What Really Happened on 9/11?

[CptFarlow]

Ever notice how these CT trolls come over here 1 at a time, start off by being "reasonable", then degenerate to their version of the truth, without looking up the stuff that has gone on before?

"Vaporized"? please!
Realized Kinetic energy tears it into little, bitty pieces (much of the aiplane is .050" to .080" thick aluminum.--and you can make that crumble with a pocket butane lighter.

Never argue with idiots--They'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

I never disrespected you, so why the insults?

If you believe that is the case, then why is it that this is never observed in any air crashes before?

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I never disrespected you, so why the insults?

If you believe that is the case, then why is it that this is never observed in any air crashes before?

At least five examples have been provided in this thread alone where it HAS been observed.

 

[CptFarlow]

This is pointless

Guys, I enjoy a good debate, and this has been a good debate, but people have started to insult me, and I don't appreciate that. I'm through debating today...mostly because I'm at work and it's getting busy...but also because this is going nowhere. I can't post URLs, and nobody really listens to any of the evidence we have anyways...

No doubt everybody will call me a pussy for leaving...I really don't care. It is not because I have no more evidence or you have proved me wrong and I am scared...in fact, many points you all have made have changed my view on the topic, although I still find it hard to believe that fire brought the towers down, sorry. WTC7 is still a big mystery...wasn't hit by a plane, yet collapsed just like a controlled demolition. Deny it all you want but it collapsed instantaneously in less than 7 seconds.

I urge you all to check out 9-11 Research and WhatReallyHappened

I only want to hold those accountable for the deaths that day...and despite what our government says, Osama bin Laden claims to not have done it. Even before the tape came out he denied it. Whatever the case, I hope someday we find who really did this. Later guys...

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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

This thread (and related others) has grown considerably since I visited about 12 hours ago. There's simply too much to respond to, including nearly every one of your posts. I wish I could, because certain of your arguments and points are just, well, lacking.

That being said, I'm jumping in quickly in response to the above. Post #374 on the "Loose Change" thread contained this:

Not too many years ago I witnessed a crash of a modest-sized military helicopter. I watched it go almost vertical into the tarmac less than two city blocks from where I was standing. Made quite a sound, not to mention an impressive, black smoke cloud. All that was left on the ground were a few charred bits, the total of which would probably have fit in a carry-on suitcase.

That was written by me.

Now I know it's hearsay, and I can't offer you direct evidence, but it happened just as I said, without exaggeration. I saw the scene of that crash up close, less than 5 minutes after it took place.

Considering, for all its apparent size, an airliner (or any airplane) is mostly empty space within its skin, it's not difficult to get my head around how easily it could be compressed as well as destroyed beyond recognition. Especially given a direct hit against a hardened concrete building at even modest speed.

If you look at any other plane crash, you see a whole slew of debris, along with bodies and luggae.

See, this is why I would enjoy responding to your posts. Here, you put stress on the word "any," when it simply isn't true; no generalities are (ho-ho). Anyway, please see my helicopter crash recount above.

I haven yet to see a photo with any substantial evidence that any of this existed at the Pentagon.

Never mind the problem inherent in that statement, as the saying goes, Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

There are those few photos of the mangled metal, with the small red spot for the letter on it...but that wasn't burnt, scratched, or showed any evidence that it just crashed into a bulding and was projected from a massive fireball that vaporized the rest of the plane.

I'm not familiar with what you're referring to, so I can't comment.

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.

The "reason" to carry off debris may just be because that's what is done. Like when the authorities don't leave a wrecked car at the side of the road.

And since you have to move debris and wreckage to get to the bottom of the pile anyway, why not cart it away? It's not as if the crews at the Pentagon had a whole lot of room at the site to shuffle things around. Really now, c'mon.

As to what was under the tarp, how 'bout a crime scene? Bodies. Body parts.

And please, please, please reconsider using terms like "nobody," implying yours is a noble quest, apart and above anyone else's. You may be sincere in your search for answers, but involving your ego in the matter may just be asking for complications.

 

[Pardalis]

I urge you all to check out 9-11 Research and WhatReallyHappened

I strongly suggest you read the entire Loose change thread of this board, wich you obviously haven't done.

I only want to hold those accountable for the deaths that day...and despite what our government says, Osama bin Laden claims to not have done it. Even before the tape came out he denied it. Whatever the case, I hope someday we find who really did this. Later guys...

If Ben Laden's word is good enough for you...

 

[Nyarlathotep]

I wonder which 9/11 CT'er is on tomorrows rotation.

 

[Pardalis]

I wonder which 9/11 CT'er is on tomorrows rotation.

LOL Keep' em comin!

 

[DavidJames]

Guys, I enjoy a good debate, and this has been a good debate, but people have started to insult me, and I don't appreciate that. I'm through debating today...mostly because I'm at work and it's getting busy...but also because this is going nowhere. I can't post URLs, and nobody really listens to any of the evidence we have anyways...

No doubt everybody will call me a pussy for leaving...I really don't care. It is not because I have no more evidence or you have proved me wrong and I am scared...in fact, many points you all have made have changed my view on the topic, although I still find it hard to believe that fire brought the towers down, sorry. WTC7 is still a big mystery...wasn't hit by a plane, yet collapsed just like a controlled demolition. Deny it all you want but it collapsed instantaneously in less than 7 seconds.

I urge you all to check out 9-11 Research and WhatReallyHappened

I only want to hold those accountable for the deaths that day...and despite what our government says, Osama bin Laden claims to not have done it. Even before the tape came out he denied it. Whatever the case, I hope someday we find who really did this. Later guys...

Translated this means he has no interest in any evidence or facts which don't agree with his CT.

 

[kookbreaker]

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 wouldn't it do that? How many buildings have you watched collapse without explosives?

Why was material ejected so far out? Has anybody read Steven Jones' report? Oh yeah, I forgot, he's a hack.

He is. He just scooped up the stuff that was already out and attached his name and title to it. Problem is, he's still not qualified. Physics profs are not experts on building failure.

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.

When what we say agrees with the structural engineers model, yes we certainly can comment. If we go out on a limb and say something contrary to what the SE's say, we had better back it up.

 

[WildCat]

Another CTer gets his rear handed to him on a silver platter and hightails it out...

Bring on the next nutjob!

 

[senorpogo]

Another CTer gets his rear handed to him on a silver platter and hightails it out...

Bring on the next nutjob!

Ever see that Saturday Night Live skit with the bunch of ninjas who constantly get beaten down because they attack the other guys one at a time rather than all at once?

"How did we say we were going to attack them?"
(in unison) "All at once."
"How did we attack them?"
(in unison) "One at a time."

Not that it would have mattered in the CTs vs. Skeptics case. Still funny.

 

[Nyarlathotep]

Another CTer gets his rear handed to him on a silver platter and hightails it out...

Bring on the next nutjob!

Oh no, didn't you read his post. He didn't lose, it's just that we're mean and he can't post links.

 

[kookbreaker]

But the argument for fire brought down the towers refutes itself as well. Not only has fire never brought down steel building,

Wrong. The steel portion of the Madrid Tower collapsed after burning.

those fires burnt for less than two hours.

Wrong. They burnt for over seven. With thousands of gallons of diesel fuel.

No matter what anybody says, I simply cannot understand how fire could have done it.

Then perhaps the next time you have a fire in a high rise building, you can tell the firemen not to bother fighting it. Just get everyone out and let it burn. The firemen won't save anything if its gotten too big (anything saved from the fire would be water damaged.

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?

Yes. Flammable materials burn. And they burn hot. Wildcat had a nice link in here showing how fires in houses can get to 1500+ temps in short order. NIST demonstrated it takes very little time to heat up the metal in a fire.

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.

Pancaking obviously is not a concept you understand. But it happens. Momentum builds up and lower floors have more and more mass to try and stop that that are incapable of supporting, even for a fraction of a second.

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

Deliberate ignorance for the most part, also lies told by conspiracy theorists

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

You are the one who substituted your own inability to grasp a simple concept.

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.

I seriously doubt you've read much against the CD theory. You've made so many boners that any person who did a bit of searching would not have made. The 'tarp' bit at the pentagon shows you have not read as much as you claim.

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.

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.

This is simply substituting doubt for geniune skepticism

Other evidence is the light poles, which were neatly ripped out of the ground.

Light poles are designed to do that. It cuts down on damage to cars when struck (and the people inside them). In the meantime, can you tell us what device was used to rip them out of the ground during rush hour traffic.

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.

Wrong. You've seen videos of stationary planes with turbines at full able to push cars. When the plane is in flight and moving the vector physics means the 'push' out of the turbine is not as directed.

Also, I have read plenty of pilot's statements that say an amateur pilot could not have flown that plane like that.

I've heard plenty more who say it isn't that hard. Most of the incredulous comments come from people who are not real pilots from what I've seen. People just assumed they are from what they claimed was possible or not.

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,

Stop right there. Hani had a commercial pilot licensce.
http://911myths.com/html/flight_school_dropouts.html

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?

Dive bombers can't be choosers. Its not like there is a big sign on the Pentagon saying 'This side vulnerable!'

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.

If the word 'vaporized' is used, it is being applyed to the effect the imapct had on the fuselage: Shattered into many tiny pieces.

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...

You haven't proven me wrong on anything yet. Why would this be any different. You'll have to do your own homework.

Oh gee, you've scampered off.

 

[petre]

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.

That's kind of where the request for you to name a qualifed expert supporting any part of your theory comes from.

Unsupported interpretations, appeals to emotion, and presentation of ideas held by the unqualified (even if they compose a majority of the population) tend to fall short of being considered evidence here. Even vast quantities of non-evidence compiled together don't quite give it the weight of evidence (though if you look around enough, you'll find a few folks here that would disagree with that, and may even have the initials I.I. ...).

 

[Piggy]

BSo you are saying that burning office materials and furniture did it?

Yes. Specifically, paper. The twin towers fire was the largest paper fire in history. I wish I had the number at hand, but the volume of paper in those buildings is mind-boggling, and was one of the reasons the fire went global so quickly.

Add to that the wooden furnishings, draperies, and other materials that reached their combustion point, and you have a global fire that weakened the structure across many floors.

Then, as has been pointed out, the collapse began and chain-reacted.

 

[Manny]

Guys, I enjoy a good debate, and this has been a good debate, but people have started to insult me, and I don't appreciate that. I'm through debating today...mostly because I'm at work and it's getting busy...but also because this is going nowhere. I can't post URLs, and nobody really listens to any of the evidence we have anyways...

For the record, you can now post links -- the mods here make people go 15 posts to cut down on the spambots, but you're at 18 now.

I hope you stick around -- you seem to be among the more openminded of the crowd that's come over here from Loose Screws or whatever it is.

In case you don't, here's a couple of parting thoughts I hope you'll carry with you.

First, be assured that investigations have been done and continue to be done. It's not on the front page of the Times and it's certainly not on the conspiracy sites, but construction-types have been extremely curious about precisely what brought down the towers and 7 WTC and are engaged in vigorous debate about engineering principles, materials research, fireproofing methods, etc. For just one example, do a Google search on Hassan Astaneh. You might be relieved that the CTers are lying to you about the amount of investigation done.

Second, consider the blatent lies told to you by the CTers. Why do they intentionally and maliciously twist Bill Manning's serious and thoughtful concerns about building safety codes into a conspiracy theory he personally does not believe in? Why do they intentionally and maliciously misrepresent Van Romero's comments? Why do some of them continue to lie to you about that "tarp" when it's painfully obvious based on other pictures that it is a service tent? Why do people call Jeff King an "MIT Engineer/Research Scientist" when he doesn't appear on MIT's faculty weblisting? Look into these guys. See what other things they believe. At least one of them believes that the entire income tax system is illegal. For many of them, 9-11 is just one in a litany of things they want to blame on a shadow government. These people hate the government, they want you to hate the government and they don't have any scruples whatsoever about what it takes to get you there.

Third, consider where the burden of proof lies. Use a touch of common sense when you weigh claims like that the wife of the Soliciter General of the United States was landed in Cleveland and spirited off to parts unknown as part of a government plot or that a plane which was seen by thousands or tens of thousands or (in the case of the really out-there CTers) a billion people wasn't really a plane. When you hear these claims, imagine yourself on a jury and it's a defense attorney telling you the story. "My client didn't do it -- the cop who arrested him with the stolen goods, the victim who identified him, the DNA lab, the phone company which traced the calls from the cell phone he allegedly stole, they're all lying. It's really a massive government plot to make people want to hire more police officers." What would it take for you to acquit that lawyer's client? What would it take if it were proven to you that his attorney had lied about the case over and over and over again?

 

[Sultanist]

[edit]duplicate post

 

[Sultanist]

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

See that gets right back to what I've been trying to tell you and so many others for over a year now, Captain.
You've just put your finger on the crux of this whole problem.
Outside of this one example, no one has ever seen what happens when a jumbo airliner traveling at 500 mph broadsides a skyscraper. Just like no one had ever seen anything like what happened at the Pentagon. There is no "normal" way for it to look.
But that doesn't make any difference whatsoever to so many people. Because even though no one has ever seen other examples of anything like what happened here, they still believe that's not what it's "supposed" to look like. That's not what is "supposed" to happen. That's not what it "normally" looks like. That's not what "normally" happens.

 

[hellaeon]

CptFarlow i'd suggest you just go back to school and do basic science and progress from there. Also Computer Science may help as it deals with Logic, as does a few other notable maths courses.

I mean, no explosives residue? Dont you even ask this? why is there no timing devices or similar found? There is NO evidence of explosives only anecdotal witness accounts that 'I think it looks like a demolition therefore it is'. Sorry but that just dont cut the mustard. Why would I believe a few people here and there with that emotional evidence when after calcluated testing and hypothesis done by hundreds of scientists on actual physical materials comes to a scientific conclusion. Do you even understand forensic science and the role it plays?

I mean finding residue would be like DNA. But aside from all that, the CT theory is to find holes and fly accusations. How about tell us exactly how you propose it could have happened. You just saying I dont understand this, therefore its entirely wrong. This is similar to the creation v evolution arguement.

I cant believe people have to goto such lengths to explain stuff using mathematics and the like. Read my above paragraph and then tell me why you would waste time still trying to find ways it could be a demolition? Apart from that, the people needed to be involved ??....and to keep quiet? your own sandbox is full of examples how impossible that would be to keep all quiet.

I cant understand why you would think the evil doers in charge would go to these great lengths and huge costs to justify the means you believe they did it for.

You need to understand science. You underestimate the immense data mining and understanding of such an event. You treat science and the like as if its as easy as eating pie. Yeah scientists sit around in white coats. All their theories fell out of the air. You need to realise how little you know and acknowledge how intelligent some people are.

Dunno if my post seems sidetracked but I get frustrated at people bloating themselves as experts in demolitions or construction when they have absolutely no idea.

Edit: Sultanists last post - cant agree more.

 

[Gravy]

CptFarlow...
You need to understand science. You underestimate the immense data mining and understanding of such an event. You treat science and the like as if its as easy as eating pie. Yeah scientists sit around in white coats. All their theories fell out of the air. You need to realise how little you know and acknowledge how intelligent some people are.

Understanding some basic scientific principles is important, but I think in this debate critical thinking skills are far more important.