EDIT: Official Source of Info.! - this explains away a lot of the conspiracy theories.
-------

This is just for fun

A journalist I like recently wrote an article I found surprising. Two articles actually: 1, 2.

If you don't feel like reading them through, his points are as follows:

1. We know that it is strictly impossible for any building, much less steel columned buildings, to "pancake" at free fall speed. Therefore, it is a non-controversial fact that the official explanation of the collapse of the WTC buildings is false.

2. We also know for a fact that the Air Force somehow inexplicably failed to intercept the alleged hijacked airliners despite the fact that the Air Force can launch jet fighters to 29,000 feet in 2.5 minutes.

3. We also know that the two co-chairmen of the 9/11 Commission have just written a book that reveals that the US military lied to the Commission about its failure to intercept the hijacked airliners.

Every air control and military procedure fails, and hijacked airliners are not intercepted by jet fighters.

4. The alleged hijackers’ names apparently are not on the passenger lists, and some of the alleged hijackers have been found alive and well in Saudi Arabia.

5. Dr. Thomas R. Olmstead used the Freedom of Information Act to get a copy of the autopsy list of American Airlines flight 77, and he reports that there are no Arabic names on the list.

6. A large 757 hits the Pentagon but leaves a small hole, and there is no sign of wings, engines, tail or fuselage.

I think those are all of his points - quoted from the 2 articles.

His conclusion is simply that this is too improbable to believe.

Was it the first wave of an alien invasion, chick-fil-a cows on a covert operation against a beef lover convention, or a cover up of Bush after a wild night of drinking?

This isn't something I've cared to look into, but all theories welcome!

What a fabulous start to the thread.

Unless TV stations across the world were showing the fall in slow motion, the towers weren't falling at 9.81 m/s^2.

Are you going to quote the claim that steel can't melt at the temperatures present inside the buildings, as well?

(Popular Mechanics ran a nice article debunking some of the myths in May 2005.)

Surely terrorists wouldn't use fake names, would they?


Next we will be told the Apollo moon landings never happened.

I wouldn't be surprised if a mod locked this thread.

Sadly when you dig really deep into this subject, without any bias or pre conceived ideas, you’d need to be pretty ignorant to believe the official story. It’s mostly the size of the conspiracy that throws people, which is why in many awful respects, it was the perfect crime. Building 7 was the clincher for me, then every other ridiculous aspect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/911_Conspiracy

Unfortunately both sides of the argument are full of holes. I chalk it up to one of those things we'll never know for sure.

I'd rather the government focus on what makes the US a target.

ROFLMFAO!!!.....



Oh The Irony .....

Indeed... I LOL'ed.
But consider this... if they knew the attacks were going to happen why didn't they do something about it? *cough*maybe they needed an excuse to wage war on "terror"*cough*

I fail to see any humor in it. Maybe you can enlighten me.

Reread what you said and you will find the irony.

Asking The Government to look into what makes the U.S.A./America a target .....

Ironic or not, I don't find it funny. The government and the policies they create are not the same thing.

Bzzzt....does not compute...sense of humour failure.....bzzzt.




No, that's true, but they are responsible for them, in the same way that a parent is responsible for its children. It should be very clear that US foreign policy is perceived as being both imperialist and too biased towards Israel all across the Middle East; whether this is an accurate perception is a matter for debate. Also many find the Bush administration's cultivation of the fundamentalist Christian right (incl. Creationists and so-called "Intelligent Design" etc) very worrying.

I wouldn't be sure of either side, but there's definately something fishy going on, so I'll lean towards the "yes" side...

We might find out the real truth in 50 years from now, IIRC that's how long the US gov keeps stuff secret. When was JFK killed again? His assasination plans must be released relatively soon. Funnily enough he was probably killed in order to make a war, same reason the WTC came down if it was the government that did it.

I guess it all makes sense: who has guns and bombs (enough to kill a president and blow up a couple of buildings)? The arms industry. Who profits from a war? The arms industry.

THEY ARE EVERYWHERE

They are... if you involve the word dim-witted in either/each sentence... .....

I've read a whole lot about this because my first instinct was that something was awry. I found a lot of things that point to government conspiracy, and then saw a lot of couterpoints that make many of those things seem like utter hogwash. (no plane at the pentagon, flight 93 diverted to Cleveland, missiles from planes, control pods, etc.)

I try to stay sane on this one, as there is a lot of wackiness on both sides. But, there's so much pointing to at least a little government involvement that it's hard to deny. I'm leaning toward yes. But I'll wait for that completely irrefutable bit of evidence or testimony before I go preaching. I'm curious and skeptical, and I wish more people were.

Things weird about official story:
passport that survives crash into WTC (?) failure of NORAD jets to intercept (??) hiackers that are still alive (?!?) high volume of trading the day before (!) Oh, the list goes on and on.

I don't want to propose an answer to these questions, but I wish the gov. would answer them. Why the secrecy?

Trip, I really enjoyed the links in your first post (and the possible explanations in your second post were even better). It seems clear to me that aliens must be involved somewhere - probably those green saliva-dripping ones on the Simpsons. The reason they're on the Simpsons is to fool us into thinking that they're fictional.

Actually, it's quite possible. What do you expect, for a building not to fall according to physics? Sorry bud, it ain't happening. It's going down.



It can, yes. given enough time. And that's after all the pre-flight checks, logbooks, all the paperwork. Counting all that, you're looking at closer to at least half an hour.



Don't believe everything that you hear.


Again, see point #2. Given time, it's possible. Besides, I doubt something like this happens in every highjacking, crashing planes into buildings. Most of the time, they land, hold hostages, and then the bargaining begins.



Nevermind that they probubly used fake names, but you do know that there's more than one person with each of those names in the world, right?



Again, fake names. That, and a lot of people change their names to more american names when moving to the states.


:rolleyes:

So, a 757, which is really 13 feet in diameter not counting the tail, wings, engines, landing gear, makes a 13 foot hole, and the plane shreads. what's the big deal?



Other LIES from other sites omit the fact that:
-steel melts at 1525 degrees, but since the plane fuel only burns at 825 degrees, it didnt melt it, even though steel loses over half it's strength at 650 degrees
-There's no debris. O RLY?


-That it was a military plane because people couldn't see anything in the plane, nevermind that the plane was flying very far away



I'm pretty busy right now, I'll have more later, but seriously, you believe that crap?

I love how people overlook things.

Or maybe not. People still talk about conspiracy theories involving Pearl Harbor.

Personally, I doubt the conspiracy theories around 9/11; most of them seem factually suspect.

Ryan, you've picked on the easy questions. I think the government's theories are untrue, and I don't subscribe to the no-plane-at-the-pentagon theory either.

I really think that "don't believe everything that you hear" should apply doubly when it comes to the government.

Plus, if you have to answer "it's possible" as many times as you did to the listed questions, bear in mind that the possibility drops each time you do. It's possible to get heads in a coin flip, but not nearly as easy to do it 10-20 times in a row. When confronted with the huge list of improbabilities that occurred on 9-11, you can't just attack each one on its own with "it's possible."

No matter what you believe, there was some weird stuff going on all at once, and not many of the dots connect yet. With the lack of information released by the government, to be certain of any theory is just wishful thinking. This includes the official version of events as well. Until there's more evidence, anyone who thinks they know an answer is a 'conspiracy theorist.' This applies to you too Ryan.

Yes, I understand. The conspiracies aren't entirely true, or entirely false. The government's official statement, same. Not entirely true, but not entirely false.

Believe what you want. I just don't think zooming in on a few blurry pictures, picking pictures to prove a point, even if they're not entirely right. Like how there are pictures where there aren't debris outside the pentagon, even though another angle clearly shows it. Or a trick of light, which is suddenly intrepreted as a missile firing into the towers before impact. I just don't buy it.

On the other hand, I also don't believe 100% what the government says. Specificly, tower #7.

Until there's conclusive evidence, I'm going to side with the official response.

I take it you have never seen this then... (?)
http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm

Take it as you will.
P.S.: Oh and wings (not to mention fuselage and tail) don't mysteriously disappear you know... they just desintegrated, that's it

But why is Tower 7 so important?


We can debate for hours whether the extrusion under the 767 is standard equipment on a 767, an illusion, or a missile.

We can debate for hours whether the hole at the Pentagon was supportive of a 757 impact, or not.


And why the most surveyed and secure zone on earth, was infiltrated. While one very low quality video is all we are allowed to see. Admittedly, it is hard to prove the no 757 myth, but the government seems happy to keep it alive, maybe they can't debunk it.

We can also debate whether the debris at the pentagon belongs to a 757, some say definitely no, others definitively yes. The damage says no, the debris say it’s possible, although the lack of engines and wing sections is odd to say the least, not to mention the lack of damage they caused. Are we being hoaxed? We need to see engines, not APU fan blades, engines don't vanish, and they make short work of anything in their way. Except apparently at the Pentagon.


We can debate whether a commercial airliner can hit the ground and vaporize….aka Shanksville

Or whether a cell phone will work at 30000 ft “Hello, mum, this is Mark Bingham speaking………the plane has been hijacked………you believe me don’t you?â€

I'd just like to know why the Pentagon, which I would think belongs to the places with the most security cameras in the world (or at least it should), can only produce one video going at about 1fps, considering my cellphone cam can probably take a better video than that. so you're telling me theres exactly 1 camera pointed at the area it takes for an alleged plane to strike a building?

Did you see the movie I posted? All [surveilance] camera's footage was confiscated. Well, almost everything.

Unless security tapes were running at high speed, you're not going to see much on a tight angle shot when the plane flies by at 500mph. Recording tapes rarely record at even normal speed to save tape-guards are watching normal speed cameras anyway. The outer wall of the pentagon is reinforced concrete, which will win every time against aircraft aluminum wings. You notice the burned walls on the inner wall, just beyond the damage of the outer wall? I would say that's where the plane went as it hit. People think there should be an intact body just sitting up against the building, when in fact the plane would flattened up rather nicely against an immovable object. Dubbya isn't considered a fast on his feet guy, heaven forbid when told a major accident (since they likely didn't know it was an attack at that time) has occurred he sat there in a bit of a panic trying to work out what to do.

I found a radio interview with Popular Mechanics. Don't know who's interviewing him, but it's interesting. It's pretty even in my opinion. But, it shows that there are sensible rebuttals to their position on 9-11. It's 20 minutes long, so it won't appeal to everyone.

http://www.apfn.net/pogo/A003I060823-am-c3.MP3

rpsgc,

Regarding the Pentagon, did your video say the section of the pentagon hit happened to have been under renovation since 1999? So it was sparsely inhabited at the time of the impact. That's just something that hadn't been mentioned yet.

The wikipedia and popular mechanics articles were great too.

Pardon me, but why would a government hell-bent on killing its own citizens, and evidently using huge passenger jets to crash into buildings, would also need a mount a missile under the jet that -- I don't think there's doubt of that, after Naudet brothers' film, staged or not -- crashed into WTC?



Uh huh. I sincerely ask -- can you find me a quote by an established civil engineer that explains what's wrong with this video? Seems rather feasible to me, then again I'm just a feeble mechie...

I'm not a blind believer in the government, but some of the arguments made by the conspirationists are quite ridiculous.

Supposedly it's falling too quickly. The official story is that fuel poured into the elevator shafts, ignited, caused other material to burn, and led to a high blaze that weakened the entire structure.

However, it should still fall more slowly as each floor provides resistance.

Quick google search came up with this article. I haven't had time to read it fully, nor am I familiar with him. I've had a lot of crazy professors, and a lot of dull professors who just teach whatever is in their textbooks. So I wouldn't trust a random physicist on his word.