9/11 and conspiracy theories

[Beto]

Alrighty then... as I suggested in another thread, this one will be just to chat about 9/11 and other conspiracy theories. With so many websites solely devoted to them, I don't think addressing the issue here is "dangerous" to anyone.

So, to get things started I'll mention the "peculiarities" I find in the 9/11 event that I don't feel are sufficiently addressed by the government. I'm particularly interested in some incontrovertible images and sounds, since anything else implies trusting the mainstream media and the accused party.

First off, about the WTC 7. The NIST recently released a report blaming the fires for the collapse of the building. I'm no engineer so I can't really judge. Though looking at how the building falls it seems like a bunch of bs to me. More relevant is Silverstein's statement. During an interview, Silverstein claimed to have decided, in conjunction with the Fire Commander to "pull" the building. Now, it's often claimed he meant pull the firefighters out, but his exact phrase was "pull it". The transcript goes like:

"I said 'you know we've had such terrible loss of life. Maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull, and then we watched the building collapse."



People say it comes down to what we want to hear. For the life of me, and despite definitely not wanting to hear what I do, I can't see how this could relate to pull people out. Also relevant was the fact that no firefighters were in the building at this time. They were outside walking away from the building, fact caught on amateur video:

"It's blowin' boy." ... "Keep your eye on that building, it'll be coming down soon." ... "The building is about to blow up, move it back." ... "Here we are walking back. There's a building, about to blow up..."



"Blow up"? It's hard to believe the firefighters were expecting a steel framed building to collapse because of internal fires, when later it's considered a "freak accident", and totally unexpected.

OK, that's enough about WTC 7. Now something about Flight 93.



Leaving aside the "feel" of the clip, and whether or not the "scar" was there before 9/11, this is NOT a plane crash site. Scattered debris here and there don't make a plane crash site. The bulk of the fuselage should be right there, where nothing can be seen. Show me another crash site even remotely similar to that one.

That's enough for now, I guess.

[JoeyKnothead]

WTC 7 PDF
p13 5.4 Building Loads
P1 The degree of impact damage to the south facade could not be documented. However, damage was evident from review of (photo/video) records. The number of fires...makes it likely that debris impact damage occurred in a number of locations.

p23
Points to the fires present on floors 5 through 7, structurally important floors. Admits further study is warranted, but does not disclude fires spread and were fed by fuel/debris.

p28 5th Floor Scenarios.
I think this is the most likely case. Fuel being dumped due to a broken line, combined with the damage, would IMO be the most likely cause.

"However, there is no physical, photographic, or other evidence to substantiate or refute the discharge of fuel oil from the piping system." With damage as total and complete as this has caused, I can accept the most plausible scenario.

Does anyone know if the trusses involved had their fireproofing intact after the collapse?

Can anyone discount any of the provided scenarios?

The scenarios provided seem quite plausible, constistent with my knowledge of construction, and don't require extra amounts of information/proof. Admittedly we may never know the cause, but the scenarios seem logically applied.

I'd love to have a pic showing the fireproofing on the beams pre and post event. Most walls within this building were rated to 2 hours, this building burned for way much longer than that, so fire spreading anywhere can't be discounted.

Ok, now I'ma go look into the F93/debris/geography deal.

[Beto]

Just to clarify, I wouldn't put anything past this administration, and as such I would be more inclined to believe they were up to no good than not. If it were proven they had a hand in this issue it wouldn't surprise me. By no means am I saying Beto, Z, et al are wrong, I'm coming from the perspective of a juror. I can't prove either way, but my gut tells me it was a Muslim action.

It seems likely. The question is whether or not the Muslim action was provoked and facilitated by the accused parties. I'm not sure it's entirely reasonable to just assume the government lost all measure of control over Bin Laden and other Maktab al Khidamar members after their Jihad against the Soviet Union.

Towers/WTC 7

However, to be able to rig things so it would collapse like that a head of time would require so many different people it would be impossible to keep a secret.

I agree, the logistics involved would be incredible. Of course it would be possible, but I still don't see why including WTC 7 would come into play. Even with the tenants involved, its just to many what ifs to include 7.

Well, considering the tenants were the very people meant to deal with terrorist attacks...

Investigation

Zzyzx brings up a good point. Whey would the administration resist so strongly? I think it is because they were afraid their general/topic incompetence would be proven once and for all. So I'm of a mind it wasn't to cover up for their 'part' in all this.

How does releasing footage of what pretty much everyone already assumes happened at the Pentagon prove their incompetence? It would just show what they already guarantee happened.

Incorrect aircraft engines
? More info please

On the Pentagon? Don't know of anything conclusive, as I've read good explanations either way, so if someone's lying I can't tell who. The flight 93 engine found buried in a rather awkward position is irrelevant with such a bogus impact crater.

[C-Nub]

Motive;

I think it's worth noting that, sometime prior to 9/11, a political think tank that included the Dick Cheney and, I think, Jeb Bush released a report entitled 'Project for a new American Century' in which it was stated that America needed a, and now I'm quoting "Helpful Pearl Harbor" style attack to launch a war and bolster the economy.

The words 'Helpful Pearl Harbor' are especially chilling to me. There's no concern for the human life involved, and no honest desire to avoid that sort of tragedy on american soil, because of what it makes possible.

It's nothing conclusive on its own, but it certainly tells you where the Neo-Cons thought processes take them. It was literally stated that an attack on American soil, against American people, would be 'helpful' to them.

[Beto]

I'm a bit freaked out, my PC just turned off for no apparent reason while I had multiple 9/11 websites opened.

So where was I? Ah, yes...

I found this neat website with an in-depth analysis of flight 77. Including the following image:



Wrap your heads around that one.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/index.htm

Another thing is the Pentagon security camera that was released. Overlooking what appears to be a removed frame, immediately after the following, we can however, observe the tip of the incoming object.



That bears little resemblance to the front of a Boeing 757-200.

[C-Nub]

Good post, Beto. It's worth noting that the picture of the pentagon with the 747 mocked-up is done with a post-collapse image of the pentagon roof. The initial impact left a circular hole, one much smaller than the rubble from the collapse would lead on to believe.

The wings and tail section, as well as the two jet engines (weighing well over a ton apiece) are completely missing from the impact site. One ton of jet engine crashing into a wall at hundreds of miles an hour would, at the very least, break the windows.

If not, maybe I should hire the Pentagon's glass man to... uh... build me something.. made of glass.

[Beto]

It's worth noting that the picture of the pentagon with the 747 mocked-up is done with a post-collapse image of the pentagon roof. The initial impact left a circular hole, one much smaller than the rubble from the collapse would lead on to believe.

I seriously doubt someone's first (or last) impression is that a Boeing 757 went through that.

[JoeyKnothead]

Tagging in to let ya know I'm still here, net was down most of the day and I'm running behind. I'm up to:

Project for a new American Century from C-Nub

Still gotta do the flight 93/geo

Gotta see the F77 page Beto linked

Incorrect engines could really be a huge evidence

I didn't see anyone respond to my statement about the guy pulling dead bodies out of aircraft seats, and how they were cooked. I'll try to find some proof of that, but I got a feeling it's gonna be hard to find a quote.

Beto, on that picture in post 36, I'm thinking it's to the right of the impact. Correct?

[Beto]

Beto, on that picture in post 36, I'm thinking it's to the right of the impact. Correct?

According to FEMA:

1. The 757 approached at about 780 ft/s (532 mph)
2. During the approach the plane rolled slightly to the left.
3. The left wing struck a piece of construction equipment that was about 100 feet from the Pentagon's facade, 0.1 second before impact.
4. The left engine struck the ground at about the time the nose struck the facade.
5. The impact of the fuselage was centered at about column line 14.
6. The left wing passed below the second floor slab, and the right wing crossed the slab at a shallow angle.
7. The impact removed first floor exterior columns from column lines 10 to 14.
8. The impact severely damaged first floor exterior columns on column lines 9, 15, 16, and 17.
9. The impact destroyed the second floor exterior columns on column ine 14 and its adjacent spandrel plate.
10. Facade damage extended to the fourth floor on both sides of the impact area, but did not extend above the third floor over the central impact area.
11. The E-Ring structure deflected downward from an expansion joint on column line 11 south to the exterior column on column line 18.
12. All five levels of Ring E between column line 8 through column line 18 collapsed about 20 minutes after the impact.



I trust these extrapolations are made from this report. Hey, if they're good enough for Yukihisa Fujita they're good enough for me. Youtube him to see an interesting discussion in the Japanese parliament.

Notice two things: above the hole, where the vertical stabilizer is supposed to hit, nada. Notice the lawn, where the engine is supposed to hit, zilch.

I didn't see anyone respond to my statement about the guy pulling dead bodies out of aircraft seats, and how they were cooked. I'll try to find some proof of that, but I got a feeling it's gonna be hard to find a quote.

Well, if we actually saw any sign of aircraft parts (apart from one or two dubious engine parts and ridiculously clean fuselage pieces several yards away), never mind actual seats, it would make it easier to believe.

[mrmufin]

I checked out the site that Beto provided regarding AA flight 77, and I think it's definitely interesting. Admittedly, I've not given much thought and/or credence to 9/11 conspiracy theories. As such, I have one (fairly obvious) question; perhaps this has been addressed in this thread, or elsewhere, and I've just overlooked it:

If the AA77 -> Pentagon crash is a hoax, then somewhere there must be an airplane, its crew, and passengers. Any theories as to where these things are?

[Beto]

If the AA77 -> Pentagon crash is a hoax, then somewhere there must be an airplane, its crew, and passengers. Any theories as to where these things are?

You know, to me that feels like a non-sequitur. I have no reason to believe flight 77 existed at all. If it wasn't meant to hit anything, I think it would be far less troublesome to just make one up, than having to manipulate all the people involved with a real one. Some people have searched the Bureau of Transportation Statistics only to find no record of flight 77 leaving Dulles at about 8 am on 9/11/2001. I'm having trouble doing this search myself, so if anyone else would care to try, please tell us if it's true. Not that it ultimately matters. Whether or not the plane existed is of little consequence to what we can be sure didn't happen.