[split] 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[binny]

There was a similar program here in the US that said the same thing. I forget if it was on the Discovery channel or if it was Frontline (I love Frontline) or what. Anyway people still have their conspiracy theories and they'll believe only what they want.

[theVOID]

A little reading also turned up the black box being found in pensylvania but was too damaged to recover meaningful data, but the cockpit recorder was found albeit in bad condition and confirmed the idea that there was a struggle on the plane.

So your little bit of reading counts as proof, but mine is hearsay? You chastise my proof as just owrds on the internet, but all you have is words on the internet. That is where we internalize the debate and decide which piece of hearsay seems more likley than the other. How does the damage of the black box, which is nearly indestructible mean there was a struggle? It was such a fantastic struggle that is damaged the flight data recorder? I would lean towards a crash into the ground as more likely a cause of said damage.

1) There is a difference between Hearsay and testimony

2) I do not consider it proof, i posted it because i wanted to see if you have any rebuttal to the statement made by the engineer. The evidence for a plane hitting the pentagon is very convincing, i am yet to see anything but amateur hour assumptions from the other side. I was hoping you knew of some scientific sources supporting the idea of a missile striking the pentagon.

Supposed witness accounts are not good evidence. Next.

I will admit that I didn't quote my sources, but I assure you that you can do the research yourself if you are so inclined. The reason I did not post my sources is because it is hearsay, that you can choose to believe it or not. but what makes my sourced witness "not good evidence" and you witness otherwise?

I'm surprised by the fact that while you claim to have good evidence against the official story you so far have not provided any - i have been researching and i haven't found any serious scientific inquiry that suggests any unreasonable conflict with the mainstream scientific opinion, i was hoping you could share some, as you have mentioned before that you have it.

Where is this proof? That's what i'm interested in, the proof - not you just claiming you can prove it.

But you cannot prove that the official story is valid either. So we are at am impasse, where as free-thinkers we have to figure it out ourselves. It seems less likley that the official story is possible or plausible than some other information and theories. There is not proof, there is nothing I can reach through the screen (and dimension of time) and show you, as there would be nothing for you to do the same for your side of the argument. But if you posit that it is more likley that the boxes were not recovered, than I think that is incorrect.

All serious studies into the events that i have found so far support the official story - this is not an impasse, i am simply waiting for some serious studies to the contrary. Where is a scientific paper demonstrating problems with the official science?

But you also seemed to show that they indeed were collected, then the question becomes can we hear or see trascripts of them? If they were collected, why were they not entered into public record during the investigation, and remained behind closed doors, same as presidential and vice presidential testimony?

I'll do some more digging on this issue and before i comment, so far i've only investigated the science.

I am saying that they were likely collected, and then we were told that they were not. you come back with a Popular Mechanics article quote saying that they were. So are we disagreeing?

If all they have on either side of the issue is testimony then this isn't a point i can use to give credence to either theory.

I am terrible a math, but lets do it. how long would it take a free fall object to cover the same distance?

A moot point, an object in free fall is not obstructed by a building. and regardless, the tallest WTC building from the top is 415m to the roof, from free fall of 10^2 m/s it would take approx 2.3 seconds for an object to fall from the top. The towers came down, as Adrian said, in 14 seconds from an impact height of 380m.

How much resistance to gravity do undamaged floors present?

A more important questing is what is the weight bearing load of each floor with and without weakened steel supports?

If the fastest collapsing tower sustained impact between the 77th - 85th floor you then have between 15- 23 floors of extra weight bearing down upon the lower part of the tower, putting excessive pressure on the steel support structure which is already damaged by the impact of a plane traveling 500 miles an hour plus the fire damage from the fuel that leaked into the building and down the elevator and support shafts - it is more than feasible for the weight bearing floors to reach critical mass and cave into floors below them each instance with increasing weight, heat and momentum leading to a accelerating vertical collapse.

In a pancake collapse theory, what is a reasonable time frame of said collapse whereas there is a congruent amount of gravitational resistance from the floors below involved in said collapse?

The amount of time it would take each subsequent layer to collapse would be exponentially faster than the layer before it. The 'gravitational resistance' as you call it is however long it takes x number of tons to destroy it, again, increasing exponentially as you descend.

I assume that it is much higher than 9 or 14 seconds, more like 45ish. But feel free to crunch numbers. In a pancake collapse, would we not expect the falling load to meet resistance form the floors and supports below it, and that that would possibly cause the collapsing portion to fall to one side or another? How does a pancake style collapse maintain a downward trajectory for the entirety of the failure?

The tower was designed to spread the weight evenly across the supports, minimizing the chances substantially for an angular collapse. It is also very dependent on the height at which the building was struck, you would expect that the lower down you went the more likely the chance for an angular collapse despite the weight distribution, however both of the planes hit the tower within the last 15 floors meaning the chances of an angular collapse are substantially lessened.

Wouldn't the building literally fall over at some point? Especially taken into account that all supports could not fail simultaneously.

Again, too high up the building for an angular collapse, and the structure was designed for weight distribution so you would expect a significantly lower chances for the buildings to fall on an angle.

Even if most failed, and caused the rest to, it would be impossible with an hour of kerosene and aluminum aeroframe impact for literally every support to fail simultaneously. Would that not also then lead to a lilting, or "falling over" of the structure? This isn't math, but speculative introspection.

An hour and a half with a continual increase in weight on the floors below impact combined with the initial impact that would have caused significant damage to the supports and the fact that 1 and a a half hours of intense heat slowly skewing the supports seems likely to bring down a tower. I have already explained why an angular collapse does not seem likely.

I'll check out the commission report and some peer-reviewed science, if you can provide the names of any real scientists who have evidence against certain events, that is the type of evidence i would be happy to see.

Well, you keep trying to find a real scientist, but I would suggest you use your own faculties to figure this one out. At some point we have to think for ourselves, and not outsource our opinions and ideas to perceived experts.

But that's the thing, i haven't been able to find any. None of the conspiracy theorists have good science included in their speculation, it is all much the same as what you posted, but with marginally more detail of the mechanisms. You already mentioned a few times that you had this serious evidence but haven't mentioned specific studies or even names, i'm interested in seeing a critical scientific analysis - that is the type of evidence that could be convincing.

So yeah. Your hearsay trumps mine because you has the balls to copy and paste it.
Thanks for listening, I do enjoy discussions with you, we just don't see eye to eye.

Again, didn't mean to make it seem like i considered that proof, i just wanted an opinion.

Yeah i enjoy our little arguments, i like being challenged even when i don't necessarily agree.

[Pippy]

I'm surprised by the fact that while you claim to have good evidence against the official story you so far have not provided any

I want you to search it out,
I really hate posting links to other peoples work and calling it my proof on any debate here.

Scientists? how about Scholars?
http://www.st911.org/

Architects? This one you'd like I think.
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots?
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

First response witnesses?
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

First read the Commission report, then start at the top with the more credible groups. I don't want to post a bunch of hooey, but these represent some of the better groups of truthers.

Compare the commission report to David Ray Griffen's The 9/11 Commission Report: Omissions and Distortions, Debunking 9/11 Debunking or The New Pearl Harbor Revisited: 9/11, the cover-up, and the exposé.

It is also part of a much bigger picture, America and it's internal control mechanisms. This would not be the first time there was a terrorist attack on America that the official story left a lot of unanswered questions. You have to look into it in the context of its history.

why would they go through such pains to make the towers fall straight down?

Hey Meatball. They didn't want the towers to come straight down, but with Silverstien's controlled demolition it was the only choice. They just hoped that the average person wouldn't question it. "Hey, I've never seen a plane hit a building, so that must be what it looks like,".

Oh come on. Stop being facetious. You know full well that he meant that cockpit recorder had recorded the sounds the crew and passengers made as they tried to breach the cockpit door in their last bid effort to retake the plane.

But that is my point. The damage of the recorder proves nothing, especially about a struggle. But the flight recoders information itself, absolutely. So why wasn't it part of the public report of the incident? Either they did not recover the box, which I have tried to show is very unlikely, or they did and did not include it in the report. By saying there was a struggle, and some phone calls made 30,000 feet up from cell towers, but not supplying the evidence is itself facetious.

Or what did Cheney do that morning, as for the first time in it's history a vice president was given a militay command. His testimony was omitted.

You guys can believe Fox news, and Howard Stern, and all the rest. Go ahead. I will listen to the side of the story that does not have a conflict of interest.

I should have politely not gotten involved, but I would expect more questioning off the party line by you guys, as proposed freethinkers and atheists. Religion is a big control mechanism, but 9/11 was done by Bin Laden. He was never formally charged, or even found... But hey, you know, the government would never lie to us. Oh wait, Waco.

Sigh,
-Pip

[theVOID]

Cheers pip, found one of particular interest:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/therm...idues.html

* Edit *

This rebuttal to the link above is far more convincing - once the calculations are done you can't ignore the proof.

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

[Pippy]

Both well written.

The first seemed to be more concerned with dust samples, and the second with support columns.

You lean towards the "no evidence of thermite" side then?

[Meatball]

So where are the hundreds of people that would have been involved in the controlled demolition (from the top down?) of both towers?

Contacting demolition experts, purchasing massive a amount of explosives, setting up explosives throughout two of the busiest buildings in New York, arranging for the hijacking of several planes, all went off without a hitch? Nobody got cold feet, or outright rejected the plot?

A lot of people would have to be involved in an operation of this scale, and I find it really hard to believe all these people have the same agenda.

I mean, sure it's possible. It's just so obviously not the most rational explanation.

[Pippy]

Like I said, larger scope of reference is needed. 9/11 as it sits in American history, and in fact world history. Not as some one-of-a-kind event, where anything goes.

Try to make the Commissions story, or the official story sound more rational if you will humor me. It almost certainly invovles a conspiracy that would include more persons that the one you outlined.

[Violet]

The war isn't revenge as much as it's prevention, the same is true of increased security.

I don't know how you can call 3000 people insignificant, even if it is a small percentage of the population it is still a terrorist attack on innocent lives.

I can call 3000 people insignificant... because the death of 3000 people across a population of ~305,000,000 people will make zero real impact upon the remainder of the population... and in the entire 7,000,000,000: it is not even a noticeable hit to the population. These 3000 people are only noticed because they accompanied massive skyscrapers as they collapsed upon themselves. About 3000 people die a day from car crashes... and many many more are injured. (I'm actually rather surprised that 3000 people died in those attacks... that would seem to suggest the area was not fully evacuated... or was most of that from the pentagon?)

But 3000 people every day... aren't those people significant enough to make driving safer? That would be a much more worthy cause than going to war over a destruction of our American landmarks. America overreacted to the destruction of a few landmarks... it should have been focused on preventing such attacks by increased airport security... and that is just about all it should have done in response to the destruction of a few landmarks by vandals. And now we have a deficit to show just why a nation should not overreact.

Hopefully we are wiser now

---

Considering that one of the most populated cities in the USA was targeted... i find the death toll to be rather minor. 2,992 noted human deaths and a little over 6,000 noted humans injured? In a city of more than 18.8 million in the metropolitan area alone?

Minor? Do you have an example of any other non-military attacks with death tolls like that?

Please define 'non-military'? Just what is 'military'?

---

How does the damage of the black box, which is nearly indestructible mean there was a struggle? It was such a fantastic struggle that is damaged the flight data recorder? I would lean towards a crash into the ground as more likely a cause of said damage.

Oh come on. Stop being facetious. You know full well that he meant that cockpit recorder had recorded the sounds the crew and passengers made as they tried to breach the cockpit door in their last bid effort to retake the plane. This is confirmed by the calls made by the passengers themselves to loved ones and the authorities.

How much resistance to gravity do undamaged floors present? In a pancake collapse theory, what is a reasonable time frame of said collapse whereas there is a congruent amount of gravitational resistance from the floors below involved in said collapse? I assume that it is much higher than 9 or 14 seconds, more like 45ish.

No, it took the 14 or so seconds that the building collapsed in. The weight of the floors above the impact has to be taken into account, and this is why the second building to be hit was the first one to fall. The second building was hit much lower that the first, so there was more weight above the damage, causing more strain as the inner structure deteriorated.

Indeed. And if the hijackers had known this: they would have hit lower still.

I think the second tower was also hit more directly... but its been a few months since I last watched it

---

Why is the direction the towers fell even an issue? If this was a massive government (or any other kind) conspiracy, why would they go through such pains to make the towers fall straight down?

What purpose does that serve? To make amateur physicists paranoid?

To deal minimal damage to the population and other buildings as they tried to get the American people on their backs for a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc?

[Meatball]

Considering that one of the most populated cities in the USA was targeted... i find the death toll to be rather minor. 2,992 noted human deaths and a little over 6,000 noted humans injured? In a city of more than 18.8 million in the metropolitan area alone?

Minor? Do you have an example of any other non-military attacks with death tolls like that?

Please define 'non-military'? Just what is 'military'?

---

This proved harder than I though. For the sake of discussion, let's say "non-military attack" == "attack on civilians by anyone".

Why is the direction the towers fell even an issue? If this was a massive government (or any other kind) conspiracy, why would they go through such pains to make the towers fall straight down?

What purpose does that serve? To make amateur physicists paranoid?

To deal minimal damage to the population and other buildings as they tried to get the American people on their backs for a war in Afghanistan, Iraq, etc?

Are you being sarcastic?

[Violet]

This proved harder than I though. For the sake of discussion, let's say "non-military attack" == "attack on civilians by anyone".

Rwandan Genocide? Holocaust?

Those would apply under that definition :S I've gotten all confused over just what 'military' is... and on wether the plane hijackers on 11/09/2001 are 'military' or not. :S I think military just means 'armed forces'... so would they apply because they were armed with planes?

Are you being sarcastic?

Yes