I saw a video in which an Air Force fighter jet was placed on a runway, aimed at a concrete bunker at the other end, and crashed into it at about the speed at which the 9/11 commerical jets crashed.
That fighter jet _vaporized_ - there was nothing left of it but dust after the crash.
Jets are just flimsy tubes of metal, and when they crash at high velocity into a significantly more massive object, vaporization is to be expected.
Mark Peters
- Well, there are three things the government is good at: Doing nothing, blocking and destroying. That’s what we have seen in the aftermath of 9/11.
Looking at the air defense on 9/11 similar questions arise. While the first plane could not have been stopped the fighters could have been in Manhattan well before the second plane struck the tower. Instead they flew half speed and in the wrong direction. Why?
There could be any number of reasons; the burden falls on the US government to explain why - and I agree, they’ve been anything but forthright about what happened, but it’s a big leap to go from “something strange happened” to “conspiracy”, is my point.
Well, we know why, several drills were hold on that day and the commanders at NORAD were unable to distinguish between real world and exercise.
I have no idea what this means - you’re saying NORAD couldn’t tell the difference between a training exercise and an actual, on-the-news, publicised attack on the country? What is your point?
Even if all that is just incompetence, there should have been (or should be!) a thorough investigation and restructuring of the agencies.
There should be, yes; just like there should be a closing down of many agencies and departments of the US government - it ain’t like that’s going to happen either.
- I also want to add to your comment about a “gigantic conspiracy”:
…
You probably heard of Operation Northwoods: Switch the plane, remote control it, shoot it down, blame Cuba, start a war. The only people who needed to know about the plan were a handful at the top and a few loyal people at the ground preparing the plane. 9/11 was bigger but I don’t see how it would have needed significantly more people for its execution.
Other than the plane loads of people involved?
- 9/11 was a ‘screw up’ to a certain degree, 1 plane missed, and now over 51% don’t believe the official story. Of course the latter could just be incompetence in delievering the facts
Yes, but that works in both ways.
What parts of the official story can we verify without filling gaps with assumptions?
Not many.
The common denominator of people who don’t believe in the official account is that they want release of documents and another investigation - not to hang Bush.
It’s not exactly good scientific practice to fill in gaps with any assumption pulled out of your arse. A reasoned guess can satisfy, but only until more knowledge is gained. My problem is, that people see a number of errors in the official story (of which there are) and jump from those errors, to the conclusion of the evil government plotting away with the entire thing.
I don’t have much faith in the US government, and I don’t find it ludicrous to hazard that they made many errors that day and tried to cover them up. What I find ludicrous is the leap made to full blown conspiracy.
How about an ‘AND’? There are enemies within the US as there are enemies outside. For different reasons but with common goals.
The rattling of his saber at the doorstep is good for the dictator (to keep his position in his country) and for those who call for more power for the goverment/themselves inside the country.
See above.
There should be [agency re-structuring], yes; …
Which actually happened: Homeland Security department was the restructuring. A huge new agency was created – Transport Security Administration. Many new groups were put in place, to deal with coordination between other agencies. More government jobs for all!
Oh…my apologies.
For example on the base of what has been released so far it is impossible to decide what hit the Pentagon. One has to trust the government on this issue.
You mean to say that a tape of an aircraft crashing on the Pentagon, plus a few tons of airplane debris at the scene, do not corroborate the claim that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon?
It’s not exactly good scientific practice to fill in gaps with any assumption pulled out of your arse.
Good point, but frankly: what gaps? As D’Kian says, we have more than enough painfully obvious evidence to show clearly what happened. Honestly, this loose change nonsense doesn’t have a leg to stand on and I’m surprised that the moderators are even allowing this lunacy to be posted. You may as well claim that aliens built the pyramids. It’s rubbish!
Well, I didn’t mean the obvious facts, I meant when odd details come up, like the crimping in the side of WTC7 or whatever it is.
And that was more a kind of general point about gap-filling, in the Polyfill sense.
Well, I didn’t mean the obvious facts, I meant when odd details come up, like the crimping in the side of WTC7 or whatever it is.
That’s a good point which is often overlooked: during the middle of an emergency people do not stop to observe and measure details. Afterwards you have to sift through the remains and try to piece together exactly what happened.
Well, I didn’t mean the obvious facts, I meant when odd details come up, like the crimping in the side of WTC7 or whatever it is.
Frankly: are you an engineer? Because I think you’d have to be in order to decide that there is something unusual about the crimping. Until I am presented with some pretty solid evidence - from an engineer who is not a kook who claims the government was behind 9/11 - my position is to say that there is nothing unusual about it. That must be what happens when you crash a jumbo jet into a building. I mean, seriously, how often does that happen?
I need proof (credible proof) that there is something unusual before I assume that there is; much less before I am willing to entertain arguments that the unusualness was caused by some sort of “conspiracy.”
The fact is that we know - beyond a shadow of a doubt - who perpetrated 9/11. Whatever the answers to details like the “crimping” are - I will bet you every penny that you are willing to spare that they will only confirm that 9/11 was perpetrated by Islamists. And I don’t even know what this “crimping” is that you refer to. I’ve said all of the above in perfect confidence without even knowing what you refer to. Because I don’t need to know it to say what I have said.
The root cause of this kind of thing is an epistemological sickness - a willingness to believe in magic and fairies and to stifle the cognitive dissonance caused by simultaneously believing that our government is run by incompetent morons and that it is run by a vast conspiracy of Machiavellian Bushhitler manipulators!
That’s why I’m somewhat upset that anyone here is willing to pretend - by offering actual discussion - that there is anything to discuss. There isn’t - this “loose change” nonsense is such complete and utter garbage that the only appropriate form of answer (especially after popular mechanics and such provided the definitive science) is Maddox’s.
To wit: “There is no 9/11 conspiracy, YOU MORONS.”
And that was more a kind of general point about gap-filling, in the Polyfill sense.
Are you familiar with the “God of the gaps” argument, and why it is rubbish?
..my position is to say that there is nothing unusual about it. That must be what happens when you crash a jumbo jet into a building. I mean, seriously, how often does that happen?
I need proof (credible proof) that there is something unusual before I assume that there is; much less before I am willing to entertain arguments that the unusualness was caused by some sort of “conspiracy.”…
To wit: “There is no 9/11 conspiracy, YOU MORONS.”
Inspector, I agree with you! I’m not arguing that they have a leg to stand on. I was slightly mistaken about the nature of evidence, and you’ve rightfully corrected me on that, but please don’t lump me in with them.
Are you familiar with the “God of the gaps” argument, and why it is rubbish?
That’s exactly my point - that’s what I’m saying, that the 9/11 conspiracy only exists as a wild conclusion, not reached by any rational process, and just living in whatever desperate gaps that can be created.
please don’t lump me in with them.
Don’t worry Tenure; I don’t. 
x
So basically it is my opinion that they provide indisputable evidence in this film that the official story propogated by our government as to what happened on 9/11 is false. I felt that even if you ruled out all of the eyewitness testimony, that the video footage, as well as scientific facts [ex: what tempurature titanium melts at] and historical precedent [skyscrapers don’t collapse even after burning for 24 hours over many floors] gave their argument merit. I wanted to know if other intelligent people, like the ones that frequent this forum, had come to the same conclusion as me, and if not, I would appreciate hearing why. I felt quite ill after watching this film, as it’s ramifications are pretty serious.
Whenever a disastrous attack or evil deed such as the wreck of WTC on Sept 11 happens, as sure as snow falls in the winter someone will trundle out the moral equivalent of the infamous Reichstag Fire which occurred in Germany in 1933.
Here is a blurb on it from the Wikipedia:
The Reichstag fire was a pivotal event in the establishment of Nazi Germany. At 21:15 on the night of February 27, 1933, a Berlin fire station received an alarm call that the Reichstag building, the assembly location of the German Parliament, was ablaze. The fire was started in the Session Chamber[1], and by the time the police and firemen arrived, the main Chamber of Deputies was in flames. Inside the building, the police quickly found a shirtless Marinus van der Lubbe. Van der Lubbe was a Dutch insurrectionist council communist and unemployed bricklayer who had recently arrived in Germany, ostensibly to carry out his political activities. The fire was used as evidence that the Communists were beginning a plot against the German government. Van der Lubbe and 4000 Communist leaders were arrested. Then-chancellor Adolf Hitler urged President Hindenburg to pass an emergency decree in order to counter the “ruthless confrontation of the KPD”.
Meanwhile, investigation of the Reichstag Fire continued, with the National Socialists eager to uncover Comintern complicity. In early March 1933, three men were arrested who were to play pivotal roles during the Leipzig Trial, known also as “Reichstag Fire Trial,” namely three Bulgarians: Georgi Dimitrov, Vasil Tanev and Blagoi Popov. The Bulgarians were known to the Prussian police as senior Comintern operatives, but the police had no idea how senior they were: Dimitrov was head of all Comintern operations in Western Europe.
So it was either the government, the Mossad or the Jews that dunnit or maybe all of the preceding since the ZOG or the Israel Lobby secretly controls the country.
A similar claim was made concerning the destruction of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City. It was the government who dunnit to create a pretext for various acts of tyranny.
In a not dissimilar fashion the attack by the Japanese on Pearl Harbor was interpreted by some as a deliberate act of the government to hide the forthcoming attack from the military authorities at Pearl, so there would be a pretext for going to war. It was all a consipiracy, including the the fact that the aircraft carriers were not in port when the attack occurred. All part of a conspiracy etc. etc. etc.
William Randolph Hearst characterized the sinking of -The Maine- as a dastardly act by the Spanish government to provoke a war between the U.S. and Spain. There was later evidence uncovered that indicated -The Maine- might have been the victim of a boiler explosion, rather than a torpedo attack.
It never fails. Or almost never. I am surprised that the San Fransisco earthquake of 1906 was not blamed on the government or on the corporate trusts.
Bob Kolker
I have no idea what this means - you’re saying NORAD couldn’t tell the difference between a training exercise and an actual, on-the-news, publicised attack on the country? What is your point?
Because of the training exercise the defense system was paralyzed. We heard multiple accounts from people at NEADS and NORAD that stated that they were confused if the plane crash was real or exercise because the exercises involved hijacking of planes and crashing a plane into a building (i.e. the same thing that happened later for real).
It is difficult to believe that this was just a coincidence. The only reasonable explanation I can come up with is that the terrorists knew of those exercises on that day and knew that they would hamper the defense capabilities of these agencies. We know of similiar things happening on the day of the London bombings. Government agencies did a drill simulating what would happen if bombs were going off in the tubes (at the same locations where they later really exploded). Again: The terrorists could have used this information to plan their own attack on the same day and in the same locations. If someone in the government had noticed them the only response they would get from his superior would be that it is part of the exercise.
Other than the plane loads of people involved?
I can’t tell for sure what happened on the planes. Obviously they were hijacked. Probably some sort of gas was used and it is likely that hijackers were on the plane. Unfortunately we don’t have any accounts about how they took 4 cockpits by surprise (i.e. before the pilots were able to send a distress signal).
It’s not exactly good scientific practice to fill in gaps with any assumption pulled out of your arse. A reasoned guess can satisfy, but only until more knowledge is gained. My problem is, that people see a number of errors in the official story (of which there are) and jump from those errors, to the conclusion of the evil government plotting away with the entire thing.
I don’t have much faith in the US government, and I don’t find it ludicrous to hazard that they made many errors that day and tried to cover them up. What I find ludicrous is the leap made to full blown conspiracy.
Well, either you say “I don’t know what happened” or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far.
It’s not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn’t explain very much while the ‘conspiracy theory’ explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.
What I find very strange about 9/11 are the flight paths.
How can we explain why the hijackers choose these flight paths? When you start in Dulles, Washington you don’t need to fly to Indiana, turn around and fly back to Washington to hit the Pentagon. The longer you fly the higher is the risk that your flight is intercepted. Same goes for the other planes.
The reason is visible when you map the primary radar coverage of the US over the flights. Flight 11 and Flight 93 switches off its transponder exactly in an area where there is no primary radar coverage. Flight 175 meets flight 93 just when flight 175 switches off its transponder.
One theory that is discussed is that this (and only this) flight pattern allows for all planes to be switched by drones. Did it happen? I don’t know, at least it would explain a number of things.
An article on this subject:
http://www.team8plus.org/the-movement/radar/Radar.htm
You mean to say that a tape of an aircraft crashing on the Pentagon, plus a few tons of airplane debris at the scene, do not corroborate the claim that an aircraft crashed into the Pentagon?
I don’t deny that a ‘flying object’ did hit the Pentagon, the evidence for that is VERY obvious.
Did the object have large wings like an airplane? I don’t know, there is no visible evidence for that.
Hundreds of photos were released showing the debris at the Pentagon (in- and outside). It is safe to assume that we would - if it was flight 77 - see luggage, seats etc. on some pictures - anything that resembles a passenger plane.
The non-existence of photos showing clear evidence of a passenger plane is no proof of course, there is a chance that the photographers missed it or that everything was obliterated.
(And yes, I am aware of photos showing pieces metal that is painted red and blue. That is evidence that a ‘red/blue flying object’ hit the Pentagon - not that it was flight 77).
And what do you mean with “tape”? There is no tape showing flight 77 hitting the Pentagon. There is a tape that shows that *some flying object* hit the Pentagon.
Was it flight 77? I don’t know. We can trace the flight path of flight 77 unitl it turned off its transponder at 8:56. No radar was able to locate the plane anymore until an object with the same transponder signal appeared near the Pentagon. Was it flight 77 just because it had the same transponder signal? Maybe.
What we know is the flight path in the last few minutes/seconds (e.g. the light poles that were knocked over).
If we believe (impossible to check) a group called “Pilots for 911 truth” ( http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/ ), who got their hands on the flight data and were able to reproduce its contents, the data (height, angle) does not match with the flight path that was visible on the ground (light poles). An official investigation could clarify this issue.
Frankly: are you an engineer? Because I think you’d have to be in order to decide that there is something unusual about the crimping. Until I am presented with some pretty solid evidence - from an engineer who is not a kook who claims the government was behind 9/11 - my position is to say that there is nothing unusual about it. That must be what happens when you crash a jumbo jet into a building. I mean, seriously, how often does that happen?
You might want to hear what Danny Jowenko has to say. He is convinced that WTC1, WTC2 collapsed because of the planes but is also convinced that WTC7 was brought down by a controlled demolition. He is a dutch controlled-demolition expert.
(Part 1-3, ~8 min each)
Well, either you say “I don’t know what happened” or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far.
It’s not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn’t explain very much while the ‘conspiracy theory’ explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.
This is like saying that when one comes across a biological structure where one doesn’t know its evolutionary history, the proper course is to embrace intelligent design since “[constructing] a theory that includes all facts found so far” is superior to saying “I don’t know what happened” because intelligent design “explains some of the facts that the official story cannot.”
This is like saying that when one comes across a biological structure where one doesn’t know its evolutionary history, the proper course is to embrace intelligent design since “[constructing] a theory that includes all facts found so far” is superior to saying “I don’t know what happened” because intelligent design “explains some of the facts that the official story cannot.”
(I assume with “intelligent design” you mean “man designed it in a laboratory” (like a virus or something))
The rational path of action in such a case is to say “I don’t know” and research further - but not to act on an incomplete set of data.
The question is if you have the time to decide which alternative is true. In the case of my example of the virus you would have at least to take preventive measures - while you continue to research the matter.
(I assume with “intelligent design” you mean “man designed it in a laboratory” (like a virus or something))
The rational path of action in such a case is to say “I don’t know” and research further - but not to act on an incomplete set of data.
By “intelligent design,” I mean the view (common among religious conservatives in the US) that the complexity of certain biological features necessitates that life was designed and created by God.
By “intelligent design,” I mean the view (common among religious conservatives in the US) that the complexity of certain biological features necessitates that life was designed and created by God.
Then your argument is a strawman argument because “intelligent design” doesn’t explain anything and is by default not true.
Then your argument is a strawman argument because “intelligent design” doesn’t explain anything and is by default not true.
My point is that there are a lot of arbitrary “theories” one could spin that “explain” certain unexplained phenomenon, including the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Well, either you say “I don’t know what happened” or you construct a theory that includes all facts found so far. It’s not that the official story contains many errors, it just doesn’t explain very much while the ‘conspiracy theory’ explains some of the facts the official story cannot. On the other hand it opens new questions.
A better answer here would be that you construct a theory that includes all facts obtained so far, does not contradict your present context of knowledge and does not offer an unnecessarily complicated explanation. Attempting to explain phenomena by asserting either an intervention of a supernatural deity, a magic bullet that violates the laws of kinematics and dynamics or the greatest conspiracy orchestrated by mankind over the past 1,000 years requires affirmative evidence.
My point is that there are a lot of arbitrary “theories” one could spin that “explain” certain unexplained phenomenon, including the 9/11 conspiracy theories.
Yes, and how do we determine which one to use as a base of our actions?
Usually that is a job of the judiciary. The only trial so far was against Zacarias Moussaoui, all other accusations are unjustified (i.e. not proven in court). I’m no expert in US law concerning trials of deceased persons (defense could be a problem) but I think there should be a trial against all alleged 19 hijackers, Bin Laden (and maybe the government) and the documents used should be made public (not like the “trial” in the 9/11 commission where no oath was taken and no notes were made public when Bush and Cheney testified).
Without that the official version will remain a theory, just like the remote controlled airplanes and controlled demolition of WTC7 and we can only act on what seems to be the most likely theory.
A better answer here would be that you construct a theory that includes all facts obtained so far, does not contradict your present context of knowledge and does not offer an unnecessarily complicated explanation. A valid explanation for a mystery should not involve intervention of a supernatural deity, a magic bullet that violates the laws of kinematics and dynamics, matter that exists in two contradictory states or the greatest conspiracy orchestrated by mankind over the past 1,000 years. All of the aforementioned require affirmative evidence.
Yes, that would be the “don’t know”-approach, because we cannot fill some of the gaps. Do determine what has happened we would need a proper trial.