[CentralTexas]

Up for some conspiracy theories?
This is the updated second film. Most of this info is available in pieces if you Google it, this just puts it together. Make up your own mind about the info, I'll be in the basement.....
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5137581991288263801&q=loosechange

[Biker]

A synopsis? My computer is slower than molasses in February.
Biker

[boofus]

If Bush wanted to take over the country wouldn't it be easier to just fly the airliners into the Democrat National Convention rather than the WTC? :confused:

[CentralTexas]

Boofus,
1- Why do you suspect Bush of that?
2-You watched what, 5 minutes of it?
CT

[M.E.Eldridge]

My internet connection is a piece of crap. Slow crap. Thus, I second Biker's notion for a synopsis/summary.

[hkmp5g17]

I think everyone should watch this- all the way through. I don't agree with everything in it- but there are obviously big gaps between the official story- and reality.

[cosine]

Don't waste your time. Junk. Pure junk. I got seven minutes into it and couldn't put up with any more of the conspiracy garbage. :barf:

Some people have way to much time on their hands (like the creators of this video), and have little or no understanding of how many and complex activities take place in a country this size every day, every week, etc., both in private, public, corporate, and government sectors. :rolleyes: Hence, too much time and an inflated ego which one thinks is smarter than others and which one thinks notices more than others notice is fertile breeding ground for this unimpressive type of paranoid conspiracy junk. Occam's razor will suffice for me, thank you very much.

Central Texas, if you think it is so important for us to know what is said in the video, please give us a written synposis so that we don't have to watch an hour and a half of nonsense. Starting out with seven full minutes of conspiracy theories like the creators of the video did doesn't keep your audience around long, even if there is better and more important information coming up later on in the video.

[gc70]

Neither scary nor entertaining, but probably good for boosting tinfoil sales.

[CentralTexas]

For those that deny the State Guard killed American college students at Kent State, That we never used Army troops, civilians or blacks for syphilis, nuclear, biological or other experiments, that Nixon, Kennedy, Clinton and Bush have never lied because well "they are/were the president", you won't get anything from this.
Telling you about a book or movie doesn't give the same experience so you will have to see it for yourself. I don't agree with some of it either, but what if only 10% is true?
CT

[answerguy]

but what if only 10% is true?
Awww, the old fling some crap on the wall and hope some of it sticks routine.

What if I knowingly said 100 lies about you, in hopes I could get people to believe that 10% of those lies are true?

[bogie]

Just remember - Bush and Cheney are the Great Satans, so you should vote for someone worse.

[jazurell]

This dude poses lots of questions without any definitive answers of his own. The film is filled with innuendo supreme, but not much science.
If this guys premise is true that it was all a conspiracy, regardless of who might have been president, there would have had to be massive use of the government and armed forces to make it all happen. Do you think for a single minute that all these folks would remain silent after seeing the loss of lives in which they took part? Someone’s conscience would have been bothering them by now that they would have come forward, I would hope.
Isn't is always interesting how some people are intelligent enough to single handedly find all the answers to a series of events after the fact, but they are not intelligent enough to see it all coming? Guess it was like the Psychic hotline going bankrupt....if they were so psychic, why did they not see their own demise coming???

[CentralTexas]

"Isn't is always interesting how some people are intelligent enough to single handedly find all the answers to a series of events after the fact, but they are not intelligent enough to see it all coming? "

Like when the FAA investigates a plane crash and says "there was a wrench left in the engine" or "structural failure in a new design", they should have known mechanics make mistakes, not all designs are perfect and nothing is gained by investigating after the fact? Brilliant!
I love this sort of thing, shoot the messanger, refuse to acknowledge anything that differs from the governments account is "tin foil hat" material.
I'm not advocating anything other than you should watch it so you can make your ownconclusions.
CT

[Old Dog]

Actually, CT -- I think the the truth is obvious to those of us who've worked in government or spent much time in the military -- there is simply no way to keep a vast conspiracy a secret. Remember, two people can keep a secret -- if one of 'em's dead.

[Merkin.Muffley]

Yet another attack on President Bush, the greatest leader of our time.

[CentralTexas]

"Actually, CT -- I think the the truth is obvious to those of us who've worked in government or spent much time in the military -- there is simply no way to keep a vast conspiracy a secret. Remember, two people can keep a secret -- if one of 'em's dead."

Absolutely agree-as someone with military/Govt experience and prior security clearances. A vast conspiracy is hard to manage. One that is done in seemingly disconnected bit's is easier to manage. I have some serious issues with some of the theories such as where are the occupants on the plane that hit the Pentagon then? Etc.
I also think the "obvious truth" to those of us who have spent time in the military is that things happen & are covered up on occasion. Look at the Waco incident, the story continued to change and admissions were made, evidence covered up etc.To this large a level though? Unlikely but....

Let's look at Oklahoma City, I bought the official story until people started digging. Once I realized fed agents were told not to show up, first news reports quoting city/fire officials saying bombs had been found, still no release of 13+ security cams of the Ryder truck McVeigh drove "alone" despite repeated FOIA requests, well it gets easier to assume there is something shady going on, Besides questioning government is patriotic and makes them work harder to conceal what they are up to.:neener:
CT

[jazurell]

I'm not advocating anything other than you should watch it so you can make your own conclusions.
And we are only giving our opinion after viewing the film, thank you. Why are you so defensive of others' opinions that differ from the film? Was the compilation of clips for this 'film' partly your work?
Also, if there appeared to be a shred of logic to the film, if the film had any chance standing up to scientific scrutiny, the news media would have endorsed it hook, line, and sinker by now and it would have been shown in it's entirety on national TV. They will do anything to ding Bush.

[CAnnoneer]

CT,

Thank you for the link. Enlightening. Anyone who has a basic understanding of physics will be convinced the official version is one BIG FAT LIE.

Now I am convinced that:
1) the Pentagon, if hit at all, was not hit by a jet liner. A physical impossibility.
2) the three towers were demolished from inside
3) many people knew about it in advance, to different level of detail

Titanium and reinforced steel simply do not melt/evaporate/weaken at any temperatures consistent with the offician version. Sorry, but the laws of physics are not subject to partisan tweaking. I think some of the above posters should be ashamed of themselves.

[CentralTexas]

"Why are you so defensive of others' opinions that differ from the film? Was the compilation of clips for this 'film' partly your work?"

I'm not, as I said I disagree with much of it. I just have an issue with folks that post 5 minutes after the 1Hr & 20 min film is linked saying it's garbage.
I'm pretty sure that most critics didn't watch the whole thing and so are speaking from a point of being uninformed about it. I posted it for it's different viewpoint, make up your own mind (but at least watch it first). I'm not going to spend anymore time "defending" it, I could care less. It's interesting and amusing and maybe has some truth , maybe not. I would like to see some links or discrediting (from a person in the know) of much of their scientific evidence and experts they brought out. Say for instance can a jumbo jet hit the lawn in front of the Pentagon on it's way in and not disturb giant reels of cable sitting in it's path? Or "vaporize" from heat leaving little plane but lot's of Pentagon?
CT

[rock jock]

Conspiracies are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them.

[rock jock]

I should also say that I agree wth cosine, that conspiracy nuts propose this crap because it gives them a sense of superiority over the "common" man.

[ctdonath]

Telling you about a book or movie doesn't give the same experience so you will have to see it for yourself.Any time someone insists on not telling even the slightest premise of what the book/movie is about, it's usually not worthwhile. Seriously, you started this thread with NO info about it, no indication of whether it was long or short, fiction or nonfiction, political or scientific, etc. Zippo nyet nada.

We then learn that it's a conspiracy theory. I've followed a lot of conspiracy theories, and most of them amount to taking a small misunderstanding and constructing an elaborate demonzied explaination.

Occam's Razor rules. If something seems fishy, it's probably because you're ignorant - not because of a conspiracy.

No, I'm not going to watch a movie-length video when the the person insisting I do refuses to tell me why. I've learned that's usually a bad sign, and I've got better things to watch (like Harry Potter 3).

BTW: The "but what if 10% is true" line doesn't work. There are far more viable discussions of the worthy-of-concern truth than wading thru 1.5 hours of mud-slinging dreck. And what if 0% is true? what a waste of time THAT is then!

Go watch "Deliverance". THAT is the scariest movie I have ever seen.

[ctdonath]

Say for instance can a jumbo jet hit the lawn in front of the Pentagon on it's way in and not disturb giant reels of cable sitting in it's path? Or "vaporize" from heat leaving little plane but lot's of Pentagon?Brother. Here we go again.

I've reviewed a lot of the 9/11 Pentagon material & theories. Those slinging accusitorial questions about various "facts" are wilfully ignorant of what actually happened.

Giant reels of cable? it missed them. Really, it did.

"Vaporized"? Compared with a huge hardened concrete structure, the plane was little more than an aluminum-foil bag of air & fuel hitting a large rock. And YES, there was a lot of plane debris lying around afterwards.

I'll stop there. I've seen the 9/11 conspiracy theories. The're rubbish. Every point can be explained with a simple natural explaination. The problem is that the conspiracy theorists, having little grasp of the real world, fling half-fact half-assed accusations so fast & thick that you can't get a rational response in edgewise ... which perversely eggs them on, because the lack of sane explaination (regardless of having no time to review it) is pointed at as proof of conspiracy, and any sane explaination is either attacked with fervor, with either any perceivable hole instantly burdened with more conspiracies, or the sane explaination is ignored outright.

Conspiracy theorists have a very weak grasp of reality, and feed off each others' rumors. Pretty pathetic, really. If someone doesn't want to be convinced of mundane reality, it's amazing how much effort they'll put into concocting elaborate mental tarpits.

[ctdonath]

I would like to see some links or discrediting (from a person in the know) of much of their scientific evidence and experts they brought out.One word: Google (http://www.google.com).

[Warbow]

1) the Pentagon, if hit at all, was not hit by a jet liner. A physical impossibility.

Yeah! All of those people driving to work that morning who reported they saw the airliner fly over them towards the Pentagon are part of the conspiracy! Don't believe them!

2) the three towers were demolished from inside

Riiiight. That's why the structural failures can be seen occurring in the various footage where the airliners had plowed into each of the towers. The conspirators were so good that they were able to prepare the towers and set up their explosives without any of the thousands of occupants noticing, and they put them exactly where the planes were to impact in the weeks/months ahead on 9/11. And somehow none of the wiring or explosives were destroyed or disturbed by the freakin' huge disintegrating jet and fireball that ripped through several stories, nor the huge fire that erupted after that. Man, they're damn good.

[DKSuddeth]

Yet another attack on President Bush, the greatest leader of our time.

Are you under 21? Because there is no way in hell that Bush will EVER be better than Reagan.

[ctdonath]

Awright, let's say the 9/11 conspiracies ARE true. Then what about...

- Four fully loaded (fuel & passengers) jetliners crashed within minutes of each other, observed by thousands (perhaps millions with the second tower hit) and recorded on film/video by the hundreds.
- Thousands of people died.
- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.
- Hundreds of commuters saw a plane fly extremely low toward the Pentagon, with fireball & explosion moments later.
- and so on.

Doesn't the normal explaination of 9/11 provide >90% of the reasons for what happened?
Isn't it reasonable to think that, if re-enacted without any conspiracy, pretty much the same thing would happen again under pretty much the same conditions?
Ah mean SERIOUSLY: what do you THINK happens when you run a fully-loaded 767 into a skyscraper?
or into the Pentagon?
what do you THINK happens when you throw 160 TONS of airplane & fuel into a glass wall?
or a hardened concrete wall?
Do you REALLY think the glass-wall WTC really needed additional help to come down, yet are surprised the hardened-concrete (built for just such a hit) Pentagon took such little damage?
Do you REALLY think an enormous uber-secret conspiracy is needed to fill in the details of that event that you don't quite understand?

[CentralTexas]

cdonath,
Just for fun let's look at your post, just playing devils advocate, I'm able to explore ideas before I discredit them or accept them. -

" Four fully loaded (fuel & passengers) jetliners crashed within minutes of each other, observed by thousands (perhaps millions with the second tower hit) and recorded on film/video by the hundreds.

Unless you fueled the planes & loaded the passengers you really don't know that it's fact they were fully loaded

- Thousands of people died.

At least in the towers


- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.

So what about the films explanation? Didn't watch it?

- Hundreds of commuters saw a plane fly extremely low toward the Pentagon, with fireball & explosion moments later.

I don't recall any large amount of eyewitnesses, that always bugged me. I would take any links to the reports of hundreds as making up for it though.

- and so on."

[CentralTexas]

RockJock said-

"Conspiracies are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them. "

Let's try-

Closed minds are for sad, lonely people who cannot comprehend a world that is frightening and confusing to them.

I'm sure you are from a long line of "Burn her, she's a witch! " types....

CT

[CentralTexas]

ctdonath wrote-
"Seriously, you started this thread with NO info about it, no indication of whether it was long or short, fiction or nonfiction, political or scientific, etc. Zippo nyet nada."

My first sentence said it was a CONSPIRACY film. Not your cup of tea? Don't click the link, Click the link and see the LENGTH written there.
Didn't realize it needed spelling out, most conspiracies poted in the LEGAL & POLITICAL section are LEGAL or POLITICAL.
Watch it or not, My salary doesn't change.
CT

[Sergeant Sabre]

The video claims this:

July 28th 1945: A B-52 bomber lost in the fog crashed into the 79th floor of the Empire State Building...

Hmmm, how many B-52s were flying in 1945? Somebody isn't checking thier facts properly. Zero B-52s were flying in 1945. That's a pretty glaring error.

In fact, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. A tiny, flimsy, slow, propeller-driven B-25. Anybody with sense would dismiss a comparison between the 9/11 aircraft and a B-25. Perhaps the false assertion that a giant, heavy, fast, B-52 was the culprit was not an error at all?

What other glaring errors are contained therin?

Then we have more assertions that this building and that building burned for ten hours, twenty hours, etc. over multiple floors, but they didn't collapse. Well, so what? How many tons of titanium, aluminum, and steel was slammed into those buildings before the fire? How many thousands of pounds of jet fuel accelerated those fires? The answer is zero and zero. So here we have an invalid and misleading comparison.

I won't even go into detail about all of the eye-witness statements. Who cares? Eye-witness testimony is the most unreliable evidence possible. I dismiss it in whole.

What a stupid video...

(It's entertaining, though)

[JohnKSa]

People LIKE conspiracy theories. They WANT to believe them. So if you have even a half-way decent conspiracy theory, it's pretty easy to sell--especially to someone who doesn't have much knowledge of the facts.

I spent several years reading and watching everything I could find on the Kennedy assassination. I still have 30 or 40 books on the topic and that's not everything I've read--not by a long shot. I visited Dealy Plaza a couple of times. In the beginning I was absolutely convinced that there was a conspiracy--because at that time I really didn't know anything except what I had heard in the popular myths. The more I read, the more I watched, the more I studied, the less I was able to believe. One day I finally realized that as much as I WANTED to believe, I couldn't believe the conspiracy theory any more. I knew too much about the facts and they didn't support a conspiracy.Titanium and reinforced steel simply do not melt/evaporate/weaken at any temperatures consistent with the offician version. Sorry, but the laws of physics are not subject to partisan tweaking. No but facts ARE subject to tweaking. Better yet, you can leave out a few facts and let the remaining facts paint a very different story than the truth. A few minutes of internet search will answer any questions you have about the steel weakening in the WTC.

This conspiracy theory isn't nearly as good as most.

[ctdonath]

Unless you fueled the planes & loaded the passengers you really don't know that it's fact they were fully loadedWith that reasoning, anyone who didn't actually see the events in person, in detail, is suspect.

And that is the problem with the whole conspiracy thing: question one fact, or lack one fact, and suddenly there's room to shove a whole conspiracy in.

Unfortunately, those favoring conspiracy theories have the motivation to advance them, whereas those who see well-documented facts as plainly understandable do not have the motivation to keep taking on the fervent adherents to insanity.

There are those who are tasked with sifting thru the actual details. They have published their findings; there is no reason to doubt them. Those who come up with conspiracies, however, have plenty of reason to be doubted. Yes, I've read both.

So what about the films explanation? Didn't watch it?Why should I? I've watched/read plenty on both sides of the subject. I've consistently seen that the "terrorists" explaination makes complete sense, while the "conspiracy" explaination is little more than the rantings & rehashings of hysterical ignoramuses. Unless you can give me a summary that indicates this film is actually worth watching, I'll figure it's no more worth watching than the other conspiratorial dreck I've wasted my time on.

I don't recall any large amount of eyewitnesses, that always bugged me. I would take any links to the reports of hundreds as making up for it though.Weren't watching the news that week, were you? There were plenty of witnesses. There were videotapes, too - like the parking lot camera that shows a plane-sized object moving at plane-like speeds hitting the Pentagon at an attack-suitable location and making a plane-like explosion. There were right-afterwards photos of plane debris all around.

Just shouting "prove it! I think it's a conspiracy!" at every plainly explainable point is just annoying. Having to provide proof for every little hysterical nutcase accusation gets tiresome. I've heard the claims, and proved them bogus with ease; no, I don't want to see another charlitan's hysterical mockumentary.

[CAnnoneer]

Yeah! All of those people driving to work that morning who reported they saw the airliner fly over them towards the Pentagon are part of the conspiracy! Don't believe them!

You did not watch the movie, did you? Where is the wreckage of the plane? Where are the engines? Why is the impact hole so small? Why are there no pieces like the ones in many other crashes of similar planes? Why does the officially released footage show no plane hitting the Pentagon? 180 bodies were preserved enough to be identified, but the explosion evaporated all the titanium of the engines? Where are the drag marks on the lawn? Where is the spilt gasolene or scorch marks thereof where the wings hit the street posts (gas tanks are in the wings, not in the fuselage)? Why are the posts uprooted but not bent? Where are the broken off wings? Why is the explosion so tiny next to the one of the second tower being hit?

See, people lie. Cameras don't. Unless, the officially released footage and the news footage were doctored to leave these questions?

None of it adds up.

[Dannyboy]

- Clear video shows two airplanes crashing headlong into the Twin Towers, complete with fireballs and stuff (like engines) flying out the opposite sides.

So what about the films explanation? Didn't watch it?


Was that "the airliner, that actually looked like some kind of military/cargo plane, fired a missile just before it impacted and that's what caused the huge fireball" explanation?

[CAnnoneer]

Riiiight. That's why the structural failures can be seen occurring in the various footage where the airliners had plowed into each of the towers. The conspirators were so good that they were able to prepare the towers and set up their explosives without any of the thousands of occupants noticing, and they put them exactly where the planes were to impact in the weeks/months ahead on 9/11. And somehow none of the wiring or explosives were destroyed or disturbed by the freakin' huge disintegrating jet and fireball that ripped through several stories, nor the huge fire that erupted after that. Man, they're damn good.

Again, you did not watch the actual footage. The towers collapsed within 10 sec from the beginning of the collapse, while free fallin vaccuum would have taken 7 sec. This means the entire tower was virtually in free fall at the time of collapse. Please explain how that is physically possible without a series of charges cutting up the spine. The collapse of all three towers is exactly like the collapse of buildings that are demolished from inside by the said scheme of charges.

Take a long iron nail. Put a weight on it, then heat it. Will it collapse suddenly like a deck of cards, or will it bend first?

Experts that built the building explained that it would take several hours at 3000F to weaken that steel. It happend within 40 min of the impact at 2000F or below. Please explain that. Similar buildings that were far less engineered for safety sustained far worse fires longer and did not collapse. Why did these do?

Please explain how debris from one building would neatly collapse the third tower in the same pattern.

[hillbilly]

Looks like somebody ran out of money for the good stuff and has gone back to smoking that cheap street crank again......:rolleyes:

hillbilly

[Ezekiel]

I don't know. I think this sort of stuff would require the really good street crank to come up with. :confused:

[ctdonath]

Where is the wreckage of the plane? http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/images/flight77/debris/mystery_debris.jpg
Most of the debris was inside - remember, it was moving that direction.Where are the engines?http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/CF6.jpegWhy is the impact hole so small? Because airplane bodies (central cylinder) aren't very wide. The the wings, being mostly thin aluminum structures full of fuel, don't do much damage against reinforced concrete built to withstand air assault (but surface impact/fire damage is clearly visible).Why are there no pieces like the ones in many other crashes of similar planes?There isn't much left at other comparable crash sites either.Why does the officially released footage show no plane hitting the Pentagon?http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/video/flight77/pentagon_cctv.gif It's pretty obvious to me.180 bodies were preserved enough to be identified, but the explosion evaporated all the titanium of the engines?That's a new one.Where are the drag marks on the lawn?It's an airplane. It flies. Go figure. Where is the spilt gasolene or scorch marks thereof where the wings hit the street posts?It was moving several hundred miles an hour, not much time for spillage to occur. Why are the posts uprooted but not bent?A lot of stuff got damaged. Wierd things happen in large explosions - even without conspiracies. Go figure. Where are the broken off wings? Pulverized. Happens when a thin metal bag full of fuel smashes at high speed against a rock and ignites.Why is the explosion so tiny next to the one of the second tower being hit?"Tiny" isn't accurate. That ain't a tiny explosion.
Actually, both explosions are about the same size: roughly 15 stories tall.
Only real difference is that at the WTC, the explosion had room to expand horizontally (thru the office space & out the other side), whereas the Pentagon was more containing.


The strike has been analyzed in great detail at http://news.uns.purdue.edu/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

[JohnKSa]

Cannoneer,

The "experts" in the film seem to disagree dramatically with what REAL experts say about structural steel. The "facts" in the movie sound good until you know the REAL facts.

Seriously, do a little research ON YOUR OWN. You have the internet at your fingertips. Use it. You can debunk that movie in far less time than it took to watch it.

[ctdonath]

I've seen other analyses of the WTC collapse. Everything makes sense.

Spend some time at Nova: Why The Towers Fell (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/).

[Old Dog]

I'm just gonna believe the accounts of my friends ... who were actually working there, that horrible day.

I am almost to the point of being highly offended by some of the things said in this thread. Example:
1) the Pentagon, if hit at all, was not hit by a jet liner. A physical impossibility.
2) the three towers were demolished from inside
3) many people knew about it in advance, to different level of detail
But, it's just not worth worrying about people who may actually believe this crap.

[Sheldon J]

I watched the whole thing, there are some questions however physics explains almost all the phoneme, when they demo a building they have to literally strip the interior to get a good shot. On the other hand I did have a nightmare about 6 months before this happened in it something had happened and Clinton had declared a national emergency under presidential powers canceled all elections declaring himself president for all time, after all those who died under very mysterious circumstances maybe his timing was off and it was suppose to happen a lot earlier, now there is a conspiracy for you.:evil:

[CAnnoneer]

ctdonath,

Thank you for the useful link. I read it and now at least a few things make more sense. I did assume the tower structure was like a waffle, while it actually is a cylindrical shell. Now it makes much more sense why the collapse was so quick due to the compaction of the floors.

However, if this model is correct, I would expect the central beam support to remain sticking out like the backbone of a comb whose prongs you break off. That was not the case.

Also, from what I can gather, the fire was limited to a number of floors near the stricking point. Why would the vertical posts be damaged below or above it?

[Sistema1927]

Occam's razor.

[Bruce H]

What this thread proves to me is people really do lie on the form 4473.:D

[ctdonath]

The supporting "straws" were built to hold static weight, not dynamic. There is a huge force difference between a weight gently set on a support, vs. being dropped on. The WTC was built for the above floors being set upon the lower supports; when the fire weakened the metals (doesn't take much heat to lose significant tempering), the upper floors essentially dropped several stories as a unit - a HUGE impact, far beyond what the structure was built for; everything crumpled underneath. As such, there was no chance for the central support to stick up; it just wasn't strong enough.

[AZRickD]

I want 17 minutes and 8 seconds of my life back.

Rick

[Firethorn]

CAnnoneer, it might be build around a central support, but everything about skyscrapers are designed around elements supporting each other. The fire weakens the steel over the 15 or so floors the fires are raging on. Eventually, one of the floors collapses. It falls onto another weakened floor. That one then collapses as well, sending shock waves through the structure. Once you have the weight of ten or so floors crashing down, even uncompromised supports can't take the weight.

As for stripping the interior of a building before collapsing it, that's for two reasons:
1. Controlled collapse. You generally want the building to come straight down.
2. Economy. You don't want to use a jetliner's load of fuel, you want to use just a few hundred(if that) pounds of explosive.

[shermacman]

CAnnoneer
They were jets, passenger jets, full of our people, commandeered by Muslim lunatics. Three of them. The fourth splattered in PA. What depth of synaptic confusion is required to fantasize about these conspiracy theories? What is so hard to accept about the truth?

They were our jets, full of our people, slammed into our buildings by Muslim terrorists. Period.

As far as the scariest movie I have ever seen, nothing compares to the reaction of the tinfoil hat crowd.

[ctdonath]

Agreed. What's scary is that people actually believe this stuff. And they vote.

[jazurell]

They were our jets, full of our people, slammed into our buildings by Muslim terrorists. Period.
Tongue planted firmly in cheek....
Maybe the planes were conspiracy planes and the Muslims just got the idea and continued terrorism idea on their own....like they never participated in terrorism before.....
Tongue out...
If anyone believes that our government is willing to sacrafice private lives of US citizens, especially those employeed at the Pentagon, this country is in worse shape than anyone can imagine. The conspiracy theory is just that, an unproven theory that is pretty much debunked by the facts.

[CAnnoneer]

shermacman,

I like evidence. There is footage of two planes hitting WTC towers. I have seen those and believe that that happened. Before the ctdonath's link, it was very hard for me to believe that a plane would collapse a building, especially since I had certain assumptions as to the structures involved. Now that my engineering questions are addressed, the official version is far more palatable regarding two of the three towers.

I also found links on the net that discuss the engine size questions about the Pentagon, and Old Dog pointed out that the P is made of reinforced concrete - something I did not know.

I still have not seen footage actually showing a plane hitting the P. The four frames Old Dog posted contain a small wiggly white thing at ground level to the right of the toll post. Thus I am still not convinced that that is a 757. If indeed there are security camera tapes from the adjacent buildings, I'd like to see them.

All the references to drug abuse and synaptic problems, I will just ignore.

[answerguy]

Why are the posts uprooted but not bent?

I'll bite. Why? How would a cruise missle explain their being knocked down?
Seems reasonable to me that they were whacked by a airplane wing.

[answerguy]

Hmmm, how many B-52s were flying in 1945? Somebody isn't checking thier facts properly. Zero B-52s were flying in 1945. That's a pretty glaring error.

In fact, a B-25 bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. A tiny, flimsy, slow, propeller-driven B-25. Anybody with sense would dismiss a comparison between the 9/11 aircraft and a B-25. Perhaps the false assertion that a giant, heavy, fast, B-52 was the culprit was not an error at all?

What other glaring errors are contained therin?

That was an incredibly stupid mistake, wasn't it?

[ctdonath]

That was the security camera tape. Security cameras record at a lower speed and poorer resolution than full-blown NTSC, often with wide-angle lenses. We're lucky it was recording fast enough to capture four frames of the event, and that in color. Remember, the plane was moving fast and at some distance away. The "wiggly white thing" is more perceivable when seen in motion (which one of my posts should have shown; don't know how it came out for others).

Take a look at the link I posted analyzing the Pentagon hit. Some grad students analyzed it using computer simulations, which matched up nicely with the standard theory.

The upshot, as noted by your reconsideration of the theories in light of certain facts, is that the conspiracy theories are built upon:
- people trying to build explainations based on their ignorance
- people trying to blame some group for something, anything
- people unwilling to say "I don't know".

shermacman put it rather tactlessly, but I have to agree with him.
I didn't believe it either, when a friend called to say "one tower collapsed" - I looked at the TV, saw a column of dust, and said "naw, it must be hidden in smoke, surely whoever said it collapsed must be wrong." I just mentally refused to accept the idea; there must have been another explaination.
Thing is: by now the event has been comprehensively analyzed and verified beyond any reasonable doubt. Anyone who doubts "terrorists hijacked some planes, drove them into buildings, which fell down" at this point either is underinformed or suffering cognitive dissonance.

[Burt Blade]

Sigh...

I make knives as a hobby. That means I heat up various steels until they can be easily shaped by hammer blows. After it is shaped, I use heat again to harden it, then again to adjust the hardness to a useful level. My heat source is typically a ceramic-lined section of pipe, fueled by a propane barbeque tank and oxygenated with a shop vac with the hose attached to the exit port. 1800+ degrees will turn the best-made properly-hardened "straight-carbon" re-bar into putty. I can do this in 10 minutes with propane. I have a neat little dagger that I made from rebar. It was very easy to shape, compared to the Bowie I made from O-1 tool steel.

I could _easily_ build a liquid-fueled furnace that ran on jet fuel that would do just about as well as the propane rig. So why is it so hard to believe that ordinary building steel, heated for over 30 minutes in a well confined, self-drafting furnace, simply heated up until it was no longer hard enough, or stiff enough, to support the load of the biggest skyscraper in that corner of the world?

And you might not have needed 1800+. Once you harden steel, by suddenly cooling it from above the critical temp to around 200 degrees, the hardness has to be "fine tuned", in a process called tempering. Freshly hardened, and untempered, the steel is far too hard to make a good knife, and is much stressed and potentially unstable. It can crack and even shatter just from rapping on it with a wooden mallet. As soon as it has been cooled down to the ~200 degree point, it goes in an ordinary oven. One bakes it at about 350 or so for an hour. One can repeat 2-3 times, varying the exact temperature based on experience and steel formulation. You get whatever you want, from springs to chisels.

Note that the range can be a chisel at 300 and a spring at 600 with common steels. A self cleaning electric oven can easily hit 600 or higher. Almost any ordinary carbon steel is a butter knife at 900. Paper, by the way, burns at 450 or so. Skyscrapers hold a rather large amount of paper, wood, plastic, and other combustibles.

So tell me again why a jet liner with even a quarter load of jet fuel and moving at 500+ knots could not compromise a large building, in the manner recorded by a whole bunch of cameras, and witnessed by a whole bunch of people? Oh, and without a single photographic record of a high-explosive shockwave, which has _very_ distinctive appearance. Most folks have only seen Hollywood "fireball" explosions, which usually are made with Gasoline, not C-4, TNT, or Dynamite.

We had been handing control of airliners over to sociopathic yahoos for 30 years. In the past all it took was one dingbat with a paper bag full of dirty laundry, a couple of wires, and a doorbell button to take an airliner to Cuba. Is it so hard to believe that a handful of fanatics figured out a new use for passive victims? Is it so hard to believe that three planeloads of Americans _let_ those bastards do it because some boob told them it was better not to resist? And that one handful of _heroes_ finally said "Screw this! We will fight back and kill those sonsobitches or die trying. Lets roll!"

If the government _really_ wanted to seize power by a vast conspiracy and a spectacular attack, don’t you think they would have done a _slightly_ better job of "conspiring" and “attacking”? September 11th didn’t panic anyone I know. It _enraged_ us. And it focused us on an outside threat. A _real_ takeover plot would have focused our anger on an internal group, and made it necessary to _toss_ our system and go for something like martial law. Given our absolutely amazing chemical and biological weapons technology, let alone all the radwaste in government storage, a fake attack would have been widespread, debilitating, and would have inspired mass panic.

What we wound up with is a bunch of Taliban fanatics hiding in caves (soon to be tombs) and a couple of million airline passengers P.O-ed by inept “security” and wanting desperately to play Rugby with the first person who looks cross eyed at the flight crew.

In case someone skipped taking notes, “leak the juicy secret” is _the_ major sport of Washington DC. Our government would have a hard time conspiring to repaint the Oval Office. This is especially true if the leaked secret would bugger the current “in-power” bunch.

[JohnBT]

Saying a plane flew into a reinforced concrete wall when it hit the Pentagon doesn't quite provide a true sense of the scale of the impact. When the Pentagon was built at the beginning of WWII they didn't want to divert any more metal than they had to, so not only was the whole thing pretty much built with concrete, they even used concrete ramps inside instead of stairs that would have required more metal.

Googled up at random...

"During construction, up to 13,000 workers were employed. 6,000,000 cubic yards of earth was moved, 41,492 concrete pilings were driven. 410,000 cubic yards of concrete went into the building, using 680,000 tons of sand and gravel dredged from the adjacent Potomac River."


The plane didn't stand a chance.

John

P.S. - FWIW, the Washington Monument weighs less than 91,000 tons and it's built of marble, granite and sandstone.

[c_yeager]

What this thread proves to me is people really do lie on the form 4473.

Best post in this thread.

Seriously though, do NOT discourage people from espousing their whacky theories, it serves as a good barometer for people. If people werent allowed to say crazy things how could you tell the crazy people from the norms?

[Mushy]

What if, Al Qaeda hijacked the Airliners AND planted explosives in the WTC.

Is it possible/feasible that Al Qaeda is a much, much larger orginzation than we are being told?

I can't see what Bush would have to gain by destroying the WTC........but I can see why the "Gov'ment" would obscure the truth.

Can we really expect the government to tell us every gory detail?

[hillbilly]

First, I cannot believe how much effort and time people are putting into posting responses that are carefully crafted and full of logic into this thread.

The best response is probably just to say "What a load of horse crap" and then employ the "ignore" function on your user control panel.

That's the main thing this thread has done for me tonight....remind me to use the "ignore" feature available to us all.

It's really funny looking at this thread again after I've employed the "ignore" feature, and see just the responses without the posts of those who are now on my "ignore list."

And once I post this response, I'm never, ever, ever looking at this thread again.

hillbilly

[CentralTexas]

Wow, I was gone for a few hours and people actually tried posting explanations instead of just "you think different, you suck!". Bravo!
When I get back to my home planet I will report Earth may be worth saving....
:D
CT

[ctdonath]

Can we really expect the government to tell us every gory detail?How much gory detail do you need? A couple dozen maniacs who hate us hijacked four planes, crashed three into buildings, and one into the ground. Everything that happened makes sense to anyone who understands how reality works. Any questions that have been raised are quickly squelched with easily-obtained facts.
What if, Al Qaeda hijacked the Airliners AND planted explosives in the WTC.Airliners crashing into buildings is entirely sufficient to explain what happened. Throwing out "what if AQ ALSO planted explosives in WTC" is, to be blunt, stupid - there is nothing suggesting a need for the theory, no sane way they could pull it off, and is born of ignorant hysteria. I'm tired of addressing such nonsense (which is amazingly persistent).

There's a tiny group of crazed zealots who hate the USA.
Two dozen of them got on planes with normal tickets, and brought knives with them. Such was normal pre-9/11.
A few of them killed people. This happens, as some people are really evil.
Three of them got in the pilot's seat and drove the planes into buildings. This is not hard.
The three buildings burned. This happens when you fly 757s into buildings.
Two of the buildings, weakened by the impact & fire, collapsed under their own weight. This is perfectly understandable to anyone with a grasp of architecture.
One of the buildings, built to survive such attacks, suffered relatively little damage. This is perfectly understandable to anyone with a grasp of architecture.

That's it.

Now please, I beg you, accept the plain truth, and stop propogating hysterical ignorance. It is very tiresome, and will likely get people hurt.
:banghead:

hillbilly has the right idea.
shermacman summarized it accurately.
And I keep answering this nonsense only because I find rank ignorance infuriating.

[BigRobT]

In the video, it clearly makes the arguement that there were NO triangular pieces on the diffuser portion of the jet engine, this picture shows otherwise:
http://home.comcast.net/~skydrifter/CF6.jpeg

In addition, I saw a show on the History Channel(?) about how the Pentagon was made. All of the columns inside were reinforced with rebar. One should really find that show and watch it. It makes it pretty clear as to why the damage to the Pentagon was so minimal. That place is a veritable modern day fortress. Explosion resistant glass are on all of the outside windows. If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon, then where did all the people from the flight get sent?? After almost 5 years, one would think someone, somewhere would have surfaced by now.

Does anybody think that Bin Laden and his ilk are so stupid as to not have done exhaustive studies on released records from our Government?? IIR, there was one gentleman that even predicted the WTC would be hit from the air. He died in the WTC. There's a video on that guy, too, "The Man Who Predicted 9/11" ( I think that's the correct title) He was one of the head security men for the WTC.

Finally, I'm beginning to wonder just who keeps perpetuating these conspiracy theories and why?? The only reason I can see is to discredit our government and our leaders.

[Preacherman]

Enough of the conspiracy-theorist nonsense. Those who wish to believe in such twaddle can discuss their beliefs elsewhere, thank you very much.