Jump to content

The Truth about 9/11


starbug1
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recently, I have been researching the events of 9/11. I hadn't given it much though before, and to be honest it really didn't interest me very much. It was just a terrorist attack that endlessly plagued the news. I was outraged, of course, because all of those people died, and now we would be going to "official" war against terrorism, but that didn't change the fact that I was only 13, and none of that would ever phase me.

 

Not so of late. I was given a couple of DVD's by my uncle, who is a powerful debater when it comes to politics and all that. I watched them and they blew my mind. I was on the edge of my seat, taking in every word carefully. For the first time I took an interest into politics. For the first time I really considered the depravity of the Bush administration. For the first time I realized how obvious 9/11 was when the facts are all layed out for you. the terrorist attacks on the track center were a deliberate event. 9/11 was a conspiracy.

 

I talked to some of my friends and their parents about it surreptitiously just to see what they thought. None of them were any wiser than what they were told from the newspapers and news on tv, when it is so apparent for anyone really knowledgeable on the matter that it was a conspiracy. It kind of blew my mind, initially, that everyone thought it was a terrorist attack, plain and simple. The ignorance is what killed me, and I couldn't even debate the matter because they wouldn't know enough anyway.

 

Obviously, some of you know this already. And for those who don't believe 9/11 was a conspiracy, I'm prepared to change your mind. I, of course, can't give you the DVDs, but I can tell you what they are, and I can feed you links that accurately explain the same stuff.

 

I watched: 9/11 Confronting the Evidence, and

Loose Change

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 146
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

Oh god no.

 

No please. Stop. Now.

 

Conspiracy theories are pathological memes.

 

Or, to put it another way:

 

pnt.png

 

There was a 9/11 conspiracy. It was perpetrated by Al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. As an independent organization unaffiliated with any country, they managed to strike a blow at the heart of one of the most powerful countries on earth.

 

Here's a thought: have you tried looking for evidence against the conspiracy theory? There's ample evidence out there. For example:

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

For the love of God be a skeptic. Think about practicality and parsimony when information is presented for you. Look for logical reasoning supported by evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Conspiracy theories are pathological memes.

 

Yes, conspiracy theories are pathological memes. I never believe them. Unless of course there is evidence to prove the theory true.

 

For the love of God be a skeptic. Think about practicality and parsimony when information is presented for you. Look for logical reasoning supported by evidence.

 

I was absolutely a skeptic at first. that is why I did the extra research. For parsimony: the resources are there, I've looked at the Wikipedia links. Here for instance, which tell you the hard facts. I also checked all the presented information Here, which gives you the "conspiracy" aspect. I've also checked the outside sources, the external links, and I've taken it from both sides, I've thought about it logically. As much as I hate the whole idea of a "conspiracy theory," I believe it.

 

As for logical reasoning supported by evidence, that is exactly what I have found. The DVDs especially go into extensive detail about what exactly happened. I'll say again, I was very skeptical at first, though it is VERY hard to deny the explanations and evidence they show. Also note: the DVD, 9/11 Confronting the Evidence, is presented in an unbiased format. The narrator/commentator never comes out to say it was a conspiracy, he puts all of the gathered evidence, footage, and interviews and follows the accounts logically.

 

 

There was a 9/11 conspiracy. It was perpetrated by Al Qaeda under the direction of Osama bin Laden. As an independent organization unaffiliated with any country, they managed to strike a blow at the heart of one of the most powerful countries on earth.

 

To be honest, I'm actually surprised. I thought that you, Bascule, would be one of the ones that believed otherwise.

 

Here's a thought: have you tried looking for evidence against the conspiracy theory? There's ample evidence out there. For example:

 

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

 

I'll first look at the evidence from your link:

 

Origins: The notion that the Pentagon was not damaged by terrorists who hijacked American Airlines Flight 77 (a Boeing 757) and crashed it into the military office complex, but that the whole affair was staged by the U.S. government, has been promulgated by French author Thierry Meyssan in his book, The Frightening Fraud. [b']Meyssan offers no real explanation for what did cause the extensive damage to the Pentagon, asserting only that Flight 77 did not exist, no plane crashed into the Pentagon, and that "the American government is lying.
"

 

While Meyssan did not offer an explanation, many people did. For example, there are several accounts saying that only a missile could have hit the pentagon because there is absolutely no wreckage of the plane left, no fuselage, no engines, and corresponding damage to the pentagon. The pictures of the wreckage are minimal and substantially lacking to prove an entire plane crashed there. The picture of the tires were proved to be not the type found on the 757 that supposedly crashed at the Pentagon. Furthermore, the damage inflicted on the Pentagon was much less than if a 757, even with less than half a tank of fuel could have inflicted. So to say that:

 

It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall.

 

is faulty and misleading. How much damage? The fifth ring may have been penetrated, but try and find any pictures or evidence that show or give solid damage on any rings other than the first three.

 

Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:

 

Explain how the roof is undamaged after a plane blows up inside. Would there not be any fire damage? Not even a collapse past the first ring? The damage inside the Pentagon is minimal. When you look at the photos, there is relatively no fire damage. A plane would burn up and leave at least some evidence that a fire lasted for any time at all. things inside the pentagon, right at the crash site, are still intact. This is only done by the explosion of a missile.

 

2) Can you explain how a Boeing 14.9 yards high, 51.7 yards long, with a wingspan of 41.6 yards and a cockpit 3.8 yards high, could crash into just the ground floor of this building?

 

This is the wrong question. A 757 can crash into the ground floor. They are making it too easy. the fact is that the plane was twice as long as the impact hole, and twice as high. I don't remember the exact dimensions, but superimpose a 757 over the the dimensions of the hole, and they don't match up. there is no evidence where the wings should have clipped off, no wings were even found. No evidence of where the tail impacted, no tail was found.

 

The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building.

 

Firstly, the light poles are bent in the opposite direction that the plane clipped them in.

 

The eyewitness accounts of hearing a plane that low are fallacious. If indeed a plane flew above cars and people, low enough to reach the bottom floor of the pentagon in time, by means the people and cars would have been blown off the road, or at least moved, by the power of the jet engines. None of this happened. No eye witness accounts can even accurately atest to seeing a plane. they only (thought they) heard one.

 

The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.

 

Jet fuel does not explode and extinguish under thirty minutes. That amount of jet fuel does not burn down considerably for several hours or more.

 

any pieces of wreckage large enough to be identifiable in after-the-fact photographs taken from a few hundred feet away burned up in the intense fire that followed the crash

 

The burning point of titanium alloy (not sure of the exact element) was proven to higher a higher melting point that that at which jet fuel burns. How do you explain how most of the plane, including the wings and engines, get incinerated in a "huge fireball." When that fireball isn't even hot enough to melt let alone incinerate the metal?

 

As the front of the Boeing 757 hit the Pentagon, the outer portions of the wings likely snapped during the initial impact, then were pushed inward towards the fuselage and carried into the building's interior; the inner portions of the wings probably penetrated the Pentagon walls with the rest of the plane. Any sizable portions of the wings were destroyed in the explosion or the subsequent fire

 

I believe I've already mentioned what happened here.

 

 

pent2.jpg

 

When you look at this photo or any of the Pentagon you will see the impact zone. There is nothing left on the lawn. There is no damage to the grass. No wing marks where they hit after they supposedly "bent towards the fuselage before they followed the plane in".

 

When asked by a journalist: "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?"

"First of all, the question about the aircraft, there are some small pieces of aircraft visible from the interior during this fire-fighting operation I'm talking about, but not large sections. In other words, there's no fuselage sections and that sort of thing." "You know, I'd rather not comment on that. We have a lot of eyewitnesses that can give you better information about what actually happened with the aircraft as it approached. So we don't know. I don't know."

 

They explain:

 

The fire chief wasn't asked "where the aircraft was"; he was asked "Is there anything left of the aircraft at all?" He did indeed provide an answer to the question he was asked: There were no large sections of the plane left by the time he was asked (the day after the attack) because they had been smashed into smaller pieces by the impact and then burned up; all that remained were smaller pieces visible only from the interior of the Pentagon.

 

There is no logic or evidence at all for this answer.

 

 

If you look at this picture OF THE IMPACT, you'll see no wreckage and minimal fire damage. On the inside of the building there is no damage. the collape is only on the first ring.

 

trucks.jpg

 

Although 9/11: Confronting the Evidence has better clips, this video does pretty good giving a rundown on the crash.

 

http://www.elchulo.net/files/pentagon.swf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O.k. the "Silverstien had something to gain theory" is ruined by the fact that the expenses for keeping the site have exceeded the insurance claim, masively.

 

In regards to the other transactions:

To date, no concrete evidence has yet been provided for anything sinister in these transactions; US intelligence agencies are known to monitor markets for signs of imminent untoward events.

 

As for the idea of the collapse apearing like a prepared demolition objects breaking away from the collapsing towers are photographed falling faster than the actual building indicating the structure was not in a true free fall as in the case of typical prepared demolitions.

 

There's a lot more but I really can't be bothered, are you happy yet?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

are you happy yet?

 

Not even close.

 

How is it that you are so sure of yourselves? I'm willing to look over the evidence any of you can show.

 

Bascule, the pathological meme would prove both ways. It may be that the supposed truth is the BiG lie. You may be believeing in the BIG lie. Explain that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

starbug1, I missed the part where you established yourself as an expert on (or even familar with) planes, plane crashes, missile impacts, and the like.

 

So how is one to evaluate statements like "This is only done by the explosion of a missile." "the damage inflicted on the Pentagon was much less than if a 757, even with less than half a tank of fuel could have inflicted" "If indeed a plane flew above cars and people, low enough to reach the bottom floor of the pentagon in time, by means the people and cars would have been blown off the road, or at least moved, by the power of the jet engines" "Jet fuel does not explode and extinguish under thirty minutes. That amount of jet fuel does not burn down considerably for several hours or more."

 

that you make?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How is it that you are so sure of yourselves? I'm willing to look over the evidence any of you can show.

 

READ: http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/911_pentagon_757_plane_evidence.html

 

Bascule, the pathological meme would prove both ways. It may be that the supposed truth is the BiG lie. You may be believeing in the BIG lie. Explain that one.

 

My argument is evidence based. Yours comes from an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

starbug1' date=' I missed the part where you established yourself as an expert on (or even familar with) planes, plane crashes, missile impacts, and the like.

 

So how is one to evaluate statements like [i']"This is only done by the explosion of a missile." "the damage inflicted on the Pentagon was much less than if a 757, even with less than half a tank of fuel could have inflicted" "If indeed a plane flew above cars and people, low enough to reach the bottom floor of the pentagon in time, by means the people and cars would have been blown off the road, or at least moved, by the power of the jet engines" "Jet fuel does not explode and extinguish under thirty minutes. That amount of jet fuel does not burn down considerably for several hours or more."[/i]

 

that you make?

 

All of this is mentioned by people other than me on the links I gave. The wikipedia article to start. I'm still going over the dvds collecting information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All of this is mentioned by people other than me on the links I gave. The wikipedia article to start. I'm still going over the dvds collecting information.

I'm sorry, I missed the part about Wikipedia authors being experts on plane crashes and missile impacts.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be to gain even if it was a conspiracy?

 

Truth

 

 

My argument is evidence based. Yours comes from an argument from incredulity, a logical fallacy.

 

I read the link bascule, and I see evidence there as I see it in the conspiracy websites. Both sides have plenty of evidence, and the incredulity is also thrown both ways. Really, from what I've gathered, there is more 'logical fallacy' on the side saying they were terrorist attacks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read the link bascule, and I see evidence there as I see it in the conspiracy websites. Both sides have plenty of evidence, and the incredulity is also thrown both ways. Really, from what I've gathered, there is more 'logical fallacy' on the side saying they were terrorist attacks.

Har har.

 

I do hope that you're just testing us to see what the reaction is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry' date=' I missed the part about Wikipedia authors being experts on plane crashes and missile impacts.

 

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html[/quote']

 

 

I've read it all. It's apparent my opinion is going nowhere. If anyone knows how I could possibly upload the dvd on my computer, because the dvd really has the meat of persuasion, that would be my best bet. Probably not possible, but if anyone knows, that'd by great.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure who to believe either way, so don't start flaming me as im completely agnostic. Having said that ...

 

If the US Government wanted to refute the conspiracy theories, why only release 5 frames from the video that shows the impact? IIRC there are at least 3 tapes that would prove or disprove it, so why keep us all guessing?

 

Also, the DVD entitled Loose Change is available on Google Videos and can be downloaded from thepiratebay.org via bittorrent. I can find a direct link if anyone is interested?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the US Government wanted to refute the conspiracy theories, why only release 5 frames from the video that shows the impact?

 

Perhaps it's all they have.

 

IIRC there are at least 3 tapes that would prove or disprove it, so why keep us all guessing?

 

"IIRC," a.k.a. hearsay, a.k.a. non-evidence. Can you find something more definitive on these alleged 3 tapes than your anecdotal account?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both sides have plenty of evidence, and the incredulity is also thrown both ways.

 

Oh really? Where do you see those corroborating the official story using the absence of evidence as evidence that a 757 the Pentagon? I'd really like to see that.

 

The conspiracy theorist argument seems to be "There's no evidence of a plane (which is wrong to begin with) therefore it couldn't have been a plane, it had to have been a missile or some other projectile!" (when there's no evidence of that)

 

My apologies for the strawman... but I hope you get the picture.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh really? Where do you see those corroborating the official story using the absence of evidence as evidence that a 757 the Pentagon? I'd really like to see that.

 

The conspiracy theorist argument seems to be "There's no evidence of a plane (which is wrong to begin with) therefore it couldn't have been a plane' date=' it had to have been a missile or some other projectile!" (when there's no evidence of that)

 

My apologies for the strawman... but I hope you get the picture.[/quote']

 

 

 

1) there is no empirical eye-witness evidence with which to rely as pure evidence saying a plane actually flew into the pentagon.

 

2) the hole made was smaller than the plane. As you know there are conflicting reports on this. And since I am no expert on missile impact, I have only read about and watched all to prove that it may have been a missile but less likely so a plane. The website "hunting the boeing" has photographs that show how a 757 could have made the damage at the pentagon. These photographs were taken of the hole after the roof collapsed. Other photographs show a smaller hole, and other than the "hunting the boeing" website, no valid photographs or evidence showed the hole to be large enough. these photographs show the actual size of the impact hole before the roof collaspes. The original hole is 14X16 ft. Additionally, there is no damage to the roof, where the tail of the plane should have hit. Likewise, there is no damage where the wings should have hit. Only a small hole, and no wreckage on the lawn.

 

3) The security camera clip showing the crash into pentagon does not show a 757, it does not show any plane at all, only an explosion.

 

4) furthermore, the evidence and the photographs are curiously different for the impact of a plane. The official story says there is evidence, but the conpiracy evidence cannot wholly be disproved. So the strawman does not work. And there is evidence to prove that it was a missile. People are quoted to have said, "it sounded like a missile," "it was not a plane," and all the variations. The majority of pictures taken directly after the crash show there to be no evidence of a plane. The firemen who put out the fire at the pentagon were scheduled for an interview, but were kept from speaking to anybody about it.

 

 

To further my argument, we know the pentagon isn't the only issue here. How would you explain how World Trade Center building number 7 was found in rubble, when no plane ever hit that building? The Bush administration says fire was responsible. Fire responsible for demolishing a 47 floor steel building? At 5:30pm that day the building imploded, after having only a few small fires. Even if the building was completely ablaze, it's been proved that fire has never completely caused a steel building to implode or result to rubble because of fire.

 

How would you explain the mysterious objects attached to the bottom of flights 175 and flight 11, and the flashs on the front of both planes just prior before they hit? The only known footage of flight 175 shows distinctly the same flash as was seen on the footage of flight 11 impacting the south tower.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) there is no video evidence of a plane hitting the pentagon

I wouldn't expect any. It's supposed to be a surprise attack, after all.

 

Nobody ever totally relies on eyewitnesses.

 

3) the hole made was smaller than the plane. As you know there are conflicting reports on this. And since I am no expert on missile impact, I have only read about and watched all to prove that it may have been a missile but less likely so a plane.

Planes are fragile. They're not made of depleted uranium--a mass of aluminum and carbon fiber will not break much of a hole through a concrete/brick wall. Think about it.

4) furthermore, the evidence and the photographs are curiously different for the impact of a plane. The official story says there is evidence, but the conpiracy evidence cannot wholly be disproved. So the strawman does not work. And there is evidence to prove that it was a missile.

Intelligent design cannot be disproved, nor can pastafarianism. That doesn't make either correct, especially when there are theories with more credible evidence that can be.

 

To further my argument, you know the pentagon isn't the only thing at issue here. How would you explain how World Trade Center building number 7 was found in rubble, when no plane ever hit that building? The Bush administration says fire was responsible. Fire responsible for demolishing a 47 floor steel building? At 5:30pm that day the building imploded, after having few small fires. Even if the building was completely ablaze, it's been proved that fire has never completely caused a steel building to implode or result to rubble because of fire.

What about the WTC main buildings? Most of the damage was caused by fire and jet fuel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't expect any. It's supposed to be a surprise attack, after all.

 

Almost half of New York said they didn't think so.

 

 

 

Planes are fragile. They're not made of depleted uranium--a mass of aluminum and carbon fiber will not break much of a hole through a concrete/brick wall. Think about it.

 

You didn't read it right. the building had no marks of where a tail or wings would have hit. also, this makes an argument on how a plane crashing in to the World Trade Centers couldn't bring them down. How could them if they are so fragile, they wouldn't leave much damage, right?

 

 

What about the WTC main buildings? Most of the damage was caused by fire and jet fuel.

 

The Bush administration said fire fatigued the steel and caused the building to collapse. This does not happen. Let me ask you, have you ever seen a building completely ablaze? After the fires are extinguished, what's left is a steel frame and the outline of windows, at the very least. All pictures of ground zero show all seven buildings in rubble. Note the the WTC main buildings, fell straight down. Now for those of you who don't believe they were detonated, this still doesn't prove how the other buildings collapsed. Remember that building seven imploded and fell straight down.

 

Get a copy of the free dvd. It's worth a look at:

Confronting the Evidence

 

How to burn a copy: https://secure.reopen911.org/copythedvd.htm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Almost half of New York said they didn't think so.

Just because the majority says so doesn't mean it's right. And the Pentagon isn't in New York.

 

You didn't read it right. the building had no marks of where a tail or wings would have hit. also, this makes an argument on how a plane crashing in to the World Trade Centers couldn't bring them down. How could them if they are so fragile, they wouldn't leave much damage, right?

Plane crashing into solid concrete building != plane crashing into tall, steel and glass skyscraper.

 

The Bush administration said fire fatigued the steel and caused the building to collapse. This does not happen. Let me ask you, have you ever seen a building completely ablaze? After the fires are extinguished, what's left is a steel frame and the outline of windows, at the very least. All pictures of ground zero show all seven buildings in rubble. Note the the WTC main buildings, fell straight down. Now for those of you who don't believe they were detonated, this still doesn't prove how the other buildings collapsed. Remember that building seven imploded and fell straight down.

Why doesn't it happen? Says who? The buildings collapsed before the fire was extinguished, and several thousand gallons of jet fuel certainly didn't help things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.