What Really Happened on 9/11?

[Manny]

Nobody has yet to answer me why they would have reason to carry off debris if they had nothing to hide. Nobody has asked any questions as to what was under the tarp. They should.

Oh, for the love of Ed. Even the other CTers know what was under the tarp. A tent.

 

[headscratcher4]

" Like I said before, it even circled above, and aimed for the one spot reinforced"

Quick question to those with more strategic knowledge than me...do guided missles "circle"...

Also, where do the CTs believe the missle was fired from? Wouldn't that have appeared on cvilian radar? Wouldn't a civilan airtraffic controller have reported that either than or subsequently?

 

[RayG]

Then show me just one example of a plane crash, ANY plane crash, that any part of the fuselage was vaporized.

You mean like these:

Notes:

picture #1 shows wreckage of a United Airlines DC-7 after it collided with a TWA Constellation over the Grand Canyon in Arizona.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w560630.htm

picture #2 shows Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 crashed into the slopes of Chikat Mountain while on approach to Juneau Municipal Airport.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w710904.htm

picture #3 shows wreckage of a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 that crashed on Mt. Osutaka, Japan. Five-hundred twenty people out of 524 aboard were killed. (Remarkable that 4 people actually survived.)
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w850812.htm

picture #4 shows the result of an impact between an El Al Boeing 747 cargo plane and a building in Holland.
http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w921004.htm

RayG

 

[Manny]

Also, Valujet 592. One might reasonably inquire as to a largely intact fuselage is simply obscured by the swamp. If one is willing to download a 271-page .pdf from the NTSB one would find that the answer is "not really, at least not the front." (start reading at page 40)

 

[Blackwell]

I can answer this one. It's straight out of Loose Change. Apparently, Donald Rumsfeld was sitting comfortably in his office on the opposite side of the Pentagon. Since he was in on the conspiracy (so the implication goes) they designed this attack to protect him while also giving him plausible deniability.

Ah! Well. That clears it all up, then!

I haven't seen this linked before; here's an interesting article about how tracking of flight 77 was handled by the various air traffic control centers:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node&contentId=A32597-2001Nov2

 

[DavidJames]

You mean like these:

[qimg]http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/w560630.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/w710904.jpg[/qimg]
[qimg]http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/w850812.jpg[/qimg][qimg]http://www.planecrashinfo.com/images/w921004-2.jpg[/qimg]

Notes:

picture #1 shows wreckage of a United Airlines DC-7 after it collided with a TWA Constellation over the Grand Canyon in Arizona.

picture #2 shows Alaska Airlines Boeing 727 crashed into the slopes of Chikat Mountain while on approach to Juneau Municipal Airport.

picture #3 shows wreckage of a Japan Airlines Boeing 747 that crashed on Mt. Osutaka, Japan. Five-hundred twenty people out of 524 aboard were killed. (Remarkable that 4 people actually survived.)

picture #4 shows the result of an impact between an El Al Boeing 747 cargo plane and a building in Holland.

RayG

Those were all carefully staged to set up this defense in the Pentagon attack.

Man, this CT stuff is easy.

 

[Hellbound]

I think I made this point before, but to the claim that the fires couldn't get hot enough to weaken steel:

I have proof that the fires could get hot enough, and it's in my closet. Let me know if you want to see it. It's a hand-forged steel longsword.

People have been using fire to shape bronze, iron, and steel for hundreds of years now (thousand for iron and bronze). You don't need jet fuel or explosives (besides, explosives would not melt it, they'd cut/break it...explosive force is mostly blast, very little heat). And when forging, the temperature is not at the melting point of steel. However, it does soften it enough that a relatively modest force can shape and bend it.

Likewise, the heat of fires in the towers caused the steel to heat, which made it more pliable. Once it started to give, the load transferred to other steel beams/columns (which were also affected, to a degree, by the heat) which could no longer handle the extra load...causing a collapse. That collapse landed on another floor (already weakened) and carried with it the weight of the floors it had been supporting above it. It's easy to see how this can quickly escalate to total collapse.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

...CptFarlow, the problem with you CT types is that you think you are the only ones with any suspsicion, any concerns. You aren't but you act as if the imagined definiciency in our wariness requires you to tune yours up to exponential levels to compensate. The result is you seeing things that never happened, taking the word of con-artists and liars just because what they say makes the bad ol' gubmint look bad.

I've said this before and I'll say it again (and I wasn't the first to say it): Conspiracy Theorists are like a watchdog that growls at every single shadow. They think that they are doing a magnificent job, when in fact they are worse than useless.

All well said, even if the latter paragraph was a passalong.

 

[CurtC]

There have already been pictures posted here recently about airplanes melting due to fire. I just looked quickly at Wikipedia and found this one:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AFFlight3580803CORRPanSM.jpg

The aluminum on much of the top of the plane is gone. The other photos I've seen here are better, involving a fire while on the runway, but you get the idea - aluminum melts in a fire.

 

[CptFarlow]

The arguement for CD refutes itself when you take more than a cursory glance at what is required for even the simplest of demolition projects. It becomes a complete non-starter. This is not a simple matter of having some kids run in with backpacks full of C4. Life, and structural design do nto work that way.

But the argument for fire brought down the towers refutes itself as well. Not only has fire never brought down steel building, those fires burnt for less than two hours. No matter what anybody says, I simply cannot understand how fire could have done it. The jet fuel burnt up almost right away. The rest in the next few minutes. So you are saying that burning office materials and furniture did it? Why would the building collapse all at once? The floors didn't pancake, there would have been at least a second while the momentum was transfered to the next floor...blah blah blah...you have all heard it all before...and not listened to it...this is pointless.

Because we really do know what happened.

Oh we do? Then why are so many questions unanswered?

We call them 'stupid people' yes.

It's great to know you can't have a good debate without insulting...

As a matter of fact it does. Try reading something besides conspiracy sites for a change.

I've read just about every site on 9/11. Both for the CD theory, and against. Both have some good points, but the one that makes the most sense to me is the CD theory.

This is more 9/11 CT nonsense.

Good point. I never saw it that way before. It still doesn't prove that they were or weren't taking wreckage away. Still, it stands that the Pentagon attack doesn't add up.

Wrong, wrong and wrong.

I read that about two weeks ago. They point out a wheel rim that "has" to be from a 757. It could have been from almost any aircraft. When it tries to prove that the engine found on the scene is actually the APU, their source is comes up with a 404. The engines for a 757 are 6ft 2.5 in. There is no clear evidence of the impact zones where they burried themselves in the building. The photos they show of the "impact zone" is a picture of the wall with fire retardent being sprayed onto it. You can see some charring on the wall, but no hole. There is another image of the fencing being flattened "by the right engine," yet it leaves the fencing to the left of it untouched.

Other evidence is the light poles, which were neatly ripped out of the ground. Also, the cars that the jet would have missed by feet are still on the highway. I have seen plenty of videos that show cars being pushed like feathers from the force of an engine from a 757.

Also, I have read plenty of pilot's statements that say an amateur pilot could not have flown that plane like that. My father got his private pilot's license when I was 17, and took me up many, many times. I never got my license, but I could have. Even in a small single engine plane, it is very difficult to turn a plane and change altitude at the same time. Flaps are very tricky, even I forgot much of what I learned then. (I'm 20 now.) To think that Hani, who failed to fly a single engine plane good enough to rent it, flew a huge jetliner a few feet off the ground, not touching the ground at all, and crash it into the one part that was reinforced. It has been said before, and I'll say it again. If they wanted to hurt us so bad, why would they go out of their way to hit the part of the building to hurt to least amount of people?

That is not the official explanation.

Ya know, you might be right. I just read most of the 9/11 report as to what happened at the Pentagon, and they don't mention the words fuselage, titanium, or vaporized anywhere. I don't see them talk about the debris of Flight 77 at all in it. If somebody else can find it I would gladly read it.

Not true

That explanation doesn't even begin to go into the complexity of it.

I can't post a URL yet, but check out the website whatreallyhappened and see what they had to say about the passenger lists...that is...if you want to be proven wrong...

 

[CptFarlow]

Who knows? What would they gain by releasing them except answering a burning question that only a sub-fringe of a fringe group harbors?

Then if you are so sure a 757 hit that building, then ask them to release it to prove me wrong. I want to know for sure what happened. I have my theories, and I want to know if I'm right. If I am, great...if I'm wrong, which by God I hope I am...then congratulations would be in order.

 

[Pardalis]

Look at it this way:

-Globalist, neo con, who-ever-else conspiracy:
very hight tech (missiles, drones, tons of explosives rigged secretely, voice-imitating technology, passengers kidnapped, etc), millions of dollars and alot, A LOT of people involved in secrecy.

-the Al Quaida conspiracy:
very low-tech (cutter knives, pilot training, physical training, good scheduling, secretive internet communication), rather inexpensive (living costs, passports), very few people involved and a lot, A LOT of anger towards the USA.

Now tell me which one is more credible.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Oh we do? Then why are so many questions unanswered?

Your refusal to accept answers <> unanswered questions.

 

[CptFarlow]

Good piece of evidence, Sultanist. In short, if this was a 'Controlled Demolition', it was a crappy job. Which fits, I guess, because the whole 'controlled demolition' theory requires the conpirators to be the worlds cleverest dumb***es.

Okay, you proved that it didn't collapse onto it's own footprint, but it didn't topple. It collapsed straight down, from the top. I still see no reason why fires would do that. Why was material ejected so far out? Has anybody read Steven Jones' report? Oh yeah, I forgot, he's a hack. All I ask for is that his claims are investigated. He doesn't even claim that there were explosives, simply that evidence suggests there was. No, he isn't a structural engineer, so by the logic of most of you, none of us are qualified to even talk about the collapse.

It takes a bit of common sense to watch a video and see that those collapses don't look normal. I still do not understand how they can both collapse symetrically and exactly the same, despite having fires in totally different places in the buildings, at different floors. As Jones reports, when the North Tower collapse initiated, you see the top part start to topple, then it is pulverized in mid air. And again, I still have not heard a good excuse as to where the huge steel cores went. They were pulverized into small fragments, and you expect fire did that?

 

[headscratcher4]

Look at it this way:

-Globalist, neo con, who-ever-else conspiracy:
very hight tech (missiles, drones, tons of explosives rigged secretely, voice-imitating technology, passengers kidnapped, etc), millions of dollars and alot, A LOT of people involved in secrecy.

-the Al Quaida conspiracy:
very low-tech (cutter knives, pilot training, physical training, good scheduling, secretive internet communication), rather inexpensive (living costs, passports), very few people involved and a lot, A LOT of anger towards the USA.

Now tell me which one is more credible.

Indeed, and you forgot the probably hundreds of millions (if not billions) of dollars and the subsequent money trails that would be created for the high-tech conspiracy vs. the relatively low cost, short money trail of the low tech conspiracy...and, the perps. are dead so they can't talk vs. thousands running around thinking: "Hey, did I get enough money to keep me quiet...did that guy over there get more than I did?" etc.

BTW, you short hand above is one of the best reasons I've seen to dismiss all of the CT guff...

 

[Pardalis]

Okay, you proved that it didn't collapse onto it's own footprint, but it didn't topple. It collapsed straight down, from the top. I still see no reason why fires would do that. Why was material ejected so far out?

You said it yourself, the collapse had allready started. Once the fire and the plane crash had weakened the steel, the collapse occur pretty much like a controlled demolition, gravity took care of bringing it down.

It takes a bit of common sense to watch a video and see that those collapses don't look normal.

I don't know what the collapse of a 100 floor buidling is supposed too look like.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Okay, you proved that it didn't collapse onto it's own footprint, but it didn't topple. It collapsed straight down, from the top. I still see no reason why fires would do that. Why was material ejected so far out? Has anybody read Steven Jones' report? Oh yeah, I forgot, he's a hack. All I ask for is that his claims are investigated. He doesn't even claim that there were explosives, simply that evidence suggests there was. No, he isn't a structural engineer, so by the logic of most of you, none of us are qualified to even talk about the collapse.

What do youmean no reason it should have collapsed like that. It's very simple. Fire weakens the supports on the upper floors. They fall down. They hit the floors below them. THEY fall down. Repeat until all 110 stories have fallen. There is no reason for the towers to topple under such a scenario.

It takes a bit of common sense to watch a video and see that those collapses don't look normal. I still do not understand how they can both collapse symetrically and exactly the same, despite having fires in totally different places in the buildings, at different floors. As Jones reports, when the North Tower collapse initiated, you see the top part start to topple, then it is pulverized in mid air. And again, I still have not heard a good excuse as to where the huge steel cores went. They were pulverized into small fragments, and you expect fire did that?

And exactly how many 'Normal' collapses of 100+ story skyscrapers have you seen. I would presume you have seen bunches and bunches in order for you to determine what "normal' looks like in such a case.

 

[headscratcher4]

It takes a bit of common sense to watch a video and see that those collapses don't look normal. I still do not understand how they can both collapse symetrically and exactly the same, despite having fires in totally different places in the buildings, at different floors. As Jones reports, when the North Tower collapse initiated, you see the top part start to topple, then it is pulverized in mid air. And again, I still have not heard a good excuse as to where the huge steel cores went. They were pulverized into small fragments, and you expect fire did that?

I thought the collapse, given where the planes hit, looked exactly as I would have expected it...not being an engineer, and only my opinion. There was nothing surprising to me given the top floors burn and fall down on the floors below them in sequence.... common sense, in other words, suggests to me that the collapse was exactly what would happen under the circumstances as official discribed.

In short, calling what you see common sense, conflicts completely with what I see as common sense.

 

[headscratcher4]

It takes a bit of common sense to watch a video and see that those collapses don't look normal. I still do not understand how they can both collapse symetrically and exactly the same, despite having fires in totally different places in the buildings, at different floors. As Jones reports, when the North Tower collapse initiated, you see the top part start to topple, then it is pulverized in mid air. And again, I still have not heard a good excuse as to where the huge steel cores went. They were pulverized into small fragments, and you expect fire did that?

I thought the collapse, given where the planes hit, looked exactly as I would have expected it...not being an engineer, and only my opinion. There was nothing surprising to me given the top floors burn and fall down on the floors below them in sequence.... common sense, in other words, suggests to me that the collapse was exactly what would happen under the circumstances as official discribed.

In short, calling what you see common sense, conflicts completely with what I see as common sense.

 

[Blackwell]

Okay, you proved that it didn't collapse onto it's own footprint, but it didn't topple. It collapsed straight down, from the top. I still see no reason why fires would do that. Why was material ejected so far out? Has anybody read Steven Jones' report? Oh yeah, I forgot, he's a hack. All I ask for is that his claims are investigated. He doesn't even claim that there were explosives, simply that evidence suggests there was. No, he isn't a structural engineer, so by the logic of most of you, none of us are qualified to even talk about the collapse.

But we ARE qualified to compare his opinion to those of ACTUAL structural engineers.

Why was material ejected so far out?

How far out would you expect material to be ejected? What do you have to compare this distance to?

It takes a bit of common sense to watch a video and see that those collapses don't look normal. I still do not understand how they can both collapse symetrically and exactly the same, despite having fires in totally different places in the buildings, at different floors. As Jones reports, when the North Tower collapse initiated, you see the top part start to topple, then it is pulverized in mid air.

It is? And what would cause this? If he doesn't mention explosives, what is his explanation?