9/11 revisited

[Bugfatty300]

These are the foundations of a debate.

Ok then, I'll play your game.

The twin Towers collapsed in the manner of a demolition.

That had already been addressed. But go ahead and explain to me who exactly rigged these explosives? Policemen? Workers? Firemen?

No attempt was made to act of intelligence warnings.

True but this proves nothing except that our government is inccompitant at preventing this stuff.

And there are more instances where the US failed to prevent other major terrorist attacks on its soil. WTC 1993, Oklahoma City for example.

Two major wars have happened as a result.

Well, I give a big DUH for Afghanistan. When a nation is attacked its common sense that the nation strikes back against those who did it and their allies.

And if the WTC was done in order to get an invasion of Iraq, then why the hell didn't the government pin everything on Saddam Hussien instead of some sick old man who lives in a cave in Afghanistan? Especially considering the two are hardly linked in anyway?

No proper investigation has been carried out into either 911 or the anthrax attack.

Another matter of opinion. Some people believe alot of major investigations are riddled with incompitence and not done properly. The warren commision for example.

This only suggests that the US government is renouned for screwing up major investigations which is a no brainer. I fail to see how it coincides with 9/11 being an inside job.

Historical precedents for self harm exist.

So? There are also precedents of major Islamic terror attacks.

Statements by prominant US polititians indicate irrationality and ruthlessness.

Oh mi gosh! Stop the press. Polititions? Ruthless and irrational? This is truly ground breaking.

Seriously though, since when have US politions not been "ruthless and irrational?" Can you answer thant? They sure as hell were long, long before the 9/11 attacks. In fact they have been that way for hundreds of years.

 

[JtheJackal]

I don't know what you guys have against facts and reason, but this is too much. This is like trying to convince someone that the earth revolves around the sun and that person refuses to listen.

You people seem so intent to poke holes in what really happened you refuse to see the obvious holes in the conspirices you quote. Live in your ignorance.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Ok, you gave me a CG picture of plane and Pentagon picture with some red sections added on that doesn't even look it coincides with the damage? Exactly what does that prove or how does it discredit eyewitness reports?

Your suppose to see that the plane took an almost impossible to execute flight path. Even veteran military and civilian piots have said it would be extremely difficult to the point of superhuman to pilot the plane in that way.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Your suppose to see that the plane took an almost impossible to execute flight path. Even veteran military and civilian piots have said it would be extremely difficult to the point of superhuman to pilot the plane in that way.

Got a source for those testimonies? The only one I hear thrown around is the opinion of an old Airforce colonel. I'm not a airliner pilot and, I doubt you are also, so I'm not able to judge that opinion eitherway.

But what exactly does it prove even if it was a hard shot?

 

[ThERat]

I stated yesterday already that I think it's pretty tough to fly the airplane into the building that way, but was quickly dismissed and told it's a piece of cake to do that.
So, anyone cares to elaborate why the damage in the outer wall doesn't resemble the shape of the plane? I find this really funny, here we have a plane that completely disppeared, sort of evaporated, something I have never seen to happen for any airplane crash.

And for all the conspiracy dismissers, I do not claim that it was the job of GWB who ordered all that, I simply have a lot of doubts about what happened and would like to know the truth about those events. Why is it that certain information is not been published, it makes people even more suspicious. And the neocons have a treack record of distorting the truth (to put it nicely).

 

[ThERat]

how about a little more science for the discussion instead of black and white rants

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian/WTC/wtc-demolition.htm

What do the architects of WTC actually have to say? Did they ever provide any clues to whether the truss theory of the official report is true?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I find this really funny, here we have a plane that completely disppeared, sort of evaporated, something I have never seen to happen for any airplane crash.

Really?

Never mind seeing two completely "disappear" when they hit the WTC towers. Or seeing Kamikazes completely "disappear" when they flew into an aircraft carriers in WWII.

Its doesn't take a genius to realize that the bulk of the plane went into the Pentagon as they did at the WTC.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

[ThERat]

well, I think there were parts of the airplanes found at the WTC afterwards.

In your second picture, there is a big tails section lying around...so much about the evaporation.
As for the other pictures, they don't tell me much since there might be fuselage and whatnot strewn around beyond the limits of the picture.

It's usually the engines and other parts that 'survive', however in the case of the Pentagon crash, nothing found in the interior rings of the pentagon.

As for kamikaze, they hardly resembled jet airliners and were sort of manned bombs. Not a good comparison.

 

[North King]

I stated yesterday already that I think it's pretty tough to fly the airplane into the building that way, but was quickly dismissed and told it's a piece of cake to do that.

I imagine since this was the peak moment of the terrorist's sick and twisted life, they would have been focused like heck.

So, anyone cares to elaborate why the damage in the outer wall doesn't resemble the shape of the plane? I find this really funny, here we have a plane that completely disppeared, sort of evaporated, something I have never seen to happen for any airplane crash.

Simple physics. The wings folded in on the airplan, an dthe fuesalage smashed wholesale into the building. As for the punching of a neat hole, you really do have to realize this thing is flying at an extremely fast speed. This isn't like a car crash. It's ten times that fast.

And for all the conspiracy dismissers, I do not claim that it was the job of GWB who ordered all that, I simply have a lot of doubts about what happened and would like to know the truth about those events. Why is it that certain information is not been published, it makes people even more suspicious. And the neocons have a treack record of distorting the truth (to put it nicely).

I'm pretty well known for being anti-Bush. And I don't disbelieve the official explanation. Personally, the only thing which is even remotely suspicious to me is the intact grass of the Pentagon. But since this plane didn't really crash into the grass so much as skim along it to smash into the Pentagon, I can't say it's really raising my eyebrow. It's all simple physics.

 

[Bugfatty300]

well, I think there were parts of the airplanes found at the WTC afterwards.

They also found pieces at the pentagon.....

they don't tell me much since there might be fuselage and whatnot strewn around beyond the limits of the picture.

Those are the airplanes (in a few hundred thousand pieces). But exactly how many aircraft crash sites do you see? What makes you an expert to say that a jetliner crash and explosion will not leave nothing around much bigger than a couch when it’s a known fact that they do.

It's usually the engines and other parts that 'survive', however in the case of the Pentagon crash, nothing found in the interior rings of the pentagon.

Where did you get this? Of course they found all sorts of pieces and debris from the aircraft inside the pentagon. Read that link I provided with the pictures.

DC Fire Chief: "First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing."

As for kamikaze, they hardly resembled jet airliners and were sort of manned bombs. Not a good comparison.

Those jetliners filled with fuel was also a "flying bomb" in the hands of those hijackers.

 

[Xenocrates]

That had already been addressed. But go ahead and explain to me who exactly rigged these explosives? Policemen? Workers? Firemen?

Who knows?

True but this proves nothing except that our government is inccompitant at preventing this stuff.

Or didn't try very hard to. It's your job to ensure that they do better.

And there are more instances where the US failed to prevent other major terrorist attacks on its soil. WTC 1993, Oklahoma City for example.

I'm not talking about Oklahoma.

Well, I give a big DUH for Afghanistan. When a nation is attacked its common sense that the nation strikes back against those who did it and their allies.

The Taliban did not place the put options, even the official story more implicates the Saudis and definitely not the Iraqis.

And if the WTC was done in order to get an invasion of Iraq, then why the hell didn't the government pin everything on Saddam Hussien instead of some sick old man who lives in a cave in Afghanistan? Especially considering the two are hardly linked in anyway?

You're joking, right?

Another matter of opinion. Some people believe alot of major investigations are riddled with incompitence and not done properly. The warren commision for example.

This only suggests that the US government is renouned for screwing up major investigations which is a no brainer. I fail to see how it coincides with 9/11 being an inside job.

They get it right when it suits them. Besides which you are technically the boss of the government and if you're not happy with the investigation shouldn't you make it an election issue?

So? There are also precedents of major Islamic terror attacks.

This one was pretty unique though wasn't it?

Oh mi gosh! Stop the press. Polititions? Ruthless and irrational? This is truly ground breaking.

Seriously though, since when have US politions not been "ruthless and irrational?" Can you answer thant? They sure as hell were long, long before the 9/11 attacks. In fact they have been that way for hundreds of years.

Exactly the qualities needed to conceive of something like this


Maybe we should agree to differ about this, but just consider that if I'm right the implications for everybody are astounding and we should push harder for a more rigorous answer. If you are right then I am guilty of reading too much into inconsistencies in a story.

No one knows what the truth is, including me, but whatever it is I see it as my duty to try to find out.

Please remember that I never postulated that the attacks were an inside job, only that the buildings were ultimately brought down by explosives.

Let's not forget the anthrax attacks.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Maybe we should agree to differ about this, but just consider that if I'm right the implications for everybody are astounding and we should push harder for a more rigorous answer. If you are right then I am guilty of reading too much into inconsistencies in a story.

Agreed then.

 

[cgannon64]

1) Many who deny the possibility that the official explanation may be wrong point to the fact that the building's strength was in the wall. A wall that had been damaged on one side. The part of the building above would have toppled towards the direction of the impact. The point is that they weren't designed to fall with a small footprint, they were designed to stand up! The possibility of a plane strike hadn't been considered by the architects so I reject this argument.

Actually, the designers expressly them so that they would withstand a plane crash! This is often a conspiracy argument: But the conspiracy theorists conveniently forget that the building was designed to withstand a 737 (the biggest plane in the 70s), not a 767, and one empty of fuel and travelling slow in fog. (They had the crash into the Empire State Building in midn.)

Also, they were designed to fall inside a small footprint. Engineers also consider what would happen if their building falls, and the designers of the World Trade Center knew it would be disastrous if the building toppled over other buildings - so they made it so it would fall straight down.

What really happened makes so much sense with this in mind, because it's what really happened. The buildings were designed to withstand a plane crash under moderate conditions, and designed to fall downwards within their footprint should they ever fall; when the strikes came, they were extreme enough to cause the buildings to collapse, but not extreme enough to cause them to collapse immediately (or topple).

 

[Turner]

Actually, the 707 which according to wiki was in production until about 1978, was from 144 to 158 feet long, while the 737 was between 103 and 138 feet long. So the 707 was a bigger plane.

However, the 767 is larger than both, starting at 159 feet and going to about 201 feet long.

I don't have the fuel capacities for either, but I would guess that the 767 has considerably more fuel on board that either, maybe even more than both put together. That's a guess, of course.

Still, I agree with you. I don't think the designers envisioned something the size of a 767 deliberately flown into their buildings.

 

[Xenocrates]

It's these two statements that I find hard to reconcile:

1) The towers were unusual in that the strength was in the skin and not in the skeleton.

2) The designers built them to withstand an impact.

It could be that my knowledge about structural engineering is insufficient.

Imagine this scenario; the US gets the intelligence warnings and does not ignore them. They expect the towers to be hit and they know the way the attack would be carried out. What would you do in that scenario? I simply proposed that they would have placed explosives in the buildings to ensure that they didn't topple. I doubt that they would have taken any chances on that.

The official line requires:

A US airforce that can't fly
A US government that can't govern
A US intelligence service that can't spy
US architects that can design great buildings
A US military that can't fight
An FBI that can't investigate
And that foreigners are ruthless where Americans are not

Just doesn't smell right to me.

 

[IglooDame]

Actually, the designers expressly them so that they would withstand a plane crash! This is often a conspiracy argument: But the conspiracy theorists conveniently forget that the building was designed to withstand a 737 (the biggest plane in the 70s), not a 767, and one empty of fuel and travelling slow in fog. (They had the crash into the Empire State Building in midn.)

From what I understand, the architects of tall buildings must deal with lateral stresses from wind more than anything else, and even a 20mph wind produces stresses that are orders of magnitude higher than the momentum of a plane hitting the building.

 

[Irish Caesar]

The official line requires:

A US airforce that can't fly
A US government that can't govern
A US intelligence service that can't spy
US architects that can design great buildings
A US military that can't fight
An FBI that can't investigate
And that foreigners are ruthless where Americans are not

Just doesn't smell right to me.

Personally, I'd put a hell of a lot more faith in American architects than the American government.

 

[carlosMM]

A US airforce that can't fly
A US government that can't govern
A US intelligence service that can't spy
US architects that can design great buildings
A US military that can't fight
An FBI that can't investigate

the architects are the ONLY ones who do not work for the US government Smells very right that they did a good job, while the rest sucked.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Plus the head architect of WTC was Japanese, not American.

 

[Irish Caesar]

I thought so!



My previous statement still stands, of course.