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.

[cnorman18]

Can we take a step back and ask a couple of simple, obvious and non-technical questions?

If that 757 did not strike the Pentagon, what happened to it?

What would the point of hijacking it in the first place have been?

It's been seven years. I have never once seen a conspiracy enthusiast answer those questions, or even try to.

Why is that?

THAT is one of the elephants in the living room. A missing and unaccounted-for 757 is a damned big elephant.

Forget the "smell test"; these theories don't even pass the coherency and common-sense tests.

Again, I apologize for my contemptuous tone, though I'm trying to dial it back a bit; but the whole Jesus-on-a-stick-saves-you-from-eternal-torment routine makes more sense than this does.

What happened to that hijacked aircraft? You want an unanswered question, let's start with that one.

[Beto]

Sometimes metaphorical language is useful to make a point. sometimes not so.

I stand by it. If I'm expected to believe the nose of the aircraft made it past C-ring, with a hole that big, the nonexistence of complete engine blocks can't be readily accepted.

“I would expect things to look different� is not an argument that bears any weight. I expect things to look like they do. Either stance is meaningless.

That's being entirely too fundamentalist. There are degrees of expectancy.

However it would not be meaningless to say that given the energy involved in the impact, the massive deceleration, the mass of a 757, and a reduced volume explosion I would expect to the debris of a 757, including engines, to be in a worse state than the cars involved in those crashes. And that is about as much that can be reasonably said.

Actually, they're meaningless if we're to trust that the nose of the aircraft made it past C-ring.

If you want to be a believer that is up to you, but hopefully by the time we are done you’ll stop citing the various pictures and pieces of video as evidence for a conspiracy.

Agh! Don't tell an atheist "if you want to be a believer"! There's no "wanting" here. Well, actually I want you to convince me I'm wrong, even though that may not seem apparent.

I think this should just goes to show how much misinformation and misdirection is going into the conspiracy story. Why are they doing this? And why are you buying these lies in preference to government lies? Do you not think their behavior is any less suspicious or less incompetent than the US government? It is also a sign of just how weak the conspiracy theory is, when the evidence is not how it is being presented, and someone dubs some eerie music over the footage. This feels more like people out there willfully creating the conspiracy.

Hmm? The mistake was all mine.

And exactly how does this lend any substance to the theory a 757 did not hit the pentagon? Again, I think you really need to look at the cards you are holding. Fine have you’re suspicions, but the evidence shows what its shows, and nothing else.

What virtually everyone would consider conclusive evidence remains undisclosed. Apprehending footage, saying it shows nothing, and later on using it as evidence, denotes dishonesty and gives credibility to any theory that doesn't agree with the official line.

Okay quick summary. The size and of hole in the Pentagon and consequent damage, all available video footage, engine debris, debris in general, white walls, unbroken windows, unburnt aluminum shrapnel, provide no evidence against a 757. To be clear, pictures not meeting your expectations bear no weight as evidence because of the disconnect. Just as it bears no weight if I were to say the pics meet my expectations. I’m really hoping that you are now able to see that not only are the items on this list this not just weak evidence of a conspiracy it is not evidence for anything of the sort. It either shows a plane did hit the Pentagon, or the evidence is plane neutral. And neutral evidence is neutral, and not evidence for a conspiracy. If you disagree with this summary then we’ll just have to go back and beat these points out again.

You forgot to address the cable spoolers. No point leaving that one unchecked.

[Beto]

If there was a missile or another plane they too would have to negotiate those pillars to punch an exit hole. So the hole goes both ways.

A missile theory doesn't convince me at this point.

If there was explosives then why would they the conspirators place them to blow a hole in the back wall?

To create the illusion that the aircraft punched through. Works wonders for the uninformed.

Here’s a link to a pic. The pillars between entry and exit marked as yellow on the analysis you linked are load bearing pillars and show damage, but not damage to their load bearing function.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume the body of the aircraft will make more damage to the pillars than the engines, but that's what the picture shows.

Take a look at that pic. That back wall is about two bricks thick and not reinforced. The pillars are going to be stronger than that wall. So plane parts bounces off pillars marked yellow and crash through back wall. The impact required to knock a hole in that wall relatively speaking not so great as the energy needs to crash a pillar; and by the time plane stuff is reaching the c-ring most of it is pretty much flying mash anyway. The pillars deflecting the mash, but the wall being a flat obstruction can’t do that so it takes the full force of what energy is left in the plane mash that gets that far. The mash will then be carrying enough energy to either break through the wall, or just bounce off, but obviously it had enough energy to go through.

As usual, you will see an acceptable damage, for an aircraft nose bouncing off the pillars, whereas I do not. This hole is very similar to the available demonstrations of rapid wall breach kits.

Broken windows in B-ring are interesting. Those windows in E-ring remain intact after the airliner hits the facade, but windows in B-ring manage to break just because of the nose, even after so much energy was already lost.

[Beto]

Can we take a step back and ask a couple of simple, obvious and non-technical questions?

If that 757 did not strike the Pentagon, what happened to it?

What would the point of hijacking it in the first place have been?

It's been seven years. I have never once seen a conspiracy enthusiast answer those questions, or even try to.

Why is that?

Because you're obviously not trying hard enough, if at all. There's no shortage of speculation about what happened to the plane, if it existed at all. I'm sure you understand I'm not particularly interested in answering questions about stuff you're not even remotely interested in researching yourself. I recognize FB is making a monumental effort to be serious about this and is going out of his way to convince me I'm wrong, and I'm very grateful for that.

[cnorman18]

"If it existed at all"???

I'd love to see an explanation of THAT statement.

"Other people have said stuff that you can look up" is not answering the question. If it's so easy to answer, why don't you at least give a two-sentence synopsis of some of these supposed theories and explain why they make sense?

Why hijack a plane and dispose of it somehow, then go to a huge amount to trouble to fake its impact into the Pentagon? Why not just crash the damned thing into the building and not have to fake anything?

Can you explain ANY scenario where that makes any sense at all?

Hey, I'm making a serious effort to convince you that you're wrong, too; I'm just doing it from a common-sense reality-based approach, and not arguing technical questions that no one here is qualified to answer. It would appear that virtually all of the investigators who WERE qualified to answer those questions were satisfied--which brings around to the larger question you have not even acknowledged, which is "How could hundreds of people" - including the aforementioned investigators - "be convinced to participate before the fact and lie after about the most heinous mass murder in American history, and further, be convinced never to come forward?"

What, is that question radioactive? You won't come near it, for some reason. Doesn't it require an answer before we begin to take this crap seriously?

Complaining about my attitude isn't answering the questions, by the way. My attitude is every bit as justified, and in fact more so, than the disdainful attitude of some atheists toward those who believe in God.

This conspiracy theory doesn't make rational sense and there is not a shred of proof for it. Isn't that why you're an atheist? Why am I wrong not to believe in it, then?

[Beto]

"If it existed at all"???

I'd love to see an explanation of THAT statement.

I don't really subscribe to it at this point, at least regarding Flight 77. Flight 93 is another matter. A crash site like that and the convenience of the flight not being recorded in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, for existing only a month prior or after the event, makes it more than reasonable to question if it did. Notice real planes don't make real flights.

"Other people have said stuff that you can look up" is not answering the question. If it's so easy to answer, why don't you at least give a two-sentence synopsis of some of these supposed theories and explain why they make sense?

I didn't say it was "easy to answer", I said theories are out there. I'm not particularly interested in conspiracist speculations of that level, as I have no way of verifying them. I'm only willing to address facts, and speculate around observations available to everyone.

Why hijack a plane and dispose of it somehow, then go to a huge amount to trouble to fake its impact into the Pentagon? Why not just crash the damned thing into the building and not have to fake anything?

Consider the uncontrollable variables.

[Furrowed Brow]

I stand by it. If I'm expected to believe the nose of the aircraft made it past C-ring, with a hole that big, the nonexistence of complete engine blocks can't be readily accepted.

Let’s break this down.

Nonexistence of complete engine blocks

There is a difference between non existence, no pics of existence, and the engine block existing in an unrecognizable mashed up state that may or may not be in pics. So let’s be clear: at no point does the 757 account of events say that the plane or plane parts evaporated or disappeared or became non existence. However there is the credible inference that plane parts melted, shredded, reduced to component parts….and generally got all mashed.

If I'm expected to believe the nose of the aircraft made it past C-ring

Why does that have any relevance to a mashed up engine block. Logically none.
And given everything said I really would not expect to see anything that looked like the nose of a plane reach the exit hole; more like mashed up matter; and there is some mashed up debris in that pic.

That's being entirely too fundamentalist. There are degrees of expectancy.

There is “expectancy� based on analysis of events, consideration of other events etc, and as I keep showing your expectations are unrealistic based on faulty/incomplete assumptions. But just an “expectation� because something “seems� likely is meaningless, and becomes no more meaningful when supported by an interpretation that has its own telling silences.

Actually, they're meaningless if we're to trust that the nose of the aircraft made it past C-ring.

You’ve gone silent on a credible alternative .

Hmm? The mistake was all mine.

No I don’t think it was. I originally went down the same road you did. The presentation of the film is deliberately designed to push the conspiracy agenda.

What virtually everyone would consider conclusive evidence remains undisclosed. Apprehending footage, saying it shows nothing, and later on using it as evidence, denotes dishonesty and gives credibility to any theory that doesn't agree with the official line.

It may well do. But you keep avoiding the real point here that all the picture evidence we are looking at is perfectly consistent with a 757, nothing contradicts that account, and no matter how much you find the behaviour of the US government suspicious that behavior says nothing about what is in that picture evidence. Somewhere along the line yourself and it seems many conspiracy theorist have convinced yourselves the picture evidence contradicts a 757. But point by point it should be clear by now it don’t. Moreover it don't contradict any realistic "expectations" based on a more thorough analysis that the conspiracy theory allows.

You forgot to address the cable spoolers. No point leaving that one unchecked.

I’ll get on to it. But in the meantime why don’t you look for the explanation that you think I might come up with.

I don't think it's reasonable to assume the body of the aircraft will make more damage to the pillars than the engines, but that's what the picture shows.

Do they? Okay point by point please.

As usual, you will see an acceptable damage, for an aircraft nose bouncing off the pillars,

Nose? Well in some mashed state I supposes you could call it a nose. I don’t think there is any need to posit anything more than disintegrating plane.

whereas I do not. This hole is very similar to the available demonstrations of rapid wall breach kits.

Also possible to make the hole before hand with a sledge hammer. C’mon. Please demonstrate ther cannot be a 757, or the alternative you offer is more likely. If they blew a hole to look like an exit hole why did they not blow the C ring pillars. Also also perceived similarity with breach kits does not negate the point that the damage is what we might expect from a 757.

Broken windows in B-ring are interesting. Those windows in E-ring remain intact after the airliner hits the facade, but windows in B-ring manage to break just because of the nose, even after so much energy was already lost.

And this proves….?

[cnorman18]

"If it existed at all"???

I'd love to see an explanation of THAT statement.

I don't really subscribe to it at this point, at least regarding Flight 77.

Excuse me, but Flight 77 is the one we're talking about here.

Flight 93 is another matter. A crash site like that and the convenience of the flight not being recorded in the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, for existing only a month prior or after the event, makes it more than reasonable to question if it did. Notice real planes don't make real flights.

"Other people have said stuff that you can look up" is not answering the question. If it's so easy to answer, why don't you at least give a two-sentence synopsis of some of these supposed theories and explain why they make sense?

I didn't say it was "easy to answer", I said theories are out there. I'm not particularly interested in conspiracist speculations of that level, as I have no way of verifying them. I'm only willing to address facts, and speculate around observations available to everyone.

In other words, this very basic question that goes to the reasonability and credibility of the whole theory is not worth answering because you can't show me an answer that you can buy into yourself and prefer to skip to the technicals.

Oookay....

Why hijack a plane and dispose of it somehow, then go to a huge amount to trouble to fake its impact into the Pentagon? Why not just crash the damned thing into the building and not have to fake anything?

Consider the uncontrollable variables.

Like what?

Are you seriously proposing that faking a crash like this is less risky than just having a real one???

If exposure of the plot is of any concern at all, that is literally insane.

Note the edits in my previous post. You seem curiously unwilling to even acknowledge the "radioactive question."

You are, as I said earlier, trying to count deck chairs on the Titanic in an effort to prove the ship didn't sink. If you can't present at least a semblance of a plausible theory for why it was necessary to fake all of this hoo-raw in addition to the inarguably real impact of the planes that we all saw on live TV, and further explain how hundreds of conspirators were convinced to participate and keep silent, I don't think it's worth analyzing the minutiae any farther.

[Beto]

I'm trying to approach this as logically as possible. What you're asking me to find reasonable is that the body or nose of the aircraft, something that gets mashed in by birds, punched through three rings, made an exit hole in C-ring considerably neat and wide, with a burn signature on top...



... after bouncing off the pillars in the way, but both 3 ton engine blocks get FUBAR?

You forgot to address the cable spoolers. No point leaving that one unchecked.

I’ll get on to it. But in the meantime why don’t you look for the explanation that you think I might come up with.

They're heavy? Cars get flown away easily enough in the path of these things, so I wouldn't figure they would stay there. However, this is no "smoking gun", as far as I'm concerned.

[Beto]

Sorry Cnorman but I won't indulge you further in this discussion.