Putting 9/11 mysteries to rest

Status
Not open for further replies.

wooflepoof

WoofleDay
Joined
Jul 18, 2005
Messages
5,050
Location
Los Angeles
Car(s)
Genesis Sedan 3.8
In a recent thread someone brought up how the 9/11 attacks were an inside job. This of course is a preposterous statement but because of its conspiracy-ness and due to the general mistrust of governments, esp of the government of one pf the most powerful nations in the world, its subject to alot of 'evidence' to fuel it. Of course, since people like to connect the government with the media any reports debunking it will have no credibility with the conspirators and the people because obviously everyone but your friends and the people trying to prove it was all fake is of course, working for, or brainwashed by, the government. But the facts and physics cant be ignored and the following article by popular mechanics should at the VERY least dispell some of the myths surrounding the mysteries. Even if the government controls the media, they cant control the laws of physics.
Big Plane, Small Holes
CLAIM: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

The truth is of even less importance to French author Thierry Meyssan, whose baseless assertions are fodder for even mainstream European and Middle Eastern media. In his book The Big Lie, Meyssan concludes that the Pentagon was struck by a satellite-guided missile--part of an elaborate U.S. military coup. "This attack," he writes, "could only be committed by United States military personnel against other U.S. military personnel."

FACT: When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide--not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.





HOLE TRUTH: Flight 77?s landing gear punched a 12-ft. hole into the Pentagon?s Ring C. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE


Intact Windows
CLAIM: Many Pentagon windows remained in one piece--even those just above the point of impact from the Boeing 757 passenger plane. Pentagonstrike.co.uk, an online animation widely circulated in the United States and Europe, claims that photographs showing "intact windows" directly above the crash site prove "a missile" or "a craft much smaller than a 757" struck the Pentagon.

FACT: Some windows near the impact area did indeed survive the crash. But that's what the windows were supposed to do--they're blast-resistant.

"A blast-resistant window must be designed to resist a force significantly higher than a hurricane that's hitting instantaneously," says Ken Hays, executive vice president of Masonry Arts, the Bessemer, Ala., company that designed, manufactured and installed the Pentagon windows. Some were knocked out of the walls by the crash and the outer ring's later collapse. "They were not designed to receive wracking seismic force," Hays notes. "They were designed to take in inward pressure from a blast event, which apparently they did: [Before the collapse] the blinds were still stacked neatly behind the window glass."


Flight 77 Debris
CLAIM: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

Whole article is here
 
Not too long back there was string of threads about 9/11 and loose change. It's been pretty much discussed over and over.

*edit- removed something I was mistaken on :oops: *
 
ooh, i was thinking at some pont it HAD to've been covered but i did a search for 9/11 and 'september 11' and came up with nothing, sry if this is a repost
 
YES! I've been saying this for years! Of course most of the people on campus agree with the assertion, because we're all engineers...


Nice to see that a mainstream magazine has picked up on the subject. Go PopMech. I really should get another subscription to them.


But the best evidence of an airplane crashing into the Pentagon? I know people who witnessed it first hand. I know people who knew people on the flight. They truely are sickened by these "conspiracies".
 
Okay, I must say I "like" conspiracies, but I always keep an open mind for both sides of the story. The Pentagon is a nice one, cause there's something that's been bugging me for ages: there obviously are videos and / or pictures of the plane hitting the building. There are those five famous frames where you can't see much, it's just a blur and some digital blocks.
Why, if it really was that plane, has the government never released those tapes? They could shut up all those conspiracy maniacs with one blow and let them look untrustworthy within a minute. And it's not like there is something to hide, we all know that a plane hit the building. I just don't get why they don't simply release one of the tapes. Any ideas?

Regards
the Interceptor
 
^i saw a vid from one of the security cameras in the pentagon, problem was it took one pic per second, so all you could see was in one frame the pentagon as usual, and in the second the explosion and fireball.
and besides, conspiracy people will just say the government faked the video. if the government can kill JFK, they can also fake some video.
 
zenkidori said:
the Interceptor said:
Why, if it really was that plane, has the government never released those tapes?
They did.


The government can do all that it can to disprove a conspiracy. But those kinds of people will say it's false, and just part of that conspiracy.

It's just like the boy who cried wolf. The government is the boy, and when it's for real, no one will pay any heed, and just deem them a liar.
 
zenkidori said:
the Interceptor said:
Why, if it really was that plane, has the government never released those tapes?
They did.
Any chance to see it somewhere on the net?
 
youtube is always a good place to look for vids ;)
go to 1:26 in this video to see the crash
this is the video i saw, and it's more a slideshow rather than video. if you look carefully you can see at 1:26 something in the right side that looks like a plane's engine. i bet some people say it was a missle, but i watched an episode of "seconds from disaster" on national geographic where they explained from the impact on the building that the plane went too low to hit the building directly, and one of it's engines scraped the ground before the plane hit the building. the plane hit at an angle, which somehow explains the silver thing on the right.
i just don't understand why conspiracy people claim all these stupid things, what do they gain from all of it? :dunno:
 
osabros said:
i just don't understand why conspiracy people claim all these stupid things, what do they gain from all of it? :dunno:
They get the reward of feeling more smug than everybody else, like they know some sort of hidden truth that the unwashed masses don't.

Did you know that Elvis assassinated JFK because he knew that the moon landing was faked by Martians in UFOs on Area 51? It's true, the Patriots told him to do it. And that's why we went to 'Nam. Also, John Wilkes Booth killed the electric car.

(Though I really do think Kurt Cobain was murdered.)
 
zenkidori said:
Some people watch too much Xfiles. And this comes from an X-files nut!
Mulder would be all over this if someone told him that secret files on Alien autopsies and abductions were in the buildings.
 
Aliens were responsible for 9/11, they were trying to take out the black oil vaccine. They weren't airplanes at all, they were alien bombs made to look like airplanes. All the people who "died" were actually abducted and will be the first batch of alien/human hybrids.

Iraq is just a proving ground for the super soldiers.

Osama Bin Laden is actually a rebel alien bounty hunter who started a resistance force against the black oil conspiracy.

the oil siezed in Iraq is being used to make more "black oil", not gasoline, hence rising gas prices.

the neocons who are part of the black oil conspiracy hate gays because they could never produce any hybrids.
 
osabros said:
youtube is always a good place to look for vids ;)
go to 1:26 in this video to see the crash
Thanks!
osabros said:
this is the video i saw, and it's more a slideshow rather than video. if you look carefully you can see at 1:26 something in the right side that looks like a plane's engine. i bet some people say it was a missle, but i watched an episode of "seconds from disaster" on national geographic where they explained from the impact on the building that the plane went too low to hit the building directly, and one of it's engines scraped the ground before the plane hit the building. the plane hit at an angle, which somehow explains the silver thing on the right.
Yeah, that is the video I was talking about before. To be honest, you can't see much on that footage. Due to the single-frame nature and the poor quality, you see something coming from the right (which could be anything), and in the next frame, it has already hit the Pentagon. There must be more than just this though.
osabros said:
i just don't understand why conspiracy people claim all these stupid things, what do they gain from all of it? :dunno:
They don't make it to gain anything (apart from very few maybe), they make it because they really believe that it was all staged. The problem is that the go over the top very quickly and make fools of themselves with their ludicrous claims.

Regards
the Interceptor
 
the Interceptor said:
Yeah, that is the video I was talking about before. To be honest, you can't see much on that footage. Due to the single-frame nature and the poor quality, you see something coming from the right (which could be anything), and in the next frame, it has already hit the Pentagon. There must be more than just this though.

Pre-9/11 there wasn't the same emphasis on having cameras covering every square inch of the pentagon like probably exists today. The military base that I lived across the street from just recently installed cameras at it's gates, and prior to that, relied on armed guards to protect the gates, and chains/locks to protect it when the soldiers were off duty. It wouldn't surprise me if the Pentagon didn't have surveillance watching the side of the building pre-9/11 but instead relied upon military patrols.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top