9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Scott you went from

to

Did you come to that conclusion from the blurry photo alone?

Bear in mind that witness testimony did not describe seeing a missile.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, I came to that conclusion from the video.

I believe some did, but no links on me right now.

I will admit that it's possible that what hit the pentagon was indeed a plane. Even some conspiracy theorists buy this. However, there is ample evidence that Hanji Hanjour had no hope in hell of doing it. So who flew it then? Here's a possibility:
***********************************************
The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC, was founded in 1997. The group's Statement of Principles [PDF] published September 2000 stated that "some catastrophic and catalyzing event, like a new Pearl Harbor" would advance their policies.

Dov Zakheim is a co-author of the Statement of Principles and an ex-CEO of System Planning Corporation which manufactures equipment to remotely pilot aircraft. Zakheim was appointed as Undersecretary of Defense and Comptroller of the Pentagon by President Bush on May 4, 2001.
************************************************
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/hanjour.html

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The last video you provided a link to started with the claim that people described a missile then supported it with evidence where people did not describe seeing a missile at all. There were a couple of mentions of a smaller plane, one from someone who called the TV station later on and did sound rather old and the other from someone who saw it out a window. The couple of comments with the word ‘missile’ were people saying that it sounded like a missile just before it hit or it came in fast like a missile. No one described actually seeing a missile. That video was a pack of lies.

Hani Hanjour was not a good pilot but he had completed initial training on the boeing 737 simulator at Pan Am International Fright Academy in Mesa. So he knew a little. He did not have to do the take off and he didn’t have to land the plane he just had to point it towards the Pentagon and crash. He hit the ground on the way in so he didn’t even do that very well.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What speed was it going based on the video and what calculations did you use?

Secondly, its shape, and more importantly, its size are consistent with Flight 77.

Perhaps the US government does have missles the size of a 757 jet, but nevertheless, what hit the Pentagon we can conclude from those blurry pictures is consistent with the shape, colour and scale of an AA 757 jet.

 

To the best of my knowledge, the "Tomahawk" cruise missile is the only ground attack missile that travels at sub-sonic speeds...and would be capable of a side strike...and they are much smaller than a 757.

I think we may have some ballistic missles that are the size of 757's or at least close to it, but they travel much faster than the speed of sound, and have a high arcing trajectory and hit the target from above.

 

The loose change heavies have now weighed in. Apparently, there was no missile. And yes, apparently an aircraft was seen heading in the direction of the pentagon. However, it seems that the plane didn't actually -hit- the pentagon, but flew over it instead. So what damaged the pentagon? I have heard of explosives and so I'm guessing this was what did it. As to the evidence of plane debris, I've heard that it's planted. Anyway, this would account for the reason the 84 security videos were put under lock and key by the FBI. Here is the film documenting the evidence for the plane flyover:
http://thepentacon.com/northsideflyover.htm

 

Hey scott..send me the link to the loose change forum.

 

OK..so if it wasn't a missile..and it wasn't a plane..what did we see in the video crash into the side of Pentagon?

 

84 videos....

The number 84/85 was a reference to an original number of videos the FBI received that could potentially have shown what happened.

From http://www.911myths.com/index.php/FBI_hides_84_Pentagon_videos

“The FBI are talking about 85 videos, but this is just the result of an initial search that includes (for example) all videos obtained by the Washington Field Office. If we move on from that then the numbers begin to fall dramatically.
56 "of these videotapes did not show either the Pentagon building, the Pentagon crash site, or the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon on September 11."
Of the remaining 29 videotapes, 16 "did not show the Pentagon crash site and did not show the impact of Flight 77 into the Pentagon."
Of the 13 remaining tapes, 12 "only showed the Pentagon after the impact of Flight 77." Only one tape showed the Pentagon impact: the Pentagon's own security camera footage that would later be released.



Scott you need to step back and read your own posts. You were convinced it was a missile due to the rock solid evidence and then with the changing of the wind you are convinced of something completely different because of another dodgy movie. I can’t watch from work but it’s a fairly safe assumption. Surely you can see that if you were so ready to believe and defend the missile theory which was completely baseless (and stupid) then perhaps there are other 9/11 theories here that you have been too eager to believe in.

 

http://s1.zetaboards.com/LooseChangeForums/topic/722839/1/

 

Could it have been a faked video? It certainly was pretty bad quality. The idea that explosives alone were used is a possibility. In any case, I'll bring it up with the loose change guys...

 

If the FBI received them, who picked them up?

This is only the official story. Why won't they just release all the tapes so we can see for ourselves?

I never said it was 'rock solid evidence'. I felt there was lots of evidence; there have been videos made about it and they seemed quite persuasive. I have always maintained, however, that my field of expertise was the WTC building collapses.

You can call it dodgy if you like, but as you said, you haven't seen it yet. I have seen it, however, and it felt persuasive to me. And simply because I find it persuasive does not mean that I cease to question things. MacGuyver brought up a good point; if a missile didn't hit it, and neither did the plane, what did hit it? I would also add, what happened to the plane?

Yes, I was ready to defend what I believed. When I found that that belief seemed to have been discredited even by some conspiracy theorists, however, I began to consider an alternative that would still fit the data; that is, still give a valid explanation as to why the FBI is still withholding 84 video recordings. The north side plane flyover can certainly account for their wish to keep the tapes under wraps.

Perhaps. Now, are you willing to consider that perhaps some of the 9/11 theories -you- believe in could be mistaken as well?

 

That is explained in the article.

If they released tapes with nothing on them that wouldn't do anything. We have tapes of planes hitting the WTC and people still think there is a conspiracy involved.

Conspiracy theories often seem convincing that's why they suck people in. You often need to do a bit of research to see the nonsense for what it is.

When you play the video an 'adult friend finder' window opens. lol

They have released the one with the blurry plane on it.

The CIT guys have witness testimony that, depending on your interpretation, places the flight path north of the service station. More here. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC

The problem is that the story these witnesses tell differ but they all agree that the plane went on to hit the pentagon. The CIT guys ignore this, take the interpretations they want and claim that the plane flew over.

No one saw the plane fly over and instead there are many witnesses who saw it actually hit the pentagon. There are even witnesses who saw it hit knock over the light poles. Let's go through the list again.


104 directly saw the plane hit the Pentagon.

6 were nearly hit by the plane in front of the Pentagon. Several others were within 100-200 feet of the impact.

26 mentioned that it was an American Airlines jet.

39 others mentioned that it was a large jet/commercial airliner.

2 described a smaller corporate jet. 1 described a "commuter plane" but didn't mention the size.

7 said it was a Boeing 757.

8 witnesses were pilots. One witness was an Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower Chief.

2 witnesses were firefighters working on their truck at the Pentagon heliport.

4 made radio calls to inform emergency services that a plane had hit the Pentagon.

10 said the plane's flaps and landing gear were not deployed (1 thought landing gear struck a light pole).

16 mentioned seeing the plane hit light poles/trees, or were next to to the poles when it happened. Another 8 mentioned the light poles being knocked down: it's unknown if they saw them hit.

42 mentioned seeing aircraft debris. 4 mentioned seeing airline seats. 3 mentioned engine parts.

2 mentioned bodies still strapped into seats.

15 mentioned smelling or contacting aviation/jet fuel.

3 had vehicles damaged by light poles or aircraft debris. Several saw other occupied vehicles damaged.

3 took photographs of the aftermath.

Many mentioned false alarm warnings of other incoming planes after the crash. One said "3-4 warnings."

And of course,

0 saw a military aircraft or missile strike the Pentagon.

0 saw a plane narrowly miss the Pentagon and fly away.

There was also wreckage matching a 757, hijackers documents and the dna of the victims remains were matched.

 

Scott I urge you to completely read this post

If it were faked, wouldn't they fake one of higher quality? Wouldn't this make more sense?

And another thing: you have a tendency to refrain to the "Loose Change Guys" as some kind of experts. Scott, they are as partisan as partisan could possibly be. They are not a happy-go-lucky gang of well-rounded unbiased observers; they are a clannish and insular group utterly and irrevocably devoted to the slogan "9/11 Was An Inside Job". This is a fact that cannot, cannot be denied. You do yourself and your impartiality a huge discredit by constantly checking back with them to see how some reasonable objection or other could be overcome by contrived explanation.

I think this says it all. One video camera that actually got the impact.

Unfortunately, Scott, MM's post on that site completely avoids the entire issue of concrete crumbled to dust and concentrates instead on steel. My friend has made a career out of natural formation collapse and there is little doubt at all that during a collapse of sufficient magnitude some stone is reduced to power; concrete certainly no less than stone. You are trying to apply the label of rebuttal to something that is not a rebuttal of the point at all. My friend is certainly an expert, unlike MM; but by all means look it up on some geological reference database.

But clearly the pictures don't say it all. Are you referring to the debris collapsing slightly sideways from the Towers? You are aware, I assume, that the top 30 stories were riding the Towers down like some horrifying slolum. In that case, where else should the debris go? Straight down? Only in some cartoonish version of reality. Debris showered in all directions because the building would have been torn to pieces; and you can hardly argue first that materials spewed sideways from an explosion and then say the entire structure collapsed straight down like in a controlled demolition. In which controlled demolition has thousands of tons of materials fallen all over the place and in all directions?? Every single video I see has a building that collapses straight into its own understory; this is not what the Towers did on that day. I am being forcibly driven into the conclusion that, in your heart, you no longer really can justify your belief about the incident. Take the next logical step.

Because this is your pre-conclusion and faith. It's like arguing with a fundamentalist Christian: what about useless anatomical features? I'll ask and they'll tell me I'm guessing it's further evidence of Creation or intelligent design. But the words hold all the clues that one needs to see how their intellect is responding to the challenge: I'm guessing. They know, inside, that their theory doesn't work and they're packpedaling for room to refute it with any outside point they can bring in.

A steel frame building of the size of the WTC has never collapsed before either. It would be entirely objective to say that the pancaking is likely to be a feature of such a building collapse.

Again, not the same.

Well, they were certainly not consistent with free fall of the building, Scott. No massive chunks flew away via explosion. The top part of the building - as every single video of the collapses shows - 'rode' the lower part to the ground. This is utterly, utterly indisputable. Secondly, the parts of the building falling off descend faster than the top piece; these parts, free of any constraint on gravity are moving at actual free fall speed. It is therefore absolutely, utterly impossible that the building is descending at free-fall. I'm sorry, and I know how much you think of the free fall explanation, but it simply, categorically, is not so.

Again: absolutely impossible. What missile is that, the size of an airplane? A Polaris? Apollo 13?

Er...the whale comment was actually a joke. I'm hoping that was immediately apparent.

I agree that the arguments being proposed - by the Troofers - are not terribly scientific in some instances. There are, further, apparently few or no additional videos.

Then we are at an impasse. You appear to have constructed a religious zeal around the institution of 9/11 "Troof". It does not need to be a hypothetical godhead, Scott. It can be challenged. It can be questioned; and if the responses fail the questions, it can be withdrawn, debunked, discarded. I appreciate the emotional attachment you feel to it; I can understand this. But it is not necessarily true, and the forcible double-think you must feel on considering it is not necessary - nor is it fair to try to convince others of something you now only partially believe in yourself. I understand your feelings, I do. But you must move beyond them.

That was actually Dylan Avery's comment in the middle of Loose Change; I don't recall which edition it was.

It would be more appropriate to see the film in its entirely. I have done so for LC; you can do the same for SLC. I promise; whatever you go into it believing, you'll honestly probably believe at the end anyway. No one is convinced by anything these days.

Indeed. I understand autopilot is a wonderful thing and highly corrective.

But that's just the thing: they're not unbiased experts. It's like asking the Archbishop of Canterbury for a naturalistic explanation of baby's souls - he's an expert at his interpretation, but it may not be so, objectively.

Best regards,

Geoff

 

My god. Can you imagine being next to the poles as the wings hit? Terrifying. Your worst-case scenario is that you'll be crushed. Your best-case scenario? That it'll miss you - but instead will strike the apparatus of your nation. That's a no-winner.

 

Dude...I'd have a load in my pants the size of 757...or at least a Tomahawk missle.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

edit:

I just re-read your post Geoff, and I never really thought about this. All those poor bastards that were trapped above the impact zone would have mostly likely ridden that motherfucker all the way down, as that part of the building remained relatively intact. Can you imagine the fucking terror...I bet those few seconds seemed like hours of hell.

 

There's a vid on youtube (can't find it now I'm at work) where they have the video in time with the phone call from one of the occupants of the upper floors. They are trying to keep him talking and not panic but he's definitely very worried and wants to know what's happening. In the last few seconds the building begins to collapse. The last thing you hear is crashing noises and him screaming. It's horrible. Gave me chills.

I'll find it later.

**Edit. His name was Kevin Cosgrove

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUhGVpP8hCw&feature=related

 

Whether there was a conspiracy involved is not questioned by anyone; the only issue is who were the conspirators. In terms of planes, even most alternate theory people believe that that planes did indeed hit the WTC buildings. If the government truly had clear videos of a plane hitting the pentagon, I think the same type of thing would happen for the pentagon explosion (there could, ofcourse, still be people believing it was a hologram or what not but the hologram believers is a very small one). As it stands, however, we have witnesses saying that it (a) did not come in the officially stated direction and (b) saying that it didn't crash into the pentagon at all, but rather flew over it.

I agree. Just take a look at the official conspiracy theory, even though it's full of holes.

Again, agreed.

Yeah, one blurry video with what is allegedly a plane. Perhaps the CGed it in; with that amount of blur it might not be too hard. And they only had to deal with one video; the other 84 are still under wraps.

I admit it. Your evidence sounds convincing. I'll pass it over to the loose change crew and see what they say.

In the meantime, they have provided this link, which sounds very convincing that the official story is false:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7134448689829125037&q=source:009191699071558829130&hl=en

 

From now on any mention of conspiracy theories will be in relation to theories different from the official story. ....

Not exactly. If you read the link I provided you will see that the first two witnesses actually describe a flight path still consistent with the official story.



Scott if the tapes were released that showed nothing for the whole day would you then be convinced that there was no conspiracy? I don't think so.

No. Point out the witness that says this please. All the witnesses I watched agreed that the plane hit the pentagon. The CIT guys completely ignore this and pick at the parts of the testimony that suits them.

Quote mining is a sad tactic that 9/11 conspiracy theorists use to mislead.

***Edit in case I wasn't clear. The CIT guys use testimony given by people who believe that the plane hit the pentagon. They take parts of that testimony to claim that it came from a different angle and therefore couldn't have hit the pentagon.

You have had many pages to demonstrate this and you have failed to do so.

It may sound convincing because its a boring video with lots of maths and physics and those of us with a full time job aren't going to try to analyze it properly. However it is contradicted by the stats on this page I posted before where they calculate that turning away and pulling up would cause the plane to stall. http://www.911myths.com/index.php/NoC
It's late here I'll look into it more tomorrow.

 

As a matter of pointed fact, it is, Scott.

But not all even then, and this should sound warning bells.

Where are these witnesses, and how many? This disagrees directly with Shaman's post, so it should be explained in detail. He suggests that it's misleading; I will review your link and report back.

Report: there's no proof that the tower was in the way. This isn't demonstrated at all. They could have easily passed right by it. And the light poles were knocked over. So that's incorrect. Their diagram for Case F starts far, far above an obstacle which they haven't demonstrated is even in the path of the aircraft. They demand a 1.62 g load even for their highly skewed diagram, yet recognize that the aircraft is producing a consistent average of 1.2g - which, by the way, indicates it was pulling out of a dive. I'm no expert, but their scale demonstration of the crash looks very easy for an aircraft to perform.