Jump to content

Do you like this poll?  

2 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you like this poll?

    • Yes
    • No
    • Not sure
      0
    • Can you do another poll please?
      0
  2. 2. Should I make a new poll?

    • Yes please
    • No, don't need
      0


Recommended Posts

wow...what a thread...

 

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/

a link with some engineering clout (it is a non-technical article) that shows a plane could indeed cause that type of damage to the pentagon. 2nd link actually has simulations. How many engineers are in here anyways? I am not a structures guy, but the impact of a plane moving at 200-300mph into a wall built with concrete on the order of 10,000 tons (I think way more than that), would not survive with much "visible" debree...Certainly, the wings would do no real damage either, as they are designed for lift, not impact

 

As for flying these planes, they practically fly themselves these days, and I bet that I could even guide one into the wtc towers...

 

If your ideas of what kind of damage a crashing plane can do comes from hollywood, then you need to realign your reality meter...

 

it was a plane.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 85
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

sunrise, that may seem like a sensible viewpoint, but consider these facts.

 

The company that cleaned up the WTC mess was the notable demolition company Controlled Demolition, a pioneer of demolition technology. Coincidence?

 

Controlled Demolition also cleared up following the Oklahoma bombing, which military experts have declared to have been impossible without demolition help from inside. Coincidence?

 

In both cases, Controlled Demolition removed and hid the debris so quickly, no investigators could get a good look at it. Coincidence?

 

The company responsible for security at WTC was headed by one Marvin P Bush, brother to W. Coincidence?

 

In the months before 9/11 there were security drills and maintance work in the towers involving the staff being moved out and security workers and engineers being move in. Coincidence?

 

Then you have the images of what look like demolition charges (there are many others), you have the firemen talking about explosives going off, you have the owner of WTC 7 admitting the building was demolished, and it all rather adds up.

 

danz, that site is laughable. You don't have to be an engineer to have common sense. They have clearly used a great deal of computing power to make a scenario that begs it's own questions, which are not answered.

In this splendid picture you can see the big plane sitting on the Pentagon lawn.

http://news.uns.purdue.edu/UNS/images/sozen.pentagon.jpeg

When you check out the actual aftermath pictures, there isn't so much as a black streak on the lawn, let alone scrape marks.

 

Or consider this worthless animation

http://www.cs.purdue.edu/homes/cmh/simulation/phase1/image1/10sep02slow.gif

You'll notice that the plane doesn't have any engines - those big, heavy, steel masses that survive nearly any impact and that would act independently in this sort of scenario.

Notice too that the tail section is a bit of an embarrassment. It's pretty much intact in the simulation. If you look at photographs right after the crash, you'll notice no damage whatsoever above the little hole, and there are even intact windows where that big tail is supposed to have hit.

And the animation shows distinct remnants of fuselage. Is it supposed to have melted or something?

 

The pages are full of covert disclaimers about how novel their procedures and tools are - and yet you seem to have some confidence in the results. Not a very sceptical engineer are you? I liked this paragraph too; "The simulation deals specifically with steel-reinforced concrete buildings, as opposed to skyscrapers like the World Trade Center's twin towers, in which structural steel provided the required strength and stiffness. Reinforced concrete is inherently fire resistant, unlike structural steel, which is vulnerable to fire and must undergo special fireproofing". I beg your pardon?

 

In this picture of the El Al transport plane which crashed into an apartment building in Holland (carrying ingredients for sarin gas no less), you can see a big piece of the fuselage in the middle of the big hole.

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/w921004-2.jpg

At the Pentagon, there was no visible debris (that's how you spell it) at all.

 

So instead of wasting time and money on making a question-begging animation from false premises, they should maybe have looked at the physical and photographic evidence. The video evidence from the Pentagon released by the government appears to show a fighter plane firing a missile from close range, then disappearing into the hole it created. That would square with the precision of the attack, the damage, and Rumsfeld's slip about the 'missile that struck the Pentagon'.

 

Food for thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've read a lot about the 'collapse' of those buildings. Yep, explosives, I totally agree. (same with the pentagon crash - no debris, etc, as well as eyewitness reports). Wasn't aware of the Bush security thingy, do you have a link? (I'm sure I could find it if I hunted around myself, but there's so much stuff out there..)

Didn't know about the demolition company ties with oklahoma, but was aware of how quickly they cleaned up the mess without first checking it (and the 'incredible' 'miracle' of finding Atta's passport in the rubble... ). You have a valid point - I shouldn't totally discount that 'they alone did it', however I think there's involvement that goes beyond just the US gvt - other overseas agencies, too, etc. At any rate I've read enough to know that they were deeply entwined in it, I guess it doesn't matter so much to me whether they mastermined it or not - if they didn't and were complicit and involved in helping it happen that's the same in my eyes. Just a different way of wording it. Either way, it's very scary stuff.

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0204-06.htm

 

This is all covered in more depth in "The New Pearl Harbor", which also looks at the neo-cons' goals stated way before 2001 and premised on a galvanizing strike at the US a la Pearl Harbor. Some of what you find on the web is rubbish - like danz's recommended site, and like many of the 'alternative' sites. There's nothing wildly implausible in that book, so if you want a full picture, I recommend reading it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The murder of JFK - conspiracy

Diana's car accident - conspiracy

Elvis Presley and John Lennon, still alive

I don't want to get into this, but you could also find some people who will tell you that the Holocaust never happened - conspiracy

Have you ever thought of how many people are needed to cover up such a big conspiracy as you're suggesting?

Link to post
Share on other sites

> Have you ever thought of how many people are needed to cover up such a big conspiracy as you're suggesting?

 

Yes. And when I consider the fraction of people in my 37 year's acquaintance who would be immune to fear of ridicule, fear of loss of income and status, fear of physical and psychological coercion, I conclude that it's not in the least inceivable. Just look at the thousands of ridiculous people who have flocked off to Iraq on the basis of transparent lies.

 

shinken, do you think your scepticism is sufficient to override all the evidence? BTW, nice touch that, getting into it and claiming that you don't want to get into it at the same time. Very slick.

Link to post
Share on other sites

here is another link for you, although undoubtedly you will find faults with it...that is your specialty after all.

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

 

It has nice, labeled, photographic evidence for you.

 

But you are right...of course Purdue University is in on the conspiracy with the rest of the big wigs...how naive of me to think they might have any credibility. :rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Danz, thanks for the link. Here is another one Der Spiegel (Sorry, it's in German and you have to pay for it) It's a good answer to all the "coincidences" and "evidences" quoted by Ocean 11 and other people, who just can't believe that a group of motivated terrorists were indeed able to hit the most powerful nation of the world.

The problem with those conspiracy theories as I see it is, that you can't really disprove them. They will turn everything against you (Purdue University is of course in on the conspiracy).

Link to post
Share on other sites

> The problem with those conspiracy theories as I see it is, that you can't really disprove them.

 

Yes you can. The US government could have cooperated with an independent, public enquiry that was not hedged about from the outset with time limits, security limits, witholding of witnesses, and a ridiculously limited scope. It could have looked at the security camera evidence from the Pentagon of which there must have been a good deal more than 5 frames. But it didn't, did it? If one is finally held, belief in 'pods' attached to the planes and the like would quickly become untenable.

 

That's why you have people going over the evidence from one viewpoint or another trying to make sense of it. Often evidence is considered in a complete bubble like those danz linked to.

 

As for your Purdue University fetish, have you never heard of corrupt practices at universities - funds for unethical research being accepted, research projects based on dubious premises, partisan research teams? I guess you haven't... Something that would make that research look more credible would be an overview of the location of final positions of plane parts (engines too please) and dead bodies. I think what hit Purdue University was a muslim-piloted barrel of pork.

 

And when you use 'conspiracy theory' as a derogatory term, just remember that the offical stories about any events involving more than one perpetrator are exactly that - conspiracy theories. A conspiracy theory is only as good as the evidence that backs it up and the logic that supports it. Unfortunately, the official conspiracy theory falls down on both counts, and there are better ones available.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I present a range of evidence and arguments that can be considered on their merits, and several people come back with whiney, insubstantial ad-hominem.

 

connackers, I won't deign to answer your offensive question. Instead I'll return the compliment - at what point exactly are you persuaded to suspend your belief?

 

Has none of this sort of unpleasantness ever floated past your porthole before?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn`t mean it to be offensive, it`s an honest question.

 

At some point you have to accept that there are things you don`t know and have to go on trust. If you seriously think that a government has the capability and the will to kill thousands of it`s own people in order to start a war which will kill thousands more all for the sake of money then fair enough countries have done so in the past.

 

But surely a little elaborate? How much planning, conversations, documentation, people must have been involved in this? For this to disappear is frankly a hell of a lot more suspicious than any of the conspiracy evidence i`ve seen.

 

To seriously believe a conspiracy theory on this scale you need to doubt on a huge scale. The American government virtually in its entirety. The civil servants, the politicians on all sides (for ignoring or not effectively raising these issues). A whole range of experts across a whole range of fields. A significant percentage of journalists. And have an EXTREMELY low view of the american population on the whole. It`s all well and good joking about americans being a bit thick but to actually believe it to this extent is bordering on racist.

 

If you believe this is possible (and i`m not denying that it isn`t possible) you should worry about how your own life would appear when applying this sort of critical rigour to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

"virtually land themselves"

 

Commercial jets virtually land themselves using approach software that has coded into it all the geography relating to a particular airport runway. The computer measures all required plane spatial data with respect to the runway static data (ie, position of the runway on the ground). The plane then virtually lands itself.

 

Do you suggest that commercial airlines have the static data for the approach to the Pentagon lawn coded into the 'virtually land itself' software? Of course they don't. reason: it is not an airport with a runway, it is the Pentagon, ergo, a plane has no need to virtually land itself there. Do you think the poorly trained terrorist pilot's managed to program the exact coordinates of the Pentagon lawn into the 'virtually land itself' software? Of course they didn't, that is the kind of movie magic plug in the laptop then "ok, we've hacked in! Upload the coordinates for the Pentagon runway into the virtually land itself computer".

Link to post
Share on other sites

2pints,mate, to answer your question, have a look at This war on terrorism is bogus from Michael Meacher, former environment minister. Of course he's also a complete nutter who constantly doubts his government, community, friends, family, pets...

 

connackers, you do peddle an amazing line of bullshit if I may say so. What has my life got to do with the people who launched the Iraq war? Where is the similarity? Read the article above, then ask yourself "Has O11 also written a modern version of Mein Kampf?" (And were you deliberately mimicking Clarice in SotL with that bizarre last line?)

 

As for being racist, that's a joke. First, Americans aren't 'a race'. Secondly, all the information I've linked to or refered to has been gathered by Americans who have the greatest immediate reason for concern.

 

Try to think a little before you say anything else.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thought a little more and read the article and still don`t agree with you.

 

That the most powerful country wants to keep being the most powerful country in the world is obvious and requires no groundbreaking conspiracy only common sense. That they took advantage of 9/11 to increase their power is equally obvious. That`s politics.

 

It`s a big step to go from this to the American government masterminding and carrying out the 9/11 attacks. This step i`m suggesting requires a level of doubt in people and the government that would lead to some very serious questions about the world in which we live in. Not just politically but philosophically. I`m not denying that these questions are valid and important. I`m just saying that it can be taken a bit far. If you levelled the same amount of criticism at your own life not much of it would be left (and i mean that generally and not as a personal attack).

Link to post
Share on other sites

connackers, you're nuts mate.

 

My life is a very simple, transparent affair. There are no lawyers, currencies, secret services, military-industrial complexes or any other such things involved in my life, so this introspection you keep recommending like a stuck needle is not going to find much to strip away. It wouldn't take very long to find a few personal disappointments that I don't usually talk about but am well aware of. Don't talk to me about philosophy or self-appraisal - you're not equipped for it.

 

One aspect of America's wars which you probably haven't considered is the perilous state of their currency and economic basis. It's a house of cards and is pathetically prone to economic warfare, to which the only possible American response is physical warfare (that is, while "the American way of life is non-negotiable" to quote King George 1). Any country that switches from trading in dollars to trading in euros is effectively attacking the basis of American power. That's one reason why America is so keen to make the most of its only source of strength while it lasts. You need to dissolve that happiness clot in your brain so that you can perceive the logic behind the American rampage.

 

> That the most powerful country wants to keep being the most powerful country in the world is obvious and requires no groundbreaking conspiracy only common sense.

> I'm not denying that these questions are valid and important. I'm just saying that it can be taken a bit far.

There are many Americans of all shades of the political spectrum who believe that the world is best served by Americanism in one country. They believe that America can maintain a satifactory level of security and wealth without maintaining the concept of American exceptionalism. That is the common sense for a great many, and you can find that spirit in commentary in books, newspapers and on the web by sophisticated Americans. That America would exploit 9/11 to build an instant empire goes against all common sense and against the spirit of republican politics. When you see the spectacle of Colin Powell, who has been dubbed 'moderate', claiming that Iran now has WMD based on no evidence whatsoever, can you say that thinking of conspiracies is going too far? When you bear in mind the fear and loathing expressed by so many American commentators about Bush's regime, and their natural resistance to it, you begin to see why a groundbreaking conspiracy like 9/11 is necessary.

 

danz, as far as I know, planes either fly themselves, or people fly them with some pre-programmed assistance as db points out. I wonder how you would cope with reprogramming the plane to override the radar warning system, the Identification Friend or Foe system, and the flight coordinates so you could fly your hijacked plane into the Pentagon without even dinging the lawn. Do you think you could do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

>connackers, you're nuts mate.

 

Quite possible.

 

>My life is a very simple, transparent affair.

 

Don`t care and irrelevant.

 

>There are no lawyers, currencies, secret services, military-industrial complexes or any other such things involved in my life,

 

Yes I fully realise that you are not in fact a country.

 

>so this introspection you keep recommending like a stuck needle is not going to find much to strip away

 

My repeated mentioning of it is because I keep trying to make the same point clear. I obviously am not doing so and for that I apologise. I`m not comparing you with America. I`m saying there is a lot of evidence on all sides. At this moment in time which is still far to close to the incident and involved in its aftermath it is not clear what happened. We are engaged in asking what is possible. If you want to move past this being a possibility into it being fact you must be extremely suspicious of a great deal of people. This level of suspicion I would find difficult to live my life with, so I was asking at what point do you stop? I don`t mean this as a personal attack, `you` is not `Ocean11`.

 

>Don't talk to me about philosophy or self-appraisal - you're not equipped for it.

 

Interesting point. Thank you for that.

 

>You need to dissolve that happiness clot in your brain so that you can perceive the logic behind the American rampage.

 

If I have a happiness clot it`s staying. There is very rarely just one logical possibility.

 

I`m not a politician, or a philosopher, or a journalist, or a pilot, or an engineer, or an economist. I just like arguing. I think that is the case for most of us, so we have to make the choice of which `experts` to believe. In my opinion this comes down more to what we believe anyway than actual `facts`.

 

For me this conspiracy stuff is interesting but missing the point. I find 9/11 to be far more significant when taken from the conventional point of view. That there are a significant number of people in the world pissed off enough with America to do something like this. That we have reached a stage that it is no longer viable to ignore the rest of the world. That if we don`t redress the imbalance then we will be ingulfed in conflict. We live in luxury while most of the world suffers. For me this is lost when we go too deeply into accusing American government of carrying it out.

 

I`ll stop here as this is a bit long and tedious and I`m sure there`s enough allready for you to pick holes in ;\)

Link to post
Share on other sites
 Quote:
Originally posted by connackers:
If you want to move past this being a possibility into it being fact you must be extremely suspicious of a great deal of people.
I don't think you would need to be suspicious of a great deal of people. Even though the incident was on a grand scale, it is pausible that only a handful of people were "completely" in the know. With such a large operation, a great deal of people could be unwittingly involved. Their part being so small, that even after the fact they would find it impossible to believe that something they did was part of a 9/11 conspiracy.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Plenty to pick holes in indeed.

 

> That there are a significant number of people in the world pissed off enough with America to do something like this.

Yep. Only they're not generally able to because the US has been very well defended.

 

> That we have reached a stage that it is no longer viable to ignore the rest of the world.

Yep. But they're not going to ignore the rest of the world. They're going to attack it. That's in their stated plan and that's what they're doing (just like Mein Kampf and WWII). They just needed their excuse.

 

> That if we don`t redress the imbalance then we will be ingulfed in conflict.

Whatever, they're going to engulf us in conflict. That's their clearly stated plan. They just needed ... but I repeat myself.

 

We live in luxury while most of the world suffers.

> Not really. Many Americans live in a trough of fructose and palm oil, in fragments of families, in debt slavery, telling themselves it's luxury.

 

> For me this is lost when we go too deeply into accusing American government of carrying it out.

You can keep all that in mind, while considering the evidence that the US government refuses to acknowledge. It doesn't have to be either/or.

 

From xxx's linked site;

 

> When somebody resorts to name-calling, such as un-American, un-patriotic, fascist, left (or right) wing extremist, or do-do head, it is a sign that they have nothing intelligent to say, so they are resorting to attempts to manipulate emotions

 

He left out 'conspiracy theorist' - recently taken to be the most devastating kind of slap down. Interesting to see that half the pollees think something was up. I find it very odd that 9/11 was barely an issue in the recent election. If Kerry had hammered away there, the fat would have been in the fire. Why didn't he then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...