Home General Discussion

9/11 Loose Change

124

Replies

  • danr
    Offline / Send Message
    danr interpolator
    man alive ... so many claims on how people expect a building to behave, each one that feels "strange" adding fuel to the conspiracy fire ...

    it's simple : no-one knows how a fucking great skyscraper would react to having an airliner smack directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before. They can make a million calculations and simulate a potential collision hundreds of times, but without firm evidence from previous similar situations, i don't think they can nail the expected behaviour well enough to say "hey, that's wrong ... something else must be afoot".

    repeat the experiment for real 5 more times, we might get somewhere.
  • rooster
    Offline / Send Message
    rooster mod
    the momentum of a few floors falling down a story is huge, once it starts moving it puts many more times the strain on the structure than when its stationary. once one floor crunches, the next one goes harder, then the next etc.
  • motives
    problem is the building goes down free-fall..

    Not floor by floor like "ca-chunk, ca-chunk ca-chunk"
  • rooster
    Offline / Send Message
    rooster mod
    is that a response to my post? I definately wasn't suggesting that it stops each floor, rather that the force increases with each floor that cripples. meaning that the structure that was strong enough to support the floors is nowhere near enough to stop the floors when theyre moving. Once one floor buckles its the beginning of a chain reaction
  • motives
    yea sorry if i was unclear, my point was that if that was happening you would see some hesitation were each floor slams into the other. At least the first somethin floors. Not just plummet straight down.

    not that im a building engineer or somethin.. Just figure it would look different than what u see on the videos
  • rooster
    Offline / Send Message
    rooster mod
    well.. I dissagree, it would only hesitate if the structure *could withstand the momentum of the above floors, and I dont think it could. they buckle the instant the weight hits them and the whole thing continues down. The footage shows the upper floors in freefall but the lower floors stay where they are until the upper ones crunch em.
  • Frank
    To demolish a building with explosives so it falls straight down requires precise setting and timing of all of the charges. Military explosives experts are not urban building demo experts (although I'm sure they could be if they wanted to learn). Either way, demolishing a building with explosives requires charges set all through the building, not just on the ground, so if the place is on fire you don't want to be going in and setting explosives. Blowing up a building like that is not a snap decision. So far as I know, anyway.

    That said, WTC7 sure as hell didn't collapse like it was destroyed by fire. It went down exactly like a demolished building.

    Motives, if the top ten floors of a steel and concrete building fall down, do you really think one floor of that same building will be able to stop it?

    Frank the Avenger
  • SkullboX
    Here is an item, roughly 20 minutes in length broadcasted on Dutch national television on a highly respected newsprogram. It doesn's suggest the US blew any of the buildings, but does question the involvement of the US government prior to the attacks. In the video a former german minister and a former british minister (in office during Blair's war government) are interviewed.

    http://www.2vandaag.nl/index.php?module=PX_Story&func=view&cid=210&sid=29882# (It's subtitled in english)

    I'm somewhere in the middle of both stories I guess. We'll probably get to know the truth sometimes, the only sure thing is right now, very few people do. smile.gif
  • motives
    rooster, frank: Im not sure. As i said im no engineer. i never said that the top ten floors would be stopped by the building. What i said though was that i think that if floor 70-something collapse you would see that floor crumple a bit and then go down taking the rest with it. Not just perfect freefall like that. But i dont see the point arguing it since i cant back it up. I just think its weird when u think about it.
  • sledgy
    Offline / Send Message
    sledgy polycounter lvl 13
    I've done alot of reading around the net on this over the past couple days and I've reached my own conclusion that most of those who believe in conspiracy theories do not know their ass from applesauce on most common sensical things.
  • adam
    Offline / Send Message
    adam polycounter lvl 16
    While we're on it, how do you lot feel about religion or President Bush? smile.gif
  • notman
    Offline / Send Message
    notman polycounter lvl 16
    aren't they the same thing? wink.gif

    Can't stand Bush... one issue I have is he uses his religion to drive his decisions, rather than keeping church and state seperate. He's also an idiot IMO. Personally, I think Cheney is running the country (for the most part) and Bush is just a figurehead puppet.
  • KDR_11k
    "George, shoot the lawyer!" "Okay, Dick."
  • notman
    Offline / Send Message
    notman polycounter lvl 16
    lol, that's probably how it would have happened if Bush was there wink.gif

    btw, did you see that guys pics today after getting released from the hospital? Ouch
  • ElysiumGX
    Offline / Send Message
    ElysiumGX polycounter lvl 16
    I'll try to summarize what I think about 9/11, and why I don't put so much time into the trivial details of the conspiracy theories. A lot of facts don't line up. While one side believes Al-qaeda and BinLaden (remember them?) caused the attacks, the other believes the government possibly played a role. It's a black and white arguement.

    I think a third party may have been involved. A group not directly connected to the US government, but loyal to its interests. A group that benefits from stronger US influence in the Middle East. From evidence gathered, there was suspicion that perhaps the anthrax scare was a plot to frame extremist organizations (don't hear much about the anthrax scare anymore). The US already had plans for moving in, they only needed a scapegoat and a born leader, appointed by God himself, to march the country to victory under a blanket of several misleading buzz words. Freedom. Terrorist. Weapons of Mass Destruction. "Spoke on condition of anonymity".

    I think Israel plays a strong role in this goal. This is why many of the suspected hijackers are still alive today. Discovering who really carried out the attacks, if they were working under the interest of allies, could be a low blow to the US. For the attacks on the WTC and the Pentagon, most evidence would be destroyed (or kept secret). Videos taken, forces relocated. In a debate of whether it was the government or terrorist, no one would suspect it was neither.

    After the attacks, the US was quick to point the finger at Bin Laden who has yet to admit his involvement (that I know of, and why wouldn't he?), or be captured. He could play scapegoat to the perfect frameup. Everyone knew his intentions, he just needed a little help in making them a success. Since then, Bin Laden has urged the American people to stand against it's government's lies.

    And now there's a big fuss about an old video where Saddam talks "about" terrorists interests in WMDs. In no way does he talk about having them or obtaining them. Obviously, this is solid proof he in fact was hiding WMDs. Our President talks about WMD all the time, only difference, we actually have them. In court, Saddam continuously calls Bush the criminal. There is doubt on whether Saddam was actually pulled out of a hole. An entire country, and we find him in a small hole, yet still can't find Mr. Laden (if he is even hiding). It works great to dehumanize Mr. Saddam.

    Now, Iran is behind the crosshairs, and there is new Palestinian leadership not favorable to Israeli or American interest. I'm sure there will be no end to our involvement in the middle east. Keep the masses busy with false reports, and silly theories. Mission Accomplished.

    I know it all sounds silly, but it would make a perfect political thriller worthy of primetime. Who says it's impossible? Taking down three entire skyscrapers in the middle of Manhatten on a clear morning sounds impossible.

    Wow, this was a long summary. ooo.gif
  • oXYnary
    Offline / Send Message
    oXYnary polycounter lvl 16
    [ QUOTE ]
    So you've got ONE guy who states some equations. What he doesn't include is the source of his equations, nor if that only covers ground radius. Radio frequencies can travel upward unobstructed. Then this guy further tried to state that his cell phone stopped working at specific altitudes. Did he have an alitimeter onboard? Personally I can't tell what the hell height I am until we level off that the pilot tells us. My point is, I really question the guys statements. Maybe he couldn't receive calls a high altitudes, but others were able to.

    That 'technology' isn't required to make phone calls, it is probably meant to improve the ability.

    Edit: Ok, how about this... the guy states that the cell phone range is 10 square miles.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    But the quote I was a direct response to what your gentleman stated! I dint include them because I thought it would be self evident that the response addressed their issues. But yes, your right notman and MoP, it is hard to prove one way or another. I admit as such, but we also cant allow ourselves to be engulfed in grey all the time, or nothing will ever be accomplished. Its the same as ID pointing to grey areas in Evolution as proff that Evolution is flawed.

    You also misinterepreted the information in thee equation. 10 miles was not the radius. Again.
    [ QUOTE ]
    10 miles = 3.14 x (r x r) , therefore giving a radius of approximately 1.784 miles. In other words, the range of the transmitter is therefore slightly greater than 1.784 miles. Let's call it 2 miles for the sake of argument.

    There are 5,280 feet in a mile, therefore 2 miles = 10,560 feet.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Oh, and Daz.. Dont forget the other extreme to your example! Very recent also! The fall of Hussiens statue and just how much staging was/wasn't involved.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saddam_Hussein%27s_statue_fall

    Oh, need I remind of "weapons of mass destruction"?
  • MoP
    Offline / Send Message
    MoP polycounter lvl 16
    oXYnary, Wikipedia says that cell phone base stations can have a coverage area of anywhere from 0.25 to 20 miles, so it's entirely possible that they were within coverage range of a single more rural base station for enough time to make a phone call or two.

    Like I said before, presenting things like that as fact and proof of your argument doesn't really work when the "facts" are just made up by people on a forum.
  • oXYnary
    Offline / Send Message
    oXYnary polycounter lvl 16
    Dammit, I searched Wikipedia.. Im never good with search terms.. Ok Then for the time being I will forward this.What we will need to establish is the range of the towers in the area the flight was in. Back in 2001 also. 5 years would of course seen upgrades in the infrastruture.

    But see? Since IM a honest debator, I will withdraw until I can find out more...
  • oXYnary
    Offline / Send Message
    oXYnary polycounter lvl 16
    Wait a minute, I think I just figured it out... Thats the towers range right? Range outgoing. It can only receive. It can rebroadcast signals to other sites though in the network. It cant give a range for receiving because that depends on the individual phones transmitting strength!

    Try again!

    Yaee...
    (me ducks MoPs knockout)
    "ADRIAN! ADRIAN"
  • Eric Chadwick
  • oXYnary
    Offline / Send Message
    oXYnary polycounter lvl 16
    Looks like I missed that Eric. I owe you an apology. Got too mixed up with MoP and notman.

    He states right before that..

    "The signal from a cell phone doesn't go on forever; the energy to propel it dissipates after a number of miles, "

    So which is it? Does it have unobstucted access to the ground from any level? The figure I gave above shows that the range is still limited.
  • Mark Dygert
    What if the building was rigged for demo? What if the same people that masterminded this plot knew what kind of damage it would to do everyone to see those towers fall on TV, after they where hit? What if they didn't know if the planes could take down the building so they rigged it for demo anyway? This was obviously an attempt to go for maxium effect. It takes time to get camera crews out to a location and set up. What if they accounted for that? Crazier conspiracies are being bantered about.

    One of the problems with the video I see is that when they are talking about the “heavy duty industrial steal” they are showing the outer shell being put on. On these towers that is not where the buildings main supports where located. Instead the buildings had all of their supports clustered around the center of the building in long tubes. If the planes managed to penetrate and weaken the center supports the building wouldn’t come down like any other building because it’s design was different. All the examples they show are of building with drastically different designs.

    [ QUOTE ]

    http://people.howstuffworks.com/wtc2.htm
    “The WTC team took a slightly different approach. They decided to build long "tubes," where all the support columns would be around the outside of the building and at the central core of the building. Essentially, each tower was a box within a box, joined by horizontal trusses at each floor.”

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Also if you pay attention to the video, you see a big chunk of the building (what looks like the upper half) fall over onto the surrounding buildings. So it wasn’t as nice and clean as they would have you believe. That would be considered an utter failure to any company that demo's buildings. But then conspericey people always like to go for the quick and easiest answers first. One person, one evil matermind.

    The video shows pieces falling off the building as proof of an placed charge going off. What about the other 200 reasons why that piece could have fallen off?

    The main problem I have with the video is they try to state opinion as fact. "watch some math, OooOoo towers fall in 9 seconds, see we have facts we are right! Simple math proves it we iz teh right!!11one" They state people contridicting themselves as proof of a cover up. But really those people didn't have all the facts early on. As facts rolled in over time, the "experts" changed thier opions of what happened to be more correct. I doubt anyone was holding a gun to thier loved ones heads making them change thier story. They where always opinions as to what happened never facts. Opinions stated as if they where facts and sure some people even believed them to be facts but they where still opinions, much like this video...
  • Irritant
    I think it was Colonel Mustard. On the Grassy Knoll.

    Welcome to the new Millenium.
  • Thegodzero
    vig, the outsite frame is a shell it doesnt support the building. The inside is made of steel reinforeced concrete made to withstand a full 747 hitting it. There are 4 main shafs that are far enough apart that even if the hull was hard as rock would only be able to hit one with full force. If that happened it would still be held up by the other three. If that didnt hold the top would have fallen over not dropped. I studied the building shortly before it was hit so when i saw it on the news being hit i didnt think much of it .As i knew it could take that, when i saw them fall it hit me the numbers of how many people were in the towers on a given day that being 100,000 people. The idea of the total only being less than 3000 made me question it more. Only someone who wanted to make a point but cared about lives would hit the towers that early.
  • Ninjas
    Offline / Send Message
    Ninjas polycounter lvl 14
    [ QUOTE ]
    The main problem I have with the video is they try to state opinion as fact. "watch some math, OooOoo towers fall in 9 seconds, see we have facts we are right!

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Are you saying that the "opinion" they have about the math involved is wrong? I'm guessing you haven't taken much math.
  • KeyserSoze
    [ QUOTE ]
    So it wasn’t as nice and clean as they would have you believe. That would be considered an utter failure to any company that demo's buildings. But then conspericey people always like to go for the quick and easiest answers first. One person, one evil matermind.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    I'm not so sure it would be considered an utter failure. The WTC towers were more than twice as tall as the tallest building ever demolished... I'd say it was a pretty successful demo, especially considering it was done with airliners. Pretty impressive (in a morbid sort of way) if you ask me. If the pilots would've survived, they could've started their own demo company.
  • KDR_11k
    TGZ: That's in mid of a no-flight zone. Apparently at 9 in the morning the anti-air defense is weaker (because an NFZ means planes entering it get a warning and a barrage of anti-aircraft missiles shortly after). Maybe it was just to hit the Pentagon while AA is down and delaying the other attack would mean the defense is up again. OTOH, this is terrorism, the goal is to make people afraid and governments pass restrictive laws to "fight" terrorism, not to kill people.

    Vig: Who says there weren't a few charges placed to make the destruction more uneven and "natural"? Besides, I think we were talking about demo charges in WTC7, not the twin towers.

    Also, Al Qaeda once bombed the twin towers with a slight inaccuracy that made the towers survive it and a note "next time we're more accurate" so maybe AQ placed a few bombs in the basement to make it collapse while flying the planes in for effect?

    OTOH, as had been said before, AQ denies any connection with that attack.

    Keyser: Demolition experts have to calculate how the building would collapse and place charges accordingly, that's not trial and error so "we've never done THIS before" isn't an excuse. A non-expert placing bombs could have made such an error.
  • KeyserSoze
    [ QUOTE ]
    Keyser: Demolition experts have to calculate how the building would collapse and place charges accordingly, that's not trial and error so "we've never done THIS before" isn't an excuse. A non-expert placing bombs could have made such an error.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The taller a building is, the more the falling debris is going to disperse beyond the building's "footprint." It's simple physics. Prior to Sept. 11th, the tallest building ever demolished was less than 50 stories (compared to the WTC tower's 110 stories), so it goes without saying that the debris from the twin towers would disperse quite a bit more than any other building ever demolished.

    Besides, if the towers were demolished with explosives, it wasn't a commercial job... I doubt the people responsible had much concern for any collateral damage that may have been caused by falling debris (I'm speaking hypothetically, of course).
  • KDR_11k
    If it was gov ordered there'd be at least some concern for reducing collateral damage. But considering the layout of the structure I suppose just blowing away the central support pillars would make it drop cleanly. Al Qaeda would bomb it like that (least explosives necessary) but TGZ said there's no way the planes alone could have done that. Bombs in the basement sound plausible, no matter who placed them.
  • adam
    Offline / Send Message
    adam polycounter lvl 16
    OK OK fine - it was ME who blew up the WTC.

    I did it for peanuts.
  • Valandar
    Offline / Send Message
    Valandar polycounter lvl 15
    And yet, everyone forgets Occam's Razor.

    Take that as you will.
  • KDR_11k
    Occam's Razor says the simplest theory that explains the observations is applicable. What this thread is about is that the official theory does not match the obervations.
  • Valandar
    Offline / Send Message
    Valandar polycounter lvl 15
    Neither do the myriad conspiracy theories.

    There can be only one conclusion. Not all the facts are evident, yet. And any decision or judgement made until the facts fit a provable theory is premature.
  • KDR_11k
    Well, yes, but noone cares about the majority of conspiracy theories, either. I mean, lizard men from Vulcan? Is that what LSD in the tapwater makes you think? Does that happen when you miss the primary message of the Illuminatus and the Principia Discordia?

    I think the simplest explaination for the observations we're seeing is, if the planes didn't bring it down then those terrorists planted bombs in there as well (adds only one additional assumption, doesn't run counter to the official claims AFAIK). After all, terrorism is about making a headline, it's a play and the world is the stage. "Plane crashes into WTC but symbol of capitalism survives" wouldn't make a nice headline and "explosion destroys WTC" wouldn't have as much impact, either. The plan was well made so a backup plan to make sure the thing really goes down makes sense. They had a chance to bring it down with a bomb before so they knew how to plant a bomb and how to get in there without being stopped.
  • Mark Dygert
    [ QUOTE ]
    The main problem I have with the video is they try to state opinion as fact. "watch some math, OooOoo towers fall in 9 seconds, see we have facts we are right!

    [/ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]

    Are you saying that the "opinion" they have about the math involved is wrong? I'm guessing you haven't taken much math.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    The math they used was correct. I was saying they flashed some math on the screen as if to say;
    "look we have math, believe EVERYTHING we say (even the really crazy stuff)"

    OOOOoohhh they have the math to prove the towers fell in 9 seconds. Wow so it was George W. holding the detonator, get a rope we gots us a hangin’ to do Earl.

    The outline for the video goes as follows.
    - 10% facts used to prop up the rest of the video but don't prove everything they claim.
    - 70% conjecture
    - 20% opinions

    Just don't get sucked into thinking what they parade around behind a few facts is actually truth, its their opinion. They raise some interesting points but I don't see a lot of concrete facts that back up everything they claim. They don't state a lot of their sources for the info they give, just because it sounds like it could happen doesn't mean it IS what happened. I wasn't there, I won't know the full truth, and I doubt anyone will. It is foolhardy to think anyone can explain it all. The scope of the events make it pretty hard to do that.

    I can't say these guys (or the government) are getting it 100% right. I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle, lost to the dead and in the debris. At the end of the day they are still Michael Moore wanna-be's doing a half ass job of spreading their brand of truth when they don't have the full story and more than likely never will.
  • rooster
    Offline / Send Message
    rooster mod
    yeah I agree, arguing over stuff that can't be proven is pointless. Unless people actually enjoy it, then it's just entertainment. confused.gif
  • Ninjas
    Offline / Send Message
    Ninjas polycounter lvl 14
    Here is what I think of the video.

    The intro is complete fact. The joint chiefs had approved plans to kill Americans in the 60's and I have no reason to doubt the other things they state in that section.

    The Pentagon site does not look like any plane crash I have ever seen. The lack of any video of a plane hitting the building is suspicious. It IS the pentagon, right? Im sure they have hundreds of video cameras on it.

    That dude in the video is not Osama Binladin, and that video contradicts many other statements by him that he had nothing to do with it.

    I think it is pretty clear at this point WTC7 was rigged to explode, since that is what the owner said, but later lied (lamely I might add) to cover up. The US government supports his lies so they are in cahoots to some extent.

    It was inprobable that a jet or fire would cause a collapse of WTC1 or 2 since the building were designed to withstand these exact things. Even the building that had only it's corner clipped fell down, even though this would have missed all of the building's major support structure.

    We also know that George Bush ignored the letter and spirit of the law/constitution by setting up a secret program to violate Amercan's right to privacy by listening in on phone calls.

    His administration put pressure on the intelligence community to find evidence to justify a war in Iraq. There was no connection between Iraq and Al Queda and There never were ANY WMDs.

    Many major news outlets have said that the US government probably maintain secret prisons in third world countries. Why? So they can torture people with impunity.

    There is good evidence that the election results in Florida were influenced by Jeb Bush (roadblocks, double punching, etc.)

    So all that adds up to more than nothing I think. At least enough to not trust anything those guys say.

    My prediction: In the next year Germany or France will insist on sending a major UN mission into Iran. The US will field the majority of people and equipment in this war.
  • MoP
    Offline / Send Message
    MoP polycounter lvl 16
    I shave with Occam's Razor.
  • Thegodzero
    Dracula uses occam's razor to shave too mop, so watch out you might turn into a vampire!

    Ninjas, how do you know something fishy with the system? When something like this happens and the gov doesnt start a formal non partisen investigation into why it happened. Insted you have Bush saying we need to move on and not look into who is to blame but insted what we are going to do now. Then keeping that same idea for years after it happened. So that he can distroy any evidence of wrong doing. What he said makes sense for the people who lost someone, but not for a gov whos job it is to keep them safe...
  • Ninjas
    Offline / Send Message
    Ninjas polycounter lvl 14
    I read the FEMA report on WTC7 today. Pretty funny. A choice quote from the conclussion. "...the best hypothesis has only a low probability of occurrence. Further
    research, investigation, and analyses are needed to resolve this issue."

    The ways they say the building could have fallen down are so absurd that they make the tinfoil hat people look like the pinacles of logic. In fact, the whole report seems more like a document to support conspiracy claims than a report to debunk them, yet this is the report the state department refers to when "debunking" the WTC7 rumors. I have also been reading through the Sept. 11th records. Eyewitness interviews from a lot of the people who were there. Some of them have been censored, and the NY Times had to sue under the freedom of information act just to get them released at all.

    From NY Times

    "...again, I don't know how
    valid this is with everything that was going on at that
    particular point in time, but for some reason I thought
    that when I looked in the direction of the Trade Center
    before it came down, before No. 2 came down, that I saw
    low-level flashes. In my conversation with Lieutenant
    Evangelista, never mentioning this to him, he
    questioned me and asked me if I saw low-level flashes
    in front of the building, and I agreed with him because
    I thought -- at that time I didn't know what it was. I
    mean, it could have been as a result of the building
    collapsing, things exploding, but I saw a flash flash
    flash and then it looked like the building came down.
    Q. Was that on the lower level of the building
    or up where the fire was?
    A. No, the lower level of the building. You
    know like when they demolish a building, how when they
    blow up a building, when it falls down? That's what I
    thought I saw. And I didn't broach the topic to him,
    but he asked me. He said I don't know if I'm crazy,
    15
    S. GREGORY
    but I just wanted to ask you because you were standing
    right next to me. He said did you see anything by the
    building? And I said what do you mean by see
    anything? He said did you see any flashes? I said,
    yes, well, I thought it was just me. He said no, I saw
    them, too."
  • hawken
    Offline / Send Message
    hawken polycounter lvl 15
    [ QUOTE ]

    it's simple : no-one knows how a fucking great skyscraper would react to having an airliner smack directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Danr, so when the empire state building got a B-25 wedged into it, did it fall down in a heap? So yes, it has happened before.

    "BOMBER HITS EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, SETTING IT AFIRE AT THE 79TH FLOOR; 13 DEAD, 26 HURT; WIDE AREA ROCKED"
    was the headline on one newspaper after B-25 bomber looking for Newark Airport (in NJ) slammed into the 79th floor of the building on the morning of July 28, 1945.
  • Rick Stirling
    Offline / Send Message
    Rick Stirling polycounter lvl 14
    [ QUOTE ]
    [ QUOTE ]

    it's simple : no-one knows how a fucking great skyscraper would react to having an airliner smack directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before.

    [/ QUOTE ]

    Danr, so when the empire state building got a B-25 wedged into it, did it fall down in a heap? So yes, it has happened before.

    "BOMBER HITS EMPIRE STATE BUILDING, SETTING IT AFIRE AT THE 79TH FLOOR; 13 DEAD, 26 HURT; WIDE AREA ROCKED"
    was the headline on one newspaper after B-25 bomber looking for Newark Airport (in NJ) slammed into the 79th floor of the building on the morning of July 28, 1945.

    [/ QUOTE ]



    directly and determinedly into it, cos no-ones ever done it before
  • Ninjas
    Offline / Send Message
    Ninjas polycounter lvl 14
    I've been reading the eyewitness stuff and the really amazing thing is that almost every account does not match up with the official story. In one account a guy who was at his desk just a few floors away from the impact. The impact was so absorbed by the building that none of his pictures on his desk were even disturbed.

    And about the Empire State building crash. To be fair, a B-52 is around 40% bigger than a Boeing 757, and the Empire State building is a lot smaller and older than the trade centers.
  • MoP
    Offline / Send Message
    MoP polycounter lvl 16
    Ninjas, it's also probably an amazing thing that many of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts don't match up with each other. It's been proven that eyewitness accounts are hugely fallible, I tried Googling up the statistics on it just now but can't find an appropriate link, however I'm pretty sure I read somewhere that less than 10% of eyewitness accounts are actually accurate descriptions of what happened. Something to keep in mind.

    Also something to keep in mind is that you yourself read "B-25" as "B-52" and made the incorrect claim that it is 40% bigger than a 757, the B-25 is actually a considerably smaller plane. It's also likely that it was travelling about half the speed. Also, the fact that it was an accidental crash as opposed to a direct and deliberate maneuvre probably made it a lot less dangerous.
  • ElysiumGX
    Offline / Send Message
    ElysiumGX polycounter lvl 16
    Correction Ninjas. The Empire State Building was hit a 10 tonne B25 bomber. Not a B52.

    A fully loaded Boeing 757 weighs 100 tonnes with 30 tonnes of fuel on board
  • Ninjas
    Offline / Send Message
    Ninjas polycounter lvl 14
    oops...

    Yeah, except that a lot of eyewitness accounts in this case do match up with each other, just not the official story. If it were just one or two people saying bombs went off in the building, then fine, but so many?

    People can judge for themselves on the eyewitness accounts 911 Report
  • Frank
    A clairifcation:

    Bin Laden initially denied involvment, but later admitted he and al-Queda had planned and carried out the attacks.

    The Pentagon is a building made entirely of reinforced concrete. Of course the hole won't look like any plane crash you've ever seen.

    If the US was willing to knock down several buildings in the middle of Manhattan just to have an excuse for a war, why in the hell would they care about collateral damage? Why would they be so careful about it?

    Frank the Avenger
  • KDR_11k
    Because they don't want the blow to their economy to be too big?
  • ElysiumGX
    Offline / Send Message
    ElysiumGX polycounter lvl 16
    Further clarification:

    Bin Laden initially released a statement denying involvement.

    Soon after, US Forces FOUND a video in a destroyed building in which Bin Laden admitted involvement, but even many in the Muslim world considered it a fake.

    In 2004, just before the elections, Bin Laden released another video speaking to the American people directly. He speaks of planning to bring down the towers after the Israeli/American invasion of Lebanon. I wonder if this video could have been intended to bait America. It was a strong influence in keeping Bush in office, which would work towards Bin Laden's goal of bankrupting America to defeat. Denying involvement would get him nowhere, but admitting it would work to achieve his initial goals. And here we are right on course with the debt ratio continuing to rise, and domestic issues set aside. An entire city can be destroyed under the supervision of an agency that is now considered a joke, but billions go into the effort overseas.
  • Ninjas
    Offline / Send Message
    Ninjas polycounter lvl 14
    Well, the government is involved in the WTC7 cover up. You can read what they have to say on the state department website, then read the FEMA report on WTC7, then watch the "pull it" video and then the Silverstien press release, saying he meant firefighters. Of course, after reading the FEMA report you will already know there weren't any firefighters.

    The issue of the Pentagon od WTC 1 and 2 are a bit different, but I have been reading original sources and I just don't think the official story adds up.
124
Sign In or Register to comment.