I mean, it's 4 planes without interception, not just one.
That makes it even tougher in all the confusion, they've got to identify the problem planes, which is why the grounded everyone, unfortunately it was too late.
You're the one with all the answers. I don't go picking random facts out of all the things that happened in that short space of time. Me, I'd be wondering how terrorists react when they see fighter jet hovering next to their hijacked plane anyway, is it wise to antagonise them? Shouldn't we find out what they want before doing something that might just cause them to blow that thing right up?
It's great to look at the events with the benefit of hindsight, and draw conclusions on what the authorities should have done. But now you know what these nutjobs actually had planned. No-one did at the time. And I'm sure you're going to suggest they had fore knowledge, but I wonder exactly how many different scenarios they had knowldge of, anyone of them a possibility. Maybe they just want to keep those things flying and make demands, who knows. Where you see a single line of attack, most people would be wondering what the **** is going on.
That makes it even tougher in all the confusion, they've got to identify the problem planes, which is why the grounded everyone, unfortunately it was too late.
Indeed. Apparently, despite the completely unprecedented series of events, everyone should have known right from the start exactly what was going on and reacted as if it was a situation they dealt with every day.
I don't find corroboration for the premise that aircraft aluminum pulverizes on impact.
Carol Vorderman says otherwise (and I'll have two consonants and a vowel, please Carol).
All that's left of this F-4, travelling at a comparable speed to a light airliner, is dust.
Carol Vorderman says otherwise (and I'll have two consonants and a vowel, please Carol).
All that's left of this F-4, travelling at a comparable speed to a light airliner, is dust.
Apart from that it supposed to be a huge passenger airliner and not a fighter jet, there also is another difference:
The Pentagon did get a hole. That reinforced wall in your clip did not.
Another hijacked plane hit the woods in Pensylvania and has completely evaporated as well. Even the black boxes have been turned to dust by the hard impact on forest soil.
Me, I'd be wondering how terrorists react when they see fighter jet hovering next to their hijacked plane anyway, is it wise to antagonise them? Shouldn't we find out what they want before doing something that might just cause them to blow that thing right up?
The hijacked airliner is flying towards the Pentagon and is minutes away from it.
Apart from that it supposed to be a huge passenger airliner and not a fighter jet, there also is another difference:
The Pentagon did get a hole. That reinforced wall in your clip did not.
Not getting you. The Pentagon wasn't built to the same standards as a nuclear reactor, mainly being a large office. Can't see what difference the size makes.
Quote:
Another hijacked plane hit the woods in Pensylvania and has completely evaporated as well. Even the black boxes have been turned to dust by the hard impact on forest soil.
At 500 mph, anything is hard. Nose dive a plane at that speed into water and it'll have almost the same effect as concrete.
This user would like to thank Colonelboris for this useful post:
At 500 mph, anything is hard. Nose dive a plane at that speed into water and it'll have almost the same effect as concrete.
I agree, it will completely break up. Debree, luggage, body parts, parts of the airplane will be scattered all over the place. Problem is, there was no such stuff found in Pennsylvania.
Not getting you. The Pentagon wasn't built to the same standards as a nuclear reactor, mainly being a large office. Can't see what difference the size makes.
The larger the object, the easier it will break up. Especially with such a large wingspan. In that hole at the Pentagon only the passenger case (maybe not even that) would have had space in that hole. This means the wings would've broken off at the outer walls of the building. The walls aren't scratched where the wings should have "evaporated".
Dear Conspiracy Theorists (particularly the controlled demolition ones),
Please watch the PBS Nova video called Why the Towers Fell if you want a very reasonable explanation for why the architecture did not hold up to the jet fuel sparked fire as a building like say the Empire State building would have in the same situation. Here is a link the the website...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/. And yes, there are people who think this video is a conspiracy as well, so please don't post the first you tube crazy person who thinks this is all part of the big lie until you at least check out the website. I've been looking at oogles of conspiracy videos posted on this forum, so please check out one "average and normal" video that does not have an agenda--unless, you want to argue that PBS is part of the big conspiracy as well. For those not aware of PBS, they are the creators of Sesame Street and are the public broadcasting network in the U.S. Maybe Big Bird or the Cookie Monster had something to do with 9/11 and PBS was just covering for them.
I'll summarize it for you just to move things along. I'm all for a good debate, but I find the notion of a controlled demolition of these buildings absolutely ridiculous. Doubts do not amount to a theory. You have to have more. This video offers solid evidence and proof, not just doubts.
The World Trade Center was designed in a way to minimize building costs and maximize office space--a revolutionary (at the time) skyscraper design was used that put the brunt of the load bearing capabilities on the outside steel superstructure, so that the middle of the building would have more open office space.
Steel struts crossing from the superstructure to support the floors throughout the building were fireproofed with a spray on fireproof foam that was blown off by the impact of the jets hitting the building, thus causing the steel struts at the impact level floors to heat much faster than if they still had the fireproofing.
The four stairways in each building were located in the inside portion of the building, and once again to save costs, drywall was used instead of concrete between the stairways and the office space--thus allowing fire to spread in the building faster than if more expensive materials were used.
The impact of the planes pushed all sorts of debris into concentrated sections of the building, which also caused the fires to burn at a higher temperature
The buildings fell because the steel struts were weakened by the fire eventually collapsing, causing too much stress on the outside superstructure which was designed to use the struts as a load bearing aid.
The South tower fell first, even though it was hit well after the North Tower, because it was hit at a lower level, and the fire weakened struts and superstructure had to bear more weight than those on the North
The following 2 users would like to thank Arizona Ben for this useful post:
Dear Conspiracy Theorists (particularly the controlled demolition ones),
Please watch the PBS Nova video called Why the Towers Fell if you want a very reasonable explanation for why the architecture did not hold up to the jet fuel sparked fire as a building like say the Empire State building would have in the same situation. Here is a link the the website...http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/. And yes, there are people who think this video is a conspiracy as well, so please don't post the first you tube crazy person who thinks this is all part of the big lie until you at least check out the website. I've been looking at oogles of conspiracy videos posted on this forum, so please check out one "average and normal" video that does not have an agenda--unless, you want to argue that PBS is part of the big conspiracy as well. For those not aware of PBS, they are the creators of Sesame Street and are the public broadcasting network in the U.S. Maybe Big Bird or the Cookie Monster had something to do with 9/11 and PBS was just covering for them.
I'll summarize it for you just to move things along. I'm all for a good debate, but I find the notion of a controlled demolition of these buildings absolutely ridiculous. Doubts do not amount to a theory. You have to have more. This video offers solid evidence and proof, not just doubts.
The World Trade Center was designed in a way to minimize building costs and maximize office space--a revolutionary (at the time) skyscraper design was used that put the brunt of the load bearing capabilities on the outside steel superstructure, so that the middle of the building would have more open office space.
Steel struts crossing from the superstructure to support the floors throughout the building were fireproofed with a spray on fireproof foam that was blown off by the impact of the jets hitting the building, thus causing the steel struts at the impact level floors to heat much faster than if they still had the fireproofing.
The four stairways in each building were located in the inside portion of the building, and once again to save costs, drywall was used instead of concrete between the stairways and the office space--thus allowing fire to spread in the building faster than if more expensive materials were used.
The impact of the planes pushed all sorts of debris into concentrated sections of the building, which also caused the fires to burn at a higher temperature
The buildings fell because the steel struts were weakened by the fire eventually collapsing, causing too much stress on the outside superstructure which was designed to use the struts as a load bearing aid.
The South tower fell first, even though it was hit well after the North Tower, because it was hit at a lower level, and the fire weakened struts and superstructure had to bear more weight than those on the North
Thank you. I will have a look.
Just a quick question: Did they mention World Trade Center Building 7 ?
Or the molten metal (still at over 1000F) found 1 month after the attacks in the basement area of the building?
I'll also chime in on this with a question that was unanswered from the media thread. If the US government is as corrupt and inept as everyone claims, then how on earth has this not been blown by someone? If the CIA, or any other US government body was involved, how can they have kept this secret with the recent whistle blowing that nearly forced its closure? How could they have hired the engineers, planners and other people needed on the ground to have done this with no-one squealing? The obvious choice would be the military engineers, but I doubt if you could half a dozen who would do something like this to their own country for any reason and they would certainly have told someone.
But what the hell? Does anything I say make a difference? No.
__________________ New book out now: European Bird Names: A Translation Guide. www.tonykeenebirds,co,uk - photos, paintings and drawings of Swiss, Australian, NZ and British birds
Just a quick question: Did they mention World Trade Center Building 7 ?
Or the molten metal (still at over 1000F) found 1 month after the attacks in the basement area of the building?
Xapadoo, I don't believe they speak about WTC 7 in the video, at least not about why exactly it came down. The video is about the North and South towers.
I'll also chime in on this with a question that was unanswered from the media thread. If the US government is as corrupt and inept as everyone claims, then how on earth has this not been blown by someone? If the CIA, or any other US government body was involved, how can they have kept this secret with the recent whistle blowing that nearly forced its closure? How could they have hired the engineers, planners and other people needed on the ground to have done this with no-one squealing? The obvious choice would be the military engineers, but I doubt if you could half a dozen who would do something like this to their own country for any reason and they would certainly have told someone.
But what the hell? Does anything I say make a difference? No.
Have a look at this.
Tell me, if it doesn't fully answer your question. Thanks.
I agree, it will completely break up. Debree, luggage, body parts, parts of the airplane will be scattered all over the place. Problem is, there was no such stuff found in Pennsylvania.
Not so - many small pieces of passengers were found - the largest was eight pounds. I remember that report very clearly as the place where it crashed had a very similar name to the place I was staying in a few weeks before and where several of my friends still were.
Quote:
The larger the object, the easier it will break up. Especially with such a large wingspan. In that hole at the Pentagon only the passenger case (maybe not even that) would have had space in that hole. This means the wings would've broken off at the outer walls of the building. The walls aren't scratched where the wings should have "evaporated".
And just for a laugh, here's a slightly unhinged take on it: It was an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon.
Interesting that this one has so much mileage on the internet - google the name of the aircraft and half-a-dozen sites show up on the first few pages. Interestingly, the USN and USAF retired all of these aircraft a full ten years before the attacks, leaving on a couple for radar work (which are still located at their bases) and a couple of privately-owned flying examples that still do airshows today.
__________________ New book out now: European Bird Names: A Translation Guide. www.tonykeenebirds,co,uk - photos, paintings and drawings of Swiss, Australian, NZ and British birds
Nitpick: </endtinfoilhatbackon> 2001-09-11 was SEVEN(7)!!!ELEVENTYELEVEN!!ONE!!!111 years ago not five(5)<tinfoilhatbackon> but apart from that everything here is probably 100% correct.
ETA: oops. Sorry. Me idiot! Thanks Mikey for the correction.
Nitpick: </endtinfoilhatbackon> 2001-09-11 was SEVEN(7)!!!ELEVENTYELEVEN!!ONE!!!111 years ago not five(5)<tinfoilhatbackon> but apart from that everything here is probably 100% correct.
Yes, but as the first post in this thread was back in 2006 ......... or maybe this is just another one of those conspiracies.
This user would like to thank Mikey for this useful post:
Not so - many small pieces of passengers were found - the largest was eight pounds. I remember that report very clearly as the place where it crashed had a very similar name to the place I was staying in a few weeks before and where several of my friends still were.
And just for a laugh, here's a slightly unhinged take on it: It was an A3 Skywarrior that hit the Pentagon.
Interesting that this one has so much mileage on the internet - google the name of the aircraft and half-a-dozen sites show up on the first few pages. Interestingly, the USN and USAF retired all of these aircraft a full ten years before the attacks, leaving on a couple for radar work (which are still located at their bases) and a couple of privately-owned flying examples that still do airshows today.
I would imagine that conspiracy theories are popular because a puzzle is posed and gives a chance for people to apply their version of rationality to solving that puzzle. That professor interviewed in Xnappie's video said it all, the most idiotic assumption is that a bunch of Arabs in a cave in Afghanistan planned this - its probably only because we believe the CIA to be so inept and incapable of getting something like this right that we believe that Bin Laden actually did it.
Two attacks by the IRA always stick in my mind, the first is the mortar attack on Nr. 10 Downing street. Thats the sort of jape normally associated, in less lethal form, with students. I'ts hard to imagine embittered Northern Irish working-class comming up with an idea like that.
The same goes for the bomb which rang in the peace process, the attack on the financial centre (or whatever it was), at night, minimal casualties - after 30 odd years of assuming that the only way to make progress was by murdering people in the most cowardly fashion possible, such a switch of tactics does stick out.
Maybe this is why Arabs believe the attacks are an inside job - they wouldn't trust their own people to pull something like this off.
The same video maintained that it was a tomahawk that hit the pentagon failed to explain what caused the lampposts to collapse, despite yapping on for 15 minutes about how it couldn't have been a 7x7.
The Purdue pages doesn't present any conclusions - or did I miss something.
That professor interviewed in Xnappie's video said it all, the most idiotic assumption is that a bunch of Arabs in a cave in Afghanistan planned this [...]
Agreed. The idea that the top-level members of organisations like Al-quaeda spend much of their times in Afghani caves is pretty stupid.
Last edited by drsmithy; 12.09.2008 at 13:56.
This user would like to thank drsmithy for this useful post:
Linear Mode
