911. Do People Actually Believe This S**t?
Discussion
JPJPJP said:
911
I was mildly curious why the plane heading for the pentagon wasn't shot down
There seemed to be plenty of time & the intent of those flying it was very clear
At a guess:I was mildly curious why the plane heading for the pentagon wasn't shot down
There seemed to be plenty of time & the intent of those flying it was very clear
- chaotic scenes in New York were bound to have had an influence
- bloated military command structure with no one person making the decision
- natural reluctance to shoot down a plane full of civilians
and lastly...
- good old fashioned bad luck/cock up.
Might be too sensible for the 'truthers' though... far easier to believe that it was a missile/the CIA/some other load of b
ks. Coming out with a reasonable explanation ain't gonna get deluded idiots viewing your YouTube channel, is it?Edited by Faust66 on Wednesday 24th August 20:15
JPJPJP said:
911
I was mildly curious why the plane heading for the pentagon wasn't shot down
There seemed to be plenty of time & the intent of those flying it was very clear
You might find former US Transportation Secretary Norman Minetta's testimony interesting. I was mildly curious why the plane heading for the pentagon wasn't shot down
There seemed to be plenty of time & the intent of those flying it was very clear
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dVCDItOj6R4
Id probably say it was more impossible for government to be behind it than terrorists given the sheer amount of people that would have had to plan and execute it, but i also don't believe half the stuff from the official reports, a lot of it goes against basic laws of physics and common sense. They are describing oranges when we are looking at apples
Wtc7, and the pentagon crash don't sit right with me at all.
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time, otherwise it would have fell differently. God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
Pentagon crash, if only they would show a video of a 757 hitting it then it would shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all. Again a worrying lack of an actual plane and a very neat 16ft hole, it's like the wings never touched the building at all. All they fed us was a 4 frame explosion which showed or proved sod all.
Oh and finally the way they found the hijackers passport on the street, what a crock of st, there is no chance that survived the impact intact.
Wtc7, and the pentagon crash don't sit right with me at all.
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time, otherwise it would have fell differently. God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
Pentagon crash, if only they would show a video of a 757 hitting it then it would shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all. Again a worrying lack of an actual plane and a very neat 16ft hole, it's like the wings never touched the building at all. All they fed us was a 4 frame explosion which showed or proved sod all.
Oh and finally the way they found the hijackers passport on the street, what a crock of s
t, there is no chance that survived the impact intact.valiant said:
Not 9/11, but wasn't there a thread on here where someone claimed the moon landings were faked?
Not just a single posting and runs away but actually tried to justify his stance. Seemingly remember that PH took him rather harshly to task on that one.
There's a great clip on yt showing an 80 year old Buzz Aldrin responding to somebody suggesting the same thing!Not just a single posting and runs away but actually tried to justify his stance. Seemingly remember that PH took him rather harshly to task on that one.
dazwalsh said:
...i also don't believe half the stuff from the official reports, a lot of it goes against basic laws of physics and common sense.
The conspirators have their own laws of physics? 
dazwalsh said:
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time, otherwise it would have fell differently. God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
I would think the massive raging fire and bombardment of debris weakened all the supports, as with the towers.What's the alternative - controlled demolition? In the heart of New York City? Without anyone noticing? It's beyond absurd.
dazwalsh said:
Pentagon crash, if only they would show a video of a 757 hitting it then it would shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all. Again a worrying lack of an actual plane and a very neat 16ft hole, it's like the wings never touched the building at all. All they fed us was a 4 frame explosion which showed or proved sod all.
Lack of plane? There were bits of plane scattered all over the grounds of Pentagon. A simple Google will show you the photos.dazwalsh said:
Oh and finally the way they found the hijackers passport on the street, what a crock of st, there is no chance that survived the impact intact.
Why?t, there is no chance that survived the impact intact.And what would be the purpose of going to the trouble of faking it? It's an airline - they have passenger records and the passport info at the check-in desk. What does the actual passport add to the conspiracy?
The air defence thing is quite easy to understand when you listen to the full audio (couple of hours long).
Basically it takes about 40 minutes before they realise exactly what is going on but at the same time they are still unsure of what is where and they are basically chasing round after aircraft that they don't know where they are or what direction they are going in. At one point they are looking for aircraft that are already down. The chain of command only really started to kick in after the first 30 minutes, by which point it was too late. The various aircraft which are deployed (Venus etal) are very late to the party and at times only added to the confusion.
Now of course there is a much clearer SOP in place and quick reaction aircraft are ready and fully armed 24/7. On the day it took time to get people on battle stations and also explain it was *not* a drill!
Regarding planning such a large operation, keeping large operations secret etc - do not underestimate them. I am not saying they were involved, but 99.9% of what they do is kept secret and they employ people who are very good at keeping them too. Generally take their work to the grave. Also its not like films, people who work on black projects often have no idea what they are working on!
Basically it takes about 40 minutes before they realise exactly what is going on but at the same time they are still unsure of what is where and they are basically chasing round after aircraft that they don't know where they are or what direction they are going in. At one point they are looking for aircraft that are already down. The chain of command only really started to kick in after the first 30 minutes, by which point it was too late. The various aircraft which are deployed (Venus etal) are very late to the party and at times only added to the confusion.
Now of course there is a much clearer SOP in place and quick reaction aircraft are ready and fully armed 24/7. On the day it took time to get people on battle stations and also explain it was *not* a drill!
Regarding planning such a large operation, keeping large operations secret etc - do not underestimate them. I am not saying they were involved, but 99.9% of what they do is kept secret and they employ people who are very good at keeping them too. Generally take their work to the grave. Also its not like films, people who work on black projects often have no idea what they are working on!
dazwalsh said:
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time
That is not what happened.The fire in the building burned out of control for around 6 hours causing some members to buckle and fail. Once they did the load redistributes and overstresses the other members adjacent to it causing what is known as a progressive collapse. It is written into every building design code across the planet that you implement some measure to prevent or stall this. It's unrealistic to completely overdesign a building for all potential disasters either intentional or accidental. Generally it's to allow a building to be safely evacuated if the building is severly damaged. Which is what happened in WTC7
dazwalsh said:
God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
Eh? Of course it can. Before you hit out with the 'jet fuel cant melt steel beams' meme, you only have to moderately heat the steel to start to seriously affect its function. Steel is not one single product, it comes in an almost endless variety of grades and strenths for different criteria. The steel I design for structures generally is fully internal (ie. mildly warm and dry) and has a small temperature range that it will have to function in, this is what the WTC7 frame would have also been designed to operate in, soon as you heat it the strength drops rapidly.
Steel frames are fire protected, but, this is only to allow safe escape, it is not lifetime protection againt all eventualities. Typically in the UK the length of time the protection has to function is between 1-2 hours for this type of structure. WTC7 burned out of control for 6+ hours remember.
The money spent on fire protection a large steel framed building is eye watering, but if you know better then I know a few quantity surveyors who would like to talk to you.
http://www.steelconstruction.info/Steel_material_p...
http://www.steelconstruction.info/Design_using_str...
dazwalsh said:
Pentagon crash, if only they would show a video of a 757 hitting it then it would shut up the conspiracy theorists once and for all. Again a worrying lack of an actual plane and a very neat 16ft hole, it's like the wings never touched the building at all. All they fed us was a 4 frame explosion which showed or proved sod all.
Oh and finally the way they found the hijackers passport on the street, what a crock of st, there is no chance that survived the impact intact.
The Pentagon is in the middle of several major highways, look it up on google maps, and the attack happened just after rush hour so there were lots of witnesses, except unlike down town Manhattan most were on their way to work or meetings not tourists with cameras. Not a lot of dashcams around in those days either.Oh and finally the way they found the hijackers passport on the street, what a crock of s
t, there is no chance that survived the impact intact.As for the passports, its amazing what small light objects can survive. This:
Survived this:
durbster said:
dazwalsh said:
...i also don't believe half the stuff from the official reports, a lot of it goes against basic laws of physics and common sense.
The conspirators have their own laws of physics? dazwalsh said:
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time, otherwise it would have fell differently. God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
I would think the massive raging fire and bombardment of debris weakened all the supports, as with the towers.What's the alternative - controlled demolition? In the heart of New York City? Without anyone noticing? It's beyond absurd.
There was no raging fire, isolated fires at best and very little in the way of damage from falling debris. It was also much further afield than WTC 4,5 and 6 which although were smashed to smithereens only partially collapsed.
Building 7 just collapsed in on itself into a lovely neat pile, reminiscent of a building pulled down in a controlled manner. IF it was brought down by the government with explosives under a thin guise of fire and debris damage they did a piss poor job of making it look comvincing. Notice I said IF there, i dont beleive they could have done that without no one knowing.
Edited by dazwalsh on Thursday 25th August 08:09
dazwalsh said:
durbster said:
dazwalsh said:
...i also don't believe half the stuff from the official reports, a lot of it goes against basic laws of physics and common sense.
The conspirators have their own laws of physics? dazwalsh said:
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time, otherwise it would have fell differently. God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
I would think the massive raging fire and bombardment of debris weakened all the supports, as with the towers.What's the alternative - controlled demolition? In the heart of New York City? Without anyone noticing? It's beyond absurd.
There was no raging fire, isolated fires at best and very little in the way of damage from falling debris. It was also much further afield than WTC 4,5 and 6 which although were smashed to smithereens only partially collapsed.
Building 7 just collapsed in on itself into a lovely neat pile, reminiscent of a building pulled down in a controlled manner.
'Isolated fires...'
Just do a bit of searching and you will see you're statements above are not supported.
southendpier said:
'Isolated fires...'
Just do a bit of searching and you will see you're statements above are not supported.
southendpier said:
dazwalsh said:
durbster said:
dazwalsh said:
...i also don't believe half the stuff from the official reports, a lot of it goes against basic laws of physics and common sense.
The conspirators have their own laws of physics? dazwalsh said:
Wtc7 had every single one of its supporting columns give way at the same time, otherwise it would have fell differently. God knows how that happened but I think we all know fire can't do that.
I would think the massive raging fire and bombardment of debris weakened all the supports, as with the towers.What's the alternative - controlled demolition? In the heart of New York City? Without anyone noticing? It's beyond absurd.
There was no raging fire, isolated fires at best and very little in the way of damage from falling debris. It was also much further afield than WTC 4,5 and 6 which although were smashed to smithereens only partially collapsed.
Building 7 just collapsed in on itself into a lovely neat pile, reminiscent of a building pulled down in a controlled manner.
'Isolated fires...'
Just do a bit of searching and you will see you're statements above are not supported.
dazwalsh said:
Building 7 just collapsed in on itself into a lovely neat pile, reminiscent of a building pulled down in a controlled manner. IF it was brought down by the government with explosives under a thin guise of fire and debris damage they did a piss poor job of making it look comvincing. Notice I said IF there, i dont beleive they could have done that without no one knowing.
Physics aside, this is the key part where the conspiracy theory stops being plausible.To prepare a building for demolition there are dozens of steps that need to be taken. There is all the assessment work, the simulations, removing all the stuff inside the building e.g. furniture, the removal of certain supports and walls to guide the collapse, test blasts and final rigging of explosives etc., continuing right through to simple things like switching off the water and power supplies before hitting the big red button.
All this takes a long time and a lot of people.
To carry all this out in secret, inside a busy, active office block, in one of the world's busiest areas without anyone noticing is preposterous.
I remember seeing a prog on the towers and the theory that the asbestos coating sprayed onto the steel beams should have assisted, or delayed the fire.
but when examining the footage you could see how badly the coating had been applied, or indeed it was missing. basically as you'd imagine with any fool of a contractor, they did easy to reach bits and hard bits were missed.
However its all academic- fly a big plane full of fuel into building, its coming down at some point.
but when examining the footage you could see how badly the coating had been applied, or indeed it was missing. basically as you'd imagine with any fool of a contractor, they did easy to reach bits and hard bits were missed.
However its all academic- fly a big plane full of fuel into building, its coming down at some point.
MBBlat said:
The Pentagon is in the middle of several major highways, look it up on google maps, and the attack happened just after rush hour so there were lots of witnesses, except unlike down town Manhattan most were on their way to work or meetings not tourists with cameras. Not a lot of dashcams around in those days either
The Pentagon is thw most guarded building in America, if not the world so i find it hard to believe only one camera covers the outside of the building. I would have expected to see that crash from several different angles. That's all they had to do, release footage showing a plane hitting the building and voila, that shuts up everyone who challenges it. Instead that 4 frame clip only fuels the theories of it being a missile., not that I believe that it was to be honest. Gassing Station | The Lounge | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff