Was 9/11 A Hoax?

[SirPhilip]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

 

[brodski]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours. Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either: Click

Any thoughts?

thoghts? a whole 17 pages of them!

 

[slingblade]

Hoax: to trick into believing or accepting as genuine something false and often preposterous.

Nope. It wasn't a hoax.

 

[brodski]

Seriously, read through their "evidence", even if you take it all at face value, is it more probable that the US Govt made some mistakes, or that the US Govt murdered thousands of its own citizens?

Basically all they have are a few inconsistant statements and a lot of hand waving.

(I'd be more suspicious if everything was full accounted for, because reality doesn't work like that, people misspeak, they misremember, and are sometimes ill informed or confused- even in govt),
Its a classic PCT.

and dead wrong.

 

[boooeee]

From the link:

(PRWEB) - Duluth, MN (PRWEB) January 30, 2006 -- A group of distinguished experts and scholars, including Robert M. Bowman, James H. Fetzer, Wayne Madsen, John McMurtry, Morgan Reynolds, and Andreas von Buelow, have concluded that senior government officials have covered up crucial facts about what really happened on 9/11.

Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article?

Once again, from the link:

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA
James Fetzer
218 724-2706

This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).

 

[epepke]

The twin towers never were there, Winston. And we've always been at war with Eurasia.

 

[LostAngeles]

From the link:

Hmmmm.....I wonder who wrote this unbiased and thoughtful article?

Once again, from the link:



This brilliant post has been brought to you by the distinguished scholar, boooeee (references available upon request).

Look at part of the link "bs_prweb"

That gives one major clue and one observation.

 

[LostAngeles]

But more specfically:

*In the history of structural engineering, steel-frame high-rise buildings have never been brought down due to fires either before or since 9/11, so how can fires have brought down three in one day? How is this possible?

It is my understanding that the intense heat of the fires weakend the steel supporting the upper floors which caused the collapse of the buildings. As far as history goes, it can be a good predictor but under unusal and extreme circumstances... first time for everything, as they say.

* The BBC has reported that at least five of the nineteen alleged "hijackers" have turned up alive and well living in Saudi Arabia, yet according to the FBI, they were among those killed in the attacks. How is this possible?

Are they certain its the exact same people or are they people with similar names? Could the BBC have made a mistake? When did they make this report?

* Frank DeMartini, a project manager for the WTC, said the buildings were designed with load redistribution capabilities to withstand the impact of airliners, whose effects would be like "puncturing mosquito netting with a pencil." Yet they completely collapsed. How is this possible?

I heard that too and at the time I believe it was the Boeing 707 that was the standard. A modern 737 is much, much smaller than a 767, which, if I'm not mistaken, was the model flown into the WTC. Also, see answers about the fire.

* Since the melting point of steel is about 2,700*F, the temperature of jet fuel fires does not exceed 1,800*F under optimal conditions, and UL certified the steel used to 2,000*F for six hours, the buildings cannot have collapsed due to heat from the fires. How is this possible?

The fire was fed by the carpeting and furniture in the offices. Also, as I've said, I understood it to be simply that the steel was weakend enough that it could not suport the above floors.

* Flight 77, which allegedly hit the building, left the radar screen in the vicinity of the Ohio/Kentucky border, only to "reappear" in very close proximity to the Pentagon shortly before impact. How is this possible?

That depends on when it disappeared. They lost contact with all of the flights at some point during the attacks, didn't they?

* Foreign "terrorists" who were clever enough to coordinate hijacking four commercial airliners seemingly did not know that the least damage to the Pentagon would be done by hitting its west wing. How is this possible?

They also weren't smart enough to realize how lousy Logan security is to have only taken two planes. Snark aside, the Pentagon wasn't their orginal target, The White House or the Capitol building was, but they couldn't spot them as easily.

* Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta, in an underground bunker at the White House, watched Vice President Cheney castigate a young officer for asking, as the plane drew closer and closer to the Pentagon, "Do the orders still stand?" The order cannot have been to shoot it down, but must have been the opposite. How is this possible?

How is it that it could not have been to shoot it down? Was Cheney possibly asking if the orders to shoot planes down still stood in the event of other attacks? Was he asking why that plane had not been shot down yet?

* A former Inspector General for the Air Force has observed that Flight 93, which allegedly crashed in Pennsylvania, should have left debris scattered over an area less than the size of a city block; but it is scattered over an area of about eight square miles. How is this possible?

Not sure. Possibly at what angle the plane came in, if it hit anything else coming in, or even speed?

* A tape recording of interviews with air traffic controllers on duty on 9/11 was deliberately crushed, cut into very small pieces, and distributed in assorted places to insure its total destruction. How is this possible?

With a sledgehammer. I think what they're looking for is "Why?" and I have to ask, "Evidence? of this event?"

* The Pentagon conducted a training exercise called "MASCAL" simulating the crash of a Boeing 757 into the building on 24 October 2000, and yet Condoleezza Rice, among others, has repeatedly asserted that "no one ever imagined" a domestic airplane could be used as a weapon. How is this possible?

Uh, remember her answer about the 8/6/01 Presidential Daily Briefing to the Commission? Yeah. They don't answer questions too goodly sometimes in this adminstration.

(Anything I've erred on or am off base on, please correct. Most of this was done from what I remembered)

 

[NeilC]

To be frank, seeing as you are not a structural engineer who has studied the construction of the towers closely whilst combining that with your detailed knowledge of aircraft physics and fire forensics......why attach much relevance to the feeling that the collapse was "odd"?

Lots of things I don't know much about strike me as odd - until I work them out and then they make sense.

What I would find very, very odd would be a president ordering the public slaughter of 3000 of his countrymen and then managing to cover it all up.

As for that article. It's presented as a news story but it's just the same old stuff rehashed.

You say it's not a bunch of conspiracy theorists but that is not correct. Fetzer is a well known conspiracy theorist, and not just on 9/11. Read this:

"WASHINGTON, D.C. -- When federal investigators released a report last month about the plane crash that killed Sen. Paul Wellstone, some members of Congress hoped it would dispel talk that his plane was sabotaged.

It didn't.

In Internet chat groups, political Web sites and the published reports of several leftist academics, conspiracy theories about Wellstone's death last October maintain a life of their own, particularly in northern Minnesota.

In one nasty exchange, a retired prosecutor from Duluth has threatened to take legal action against a University of Minnesota-Duluth philosophy professor who espouses the belief that the Bush White House had a hand in Wellstone's demise.

The former prosecutor, Thomas Bieter, alleges that the professor, Kennedy-assassination theorist JAMES FETZER, has committed "criminal defamation" by publishing articles suggesting a government coverup of the crash investigation. "

Fetzer is in fact one of the USA's best known conspiracy theorists.

 

[MRC_Hans]

9/11 a hoax?
Let's see:

Evil gov't representative (EGR) #1: We need to have an excuse to spend a gazillion dollars and a few thousand soldier's lives on an invasion in some country, preferably on the far side of the planet. Any ideas?

EGR #2: Uhhm, why?

EGR #1: To keep the weapons industry going and to keep the public attention away from domestic problems, dummy!

EGR #2: But, wouldn't it be cheaper just to give some of the money to the weapons industry and use some for tax cuts? That should....

EGR #3: Hey! Stop that! We simply don't do things that way, and think of the example it would set. Now, go stand in a corner till you understand how to run a government!

EGR #2: [Shuffles over to corner and stands, sulking]

EGR #3: Good! Now, I second the motion. Any ideas?

EGR #4: I have an idea.

EGR #1: Let's hear it.

EGR #4: It seems that in Afganistan, there is some terrorist organisation that has made a couple of nasty things in the past. If we could make them make an attack on American ground, why, we could invade all of Afganistan, and nobody would protest.

EGR #3: Sounds good, but.. where is this Afmanisan?

EGR #4: Afganistan. Desert and mountaneous country the size of Texas, just west of Pakistan. Low organisation level, all Moslem ragheads.

EGR #2 (from corner): Didn't the Russians take a good beating there, a few years ago?

EGR #1: You are not permitted to speak, while in the corner!

EGR #3: Doesn't matter, the russies are grossly incompetent in guerilla warfare. But how do we get those terrorists to make an attack? Can they be bought?

EGR #4: Mmmm, that could be a problem. I think they are supported from Saudi Arabia, so they are already full of money.

EGR #2 (from corner): Could't we just fake it?

EGR #1: Now you are talking! You can return to the table.

EGR #4: Good idea! We'll place exlosives in some large buildings and blow them up.

EGR #3: Cool! But how do we make it look like the Afsancons did it?

EGR #4: Afganistans.. ehh Afgani, I think it is .. Never mind.

EGR #2: Mmmm, we'll have to fake a plane hijacking, no several, and ... fly the planes into the buildings, just as we blow them up!

EGR #1: How do we get anybody to do that?

EGR #3: We'll pay some guys with Amsani names to hijack planes, then remote control them to fly into the buildings.

EGR #4: Afgani. Great, and if we agree to pay them afterwards, we can save some money! And we're sure they don't sing.

EGR #1: What if one of the planes don't make it to the building?

EGR #2: We just blow it up anyway and call it collateral damage.

EGR #4: Or, we save the charges for a later opportunity.

EGR #1: OK! Let's us get into details. Buildings, logistics, timing.

.......

I think this is a very probable scenario

Hans

 

[Nick Bogaerts]

Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.

Cool! Bookmarked !

Hans

 

[LostAngeles]

Then there's the Popular Mechanics article which at least one person hasn't read.

Score! One-stop debunk for the lazy!

I mean...

No, I do mean the lazy. Sorry.

 

[Johnny Pixels]

In another thread, I remarked that, at the time I saw the towers collapse, it seemed odd how that all happened by fire alone in the span of two hours...

Any thoughts?

1) It wasn't fire alone, there were two aeroplanes that hit them if you remember.

2) A fire fuelled by something like jet fuel burns hotter and faster than a fire fuelled by something like carpets and wood.

Try comparing it to the other times that skyscrapers have been hit by jet planes rather than just having fires in them.
Like this:

When an aeroplane hit an apartment block in Amsterdam. Imagine if there were floors above the impact point, what would be holding them up now?

And remember, this is a concrete building, and concrete is fire proof. The WTC was a steel framed building.

 

[TriangleMan]

This would be a good time to point SirPhilip to the ApolloHoax board. Despite the board's focus on the Apollo Hoax the engineers who hang out there have been pretty busy debunking 9/11 conspiracies, including a general 9/11 thread that is 85 pages long as well as a 10 page WTC7 thread. Chances are any 9/11 hoax "evidence" has already been debunked there.

 

[corplinx]

Was 9/11 A Hoax?

No. End of discussion.

 

[Mark]

No. End of discussion.

Too bad you have me on ignore, because you would be able to read that I agree with you 100%.

 

[bob_kark]

Thank you kindly conspiracy nut and of course Nick! Without your help, I wouldn't have this nice Popular Mechanics article to read.

 

[NoZed Avenger]

Now a group of people are taking the issue of a hoax very seriously, and they aren't conspiracy theorists either[.]

Their theory is that 9/11 was caused by a govenrment consipracy, as far as I can tell.

Um. By definition, doesn't that mean that they are, in fact, consipiracy theorists?

 

[Dr Adequate]

SkepticWiki on 9/11