gear, the severely compacted engine and the remanants of the canopy that now fit loosely in a bag you would pack you clothes in. I've also poked around in the classroom for the accident investigation course at Sheppard Air Force Base. There was a complete F-4 engine in there that could fit in the back of a small pickup with room to spare. I've also been present at the exact moment of a crash. In the late 80's at Ramstein Air Base, the Italian aerobatic team had a mid-air collision destroying four of the team aircraft. The closest sound I can think of to describe it would be like soda cans being crushed. It didn't even sound like a crash at first and most spectators initially thought it was some part of the show.
As to the question of why it didn't penetrate further if was just weight and speed involved; a little thing called resistance. As the aircraft goes through walls it has to use energy to do it. As it pentrates each barrier it has less energy for the next one; it's not that complex.
On to the size of the opening; it doesn't surprise me at all that it would leave a smaller opening than you might expect. The strongest structure of the aircarft is a series of longitudinal (front to rear) beams running the length of the fuselage. Everything else may literally fold in upon itself. Each piece also has it's own forward momentum.
As to the fuel issue, jet fuel is more like a mixture of diesel and kerosene than gasoline. It can also burn very hot. The T56 engines that I've worked with operate with a turbine inlet temperature of up to 1077 degrees centigrade. Europeans and others can probably comprehend that, Americans may need to find a formula to convert to farenheit. Suffice to say, pretty damn hot.
In regards to the passport, I'm not surprised something like that may have been found, they were looking pretty closely for anything that may help shed light on what happened. In the aformentioned F-16 wreckage which covered nearly two miles, they found most of the pilot including his wedding ring.
I welcome input on this from any other aircraft mechanics or from those people who have witnessed and aircraft crash and we can compare experiences.
I apologize for the length. I just wanted to provide a little background on where I'm coming from in this matter.
Before you disregard all of these conspiracy "theories"; are we to believe that a handful of cavemen from Afgahnistan hijacked 4 planes with box cutters?
Well, what was I thinking? Of course. Surely there could not be anyone in such a backward, pre-historic place like Afghanistan that could possibly hijack an airplane.
I don't recall very big holes in the WTC towers. I don't recall seeing any wreckage.
I do recall seeing planes flying into the towers on TV. Maybe it was hollywood?
While some may find this intriguing I put it in the same bin with most other conspiracy theories. It's labelled "TRASH".
I also think it does a great dishonor to those who lost their lives on flight 77 and in the pentagon that morning. And from some of the posts in here, a great dishonor to all who lost their lives in the 9/11 tragedy. Please don't tell me we're rewriting history already.
Look at it this way, either way we're dealing with deception in some form. Whether by our own government, or the conspiracy theorists.
Some conspiracy theorists could be under the pretense that our government is behind this when it may not be infact, or they could be doing this to instegate trouble with our government and nothing more.
Or our government could be behind this and they could be the deceptors, the conspirators.Thus we are dealing with deception.
and when dealing with deception it's very difficult to argue one side to the other.
Because the argument would be that "See! They Tricked You!"
And that could be used virtually anywhere.
I have looked at alot of the evidence that points in either direction, but trying hard to stay neutral, I find it difficult to come up with a final conclusion.
There is no "conclusive" evidence that will tell us the truth.
Alot of the evidence advocating the potential conspiracy is theoretical, becasue 757s don't crash into skyscrapers, and fortresses on a regular basis, so scientifically speaking; we have nothing to truly compare these events to.
But looking at some of that shadyness involved in this I forces me to question.
And furthermore, looking at all of the scandals of our political figures, and the people that we elect to be run our country, and such. Everywhere in the news, and on the net we see people speaking of lies and scandals by this guy, and that guy, just look at the threads in this forum.
The corruption is obvious, but people are too engaged in their debate to see it.
And how do we know that the corruption doesn't strecth further than what we see, or wan't to see for that matter.
How do we know if our news sources are not corrupted?
Is it not funny that this being the event that changed the U.S. so dramatically is not being investigated further by any major news agency?
We see in depth investigations on so many other subject that would seem utterly trivial compared to 9/11.
History tends to repeat itself.
The burning of the Reichstag is was done by Hitler so he could declare marshall law, and commence Nazi Germany.
A Crisis was created so people would willingly sacrifice their liberties, in place of so called "security"
And what has "The Patriot Act" or "The Homeland Securit Act" really done for us, other than do away with our liberties.
Our country is no less vulnerable to a foreign terrorist attack now than what it was on 9/10/01.
The events that happend on 9/11 were tragic, and nobody means any sort of disrespect to them in any form.
This is a debate as any other in this forum, and it deserves some respect.
But I'm wouldn't try to persuade one to take one stance to the other. But I feel it's very important to research this for yourself, and pay attention, and look at the argument from both sides.
I can't respect one who just looks at the evidence suggesting the conspiracy is true, and not take a few minutes to look at the other side, and vice versa.
Processors
Motherboards
Chipsets
Memory
Graphics Cards
Storage
Cases and Cooling
Mobile
Systems
Displays
Shows and Expos
.
...
Linear Mode
