Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

gerbnl · Sep 9, 2004, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Just when I thought Ca$h was the biggest moron in the forum you come out...

4 planes did not land on September 11, 2001.
Why don't you tell us where each ended up if one didn't crash in NoVA

Oh of course, tactic #1, namecalling... and #4, baby-seal sentiment

you just can't do better huh?

How the fsck would I know where they ended up (or why should i even care at this moment). Don't answer questions with questions. On those sites and in that movie are legitimate questions that deserve an answer. Period. whatever they mean. wherever they will lead. maybe even the truth. IF you're up for it.

fireside · Sep 9, 2004, 05:54 AM

how come pachead isn't moaning that this should be in the Political Lounge? he's already posted atleast once.

Lancer409 · Sep 9, 2004, 06:06 AM

ugh too late to click all these links .. a coherent post tomorrow .. i hope this isnt gonna end up as a big waste of time

Peter · Sep 9, 2004, 06:14 AM

America attacked themselves for a reason to attack Iraq...

PacHead · Sep 9, 2004, 06:15 AM

Originally posted by fireside:
how come pachead isn't moaning that this should be in the Political Lounge? he's already posted atleast once.

'Cause I don't really give a crap anymore. I'm no mod here, and plenty of people like to break the rules, so why should I care ?

It is futile.

Chris O'Brien · Sep 9, 2004, 06:36 AM

A lot of the conjecture about what happened is based on what you think a plane crash should be like based on past experience. That, I would assume, is from seeing things in movies. Don't take that as a basis for forming proper opinions on what would happen in this situation.

In fact - look at this link and make a more informed guess:
http://www.innovations-report.de/htm...cht-12739.html
(sorry if the link's been posted before).

Hope that helps a little - there's no conclusions as to if things actually happened, because it's not a conspiracy site, but one looking at the actual physics of the collision. So it's taken as read that it did - and the simulations back it up.

For those not interested in RTFA:

The plane�s structure caused relatively little damage, and the explosion and fire that resulted from the crash also are not likely to have been dominant factors in the disaster

"At that speed, the plane itself is like a sausage skin," Sozen said. "It doesn�t have much strength and virtually crumbles on impact."

But the combined mass of everything inside the plane � particularly the large amount of fuel onboard � can be likened to a huge river crashing into the building.

You have to remember the strength of the building the plane collides with - it's the frigging Pentagon, not someones garage. It's built strong...

CD Hanks · Sep 9, 2004, 06:51 AM

Originally posted by Peter:
America attacked themselves for a reason to attack Iraq...

An interesting thought to entertain...I even used to think of it myself. However, I think it's a little simpler than that. I think the United States intelligence services knew that 9/11 (or some equally large attack) was coming, and simply kept it quiet so that it would happen. From there, the following chain of events would have a starting point.

But then again, I really don't know what to believe these days.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 9, 2004, 07:00 AM

Originally posted by Black Book:
You have to remember the strength of the building the plane collides with - it's the frigging Pentagon, not someones garage. It's built strong...

Nor the WTC.

You got the Wile E. Coyote ACME Physics effect on the WTC because the buildings had *slightly* different construction from the Pentagon.

If you slam something thin-skinned and hollow and largely filled with liquid into an extremely solid obstruction at high speed, it is going to be more or less completely pulverized, with nary a scratch on the obstacle.

Exact same principle as crashing a Citro�n 2CV into an SUV (or virtually *anything* into an SUV, for that matter) at high speeds.

Not conspiracy, just physics.

-s*

Eriamjh · Sep 9, 2004, 07:24 AM

Don't answer questions with questions.

Sounds like typical conspiracy theorist arguments. They can question what happened, but you can't question them because they don't have any answers but more importantly, they have no proof!

I find the 757 evidence to be lacking. I find the idea of a plane "bouncing" off the ground ridiculous. Plans don't bounce. They smash into many bits the moment they touch anything.

However, I find the "evidence" of a conspiracy also lacking. "This is not how a building should look after being hit by a plane." WTF? When has this happened before? How can anyone say "This was not caused by a 757."? Do they have something else to compare it to?

If it wasn't a 757, then what happened to Flight 77 and the people that were on it? Vanished? Landed where?

Who are these witnesses quoted in the first flash video? Where are they?

Many questions, few answers.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 9, 2004, 07:49 AM

Originally posted by Eriamjh:
I find the 757 evidence to be lacking. I find the idea of a plane "bouncing" off the ground ridiculous. Plans don't bounce. They smash into many bits the moment they touch anything.

None of the videos I have ever seen of planes crashing into water/the ground at a shallow angle - and that includes the legendary 707 test crash video - corroborates what you're saying.

I suggest you re-assess the limits of what is "ridiculous" to jive more with reality.

-s*

amsalpemkcus · Sep 9, 2004, 08:06 AM

who cares! we have iraq by the balls now!

pathogen · Sep 9, 2004, 08:11 AM

I find the conspiracy hard to believe, especially when the "arguments" are trying to assert a deductive logic based upon what they're assuming are common sense facts about what a plane crash should look like. Questions like: where are the wing impact zones? why is there no fuselage seen in the photos? why is there no long trail of destruction? etc. are all assuming that there is a typical "plane crash" rule to follow.

george68 · Sep 9, 2004, 08:24 AM

Originally posted by Captain Obvious:
Just when I thought Ca$h was the biggest moron in the forum you come out...

4 planes did not land on September 11, 2001.
Why don't you tell us where each ended up if one didn't crash in NoVA

I think two hit the WTC, one was splashed above pennsylvania, and the other is at t he bottom of an ocean.

- Rob

george68 · Sep 9, 2004, 08:27 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
Not conspiracy, just physics.

-s*

Except that all the windows were NOT BROKEN IN THE 1ST FLOOR excluding the 20-30 ft hole...... and the fact that the 757s fuselage is much much much wider than that.

- Rob

BoomStick · Sep 9, 2004, 08:44 AM

I think there is one other pilot here other than myself and he hasn't chimed in yet.

The ones who think that no plane hit the Pentagon are wrong and your explanations are just flat out stupid.

Aircraft are built light and extremely strong for a given structural loading. You can apply force gradually and it will remain intact, however when the force is applied overwhelmingly and suddenly it shatters like an egg.

As for it manuvering 3 feet off the ground, it looks to be a good 100-200 feet off the ground. 3 feet is simply silly as I can't even see the ground under me at 50 feet with the flap and gear horn going off.

Get your commercial endorsement and 1000 hours before you start spouting stupid stuff you know nothing about kiddies.

Spheric Harlot · Sep 9, 2004, 08:47 AM

Originally posted by george68:
Except that all the windows were NOT BROKEN IN THE 1ST FLOOR excluding the 20-30 ft hole...... and the fact that the 757s fuselage is much much much wider than that.

- Rob

Again, the 757's fuselage is not going to leave a trace on a steel-reinforced concrete building like the Pentagon. The cockpit, with all its electronics/mechanics, punched a hole. The fuselage itself is just a more-or-less empty hollow eggshell that completely disintegrated in the collision.

-s*

Xeo · Sep 9, 2004, 08:49 AM

A few things bother me from both perspectives.

From one side, the snopes.com site says it hit the ground first yet the ground seems undisturbed in those pictures. What's with that? And I also find it pretty interesting that the plane hit the side of the Pentagon under renovation and apparently didn't ruin any working parts. Seems rather convenient.

From the other side, is there any proof that videos were confiscated? And how quickly from the crash were they if so? If a bunch of FBI showed up at all those places within minutes, then surely they knew and were taking evidence. But if there was more time, then they would have had to think about it after it happened and then go scoop them up. But what would be the good reason for doing that? If it was a smaller plane, who's to say it wasn't a terrorist on that? Maybe they are just saying its a 757 to make it seem worse, but I'd think it's just as bad to use a smaller plane. And there seems to be plenty of wreckage in the pictures I've seen.

To answer the question of where the plane went: surely if the govt. planned this and decided they didn't really want to use the 757 to hit the Pentagon, they could have landed it anywhere else they wanted to. If this is a conspiracy, I highly doubt they would worry about the lives of those people which would risk unveiling what happened.

CD Hanks · Sep 9, 2004, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
The fuselage itself is just a more-or-less empty hollow eggshell that completely disintegrated in the collision.

-s*

Not to mention the large amount of fuel it was carrying, which more than likely aided in melting the hell out of the thin metallic skin of the aircraft.

BoomStick · Sep 9, 2004, 08:54 AM

Aluminum burns like magnesium when you add enough heat.

I've seen several small planes burn to nothing but ashes from an ignited fuel spill.

SimeyTheLimey · 09:13 AM

Originally posted by george68:
Except that all the windows were NOT BROKEN IN THE 1ST FLOOR excluding the 20-30 ft hole...... and the fact that the 757s fuselage is much much much wider than that.

- Rob

I can comment on those windows. The Clinton Administration conducted a review on force protection after the African embassy bombings. I know this because two of my professors were part of that review, and discussed it with me well before 9/11. One of the lessons learned was that most casualties in the embassies were caused by flying glass.

One of those professors also discussed the upgrade of the Pentagon that they started in response to the review. He was an undersecretary of defense, and it was within his responsibility.

The windows on that section of the Pentagon were replaced with heavily armored ones to prevent shattering in the event of a large truck bomb. That's why most of them thankfully remained intact when the plane hit. I have read survivor's accounts of seeing a wave of flame outside the windows, and of those armored windows saving their lives.

ambush · Sep 9, 2004, 09:12 AM

Originally posted by CD Hanks:
An interesting thought to entertain...I even used to think of it myself. However, I think it's a little simpler than that. I think the United States intelligence services knew that 9/11 (or some equally large attack) was coming, and simply kept it quiet so that it would happen. From there, the following chain of events would have a starting point.

But then again, I really don't know what to believe these days.

It'd be more likely.

ambush · Sep 9, 2004, 09:17 AM

We'll if it's not a conspiracy, it's one helluva WEIRD crash...

I mean..

there's a ****ing small hole in like 2 levels of walls...

also, the pix before the crash does NOT show a Boeing... it shows something smaller (IMHO).

Spheric Harlot · Sep 9, 2004, 09:35 AM

Originally posted by ambush:
We'll if it's not a conspiracy, it's one helluva WEIRD crash...

I mean..

there's a ****ing small hole in like 2 levels of walls...

Do the world a favor and actually read the whole thread.

BasketofPuppies · Sep 9, 2004, 09:41 AM

More proof that people believe what they want to hear.

Luca Rescigno · Sep 9, 2004, 09:41 AM

Originally posted by SimeyTheLimey:
I can comment on those windows. The Clinton Administration conducted a review on force protection after the African embassy bombings. I know this because two of my professors were part of that review, and discussed it with me well before 9/11. One of the lessons learned was that most casualties in the embassies were caused by flying glass.

One of those professors also discussed the upgrade of the Pentagon that they started in response to the review. He was an undersecretary of defense, and it was within his responsibility.

The windows on that section of the Pentagon were replaced with heavily armored ones to prevent shattering in the event of a large truck bomb. That's why most of them thankfully remained intact when the plane hit. I have read survivor's accounts of seeing a wave of flame outside the windows, and of those armored windows saving their lives.

Way to bring some logic into the thread. That flash video just about had me convinced, but this is good. I'm sure someone in the know could debunk most of the points raised in the video.

CD Hanks: I think there's the outside chance that someone in the government knew about this ahead of time and let it slide. They would have never done so if they knew it was going to be as bad as it was, but it's possible that they assumed it would just be something relatively small, like a truck bomb, that they could use as justification for starting a war, first in Afghanistan and then moving on to Iraq. I don't think anyone could have predicted something as huge as the 9/11 attacks.

Keep in mind I'm just saying this is a POSSIBILITY. From the 9/11 Commission's report, it could be that everyone in charge was just incompetent and didn't know about it, or didn't know what to do about the information they had.

BoomStick · Sep 9, 2004, 10:11 AM

Everytime I see a mention of a flash video, I immediately think of gonads and strife.

weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

gerbnl · 10:35 AM

Originally posted by BoomStick:
Aluminum burns like magnesium when you add enough heat.

I've seen several small planes burn to nothing but ashes from an ignited fuel spill.

Cool, and the passengers, their luggage, seats, all the plastic finishing, not to mention wiring and stuff just *pooof* disappeared along with the aluminium?

Oh, i see it now!

Well, IF that is true, one might wonder where the corpses came from that where delivered at the morgue...

Chris O'Brien · Sep 9, 2004, 10:33 AM

Are the majority of people not actually reading the rest of the thread before posting? The sames things are being rehashed when answers have already been provided...

gerbnl · Sep 9, 2004, 10:36 AM

Originally posted by Black Book:
Are the majority of people not actually reading the rest of the thread before posting? The sames things are being rehashed when answers have already been provided...

Yes, but most quite as unconvincing as the original story...

BasketofPuppies · Sep 9, 2004, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Cool, and the passengers, their luggage, seats, all the plastic finishing, not to mention wiring and stuff just *pooof* disappeared along with the aluminium?

Uhh... all of that was there.

turtle777 · Sep 9, 2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by philzilla:
you mean... the american government could be lying to its people? *gasp* shocking! unheard of! next thing, you'll be trying to tell me Oswald didn't kill JFK!

I want to believe...

-t

spacefreak · Sep 9, 2004, 10:47 AM

What I find amusing about these conspiracy theories are these few quotes from a couple people: "It didn't sound like a plane... it sounded like a missile".

I mean, how many people have the listening experience to identify a missile? It's not like these things are flying all around to the point that one could unmistakenly identify the sound.

Man A: "It wasn't a plane... it sounded just like a Chinese Silkworm "
Man B: "Silkworm? I thought it sounded like a Scud"
Man C: " Both of you are idiots. It was a modified 1993 Patriot."

BoomStick · Sep 9, 2004, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Cool, and the passengers, their luggage, seats, all the plastic finishing, not to mention wiring and stuff just *pooof* disappeared along with the aluminium?

Oh, i see it now!

Well, IF that is true, one might wonder where the corpses came from that where delivered at the morgue...

So where did N591UA go?

It disentigrated when it hit the ground, or was that a figment too?

I think your tin foil hat is too tight.

smacintush · Sep 9, 2004, 11:08 AM

What? It's all there�kinda�

TheBadgerHunter · Sep 9, 2004, 11:11 AM

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Cool, and the passengers, their luggage, seats, all the plastic finishing, not to mention wiring and stuff just *pooof* disappeared along with the aluminium?

Oh, i see it now!

Well, IF that is true, one might wonder where the corpses came from that where delivered at the morgue...

I could melt wire by holding it over my oven. Just imagine soaking it with gas, packing it into a confined space, and grinding it through a large area of columns and combustible material.

TheBadgerHunter · Sep 9, 2004, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by ambush:
We'll if it's not a conspiracy, it's one helluva WEIRD crash...

I mean..

there's a ****ing small hole in like 2 levels of walls...

also, the pix before the crash does NOT show a Boeing... it shows something smaller (IMHO).

No, the final hole every site shows is in fact 4 or 5 layers in. Keeping in mind most of the width of the debris would be reduced from going through that much building.

djohnson · Sep 9, 2004, 11:14 AM

Originally posted by spacefreak:
What I find amusing about these conspiracy theories are these few quotes from a couple people: "It didn't sound like a plane... it sounded like a missile".

I mean, how many people have the listening experience to identify a missile? It's not like these things are flying all around to the point that one could unmistakenly identify the sound.

Man A: "It wasn't a plane... it sounded just like a Chinese Silkworm "
Man B: "Silkworm? I thought it sounded like a Scud"
Man C: " Both of you are idiots. It was a modified 1993 Patriot."

I have heard many planes flying overhead on direct approaches to runways. If you are within a certain area, you will not hear that plane coming in or it will sound very soft. A missle? Yeah right... I dont think missles have enough inertia to blow a hole through 3 layers of reinforced concrete buildings.

Remember, the Pentagon is not only built like a fortress, it is a fortress!

turtle777 · Sep 9, 2004, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by djohnson:
I dont think missles have enough inertia to blow a hole through 3 layers of reinforced concrete buildings.

Remember, the Pentagon is not only built like a fortress, it is a fortress!

So, what a missle CAN'T do, a 757 could ?

Rrrrriiiiggghtt !

-t

TheBadgerHunter · Sep 9, 2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by george68:
I think two hit the WTC, one was splashed above pennsylvania, and the other is at t he bottom of an ocean.

- Rob

So then what hit the pentagon? A small plane with awesome structural integrity? Not to mention enough fuel to cause a fireball and keep burning. And why in an ocean? If you've never seen a plane hit water you should think about that. The wreckage would have been spread over MILES and miles of ocean. Not like can just sink a plane.

An the big one: Why the hell would it be advantageous for the gov to make people think a slightly larger plane hit it??? Seems a lot of bother.

In the words of sherlock holmes... uh well if everything else is eliminated whats left over, no matter how unlikely, must be true.

djohnson · Sep 9, 2004, 11:20 AM

Originally posted by turtle777:
So, what a missle CAN'T do, a 757 could ?

Rrrrriiiiggghtt !

-t

I fully loaded 757 is a bit bigger than a missle...

For those that think that there was no plane because large parts were not found, the towers consumed the 2 planes that hit them. Planes going really fast slam into a big building and dont come out the other side. Now think about a fortress being hit... yeah.

york28 · Sep 9, 2004, 11:29 AM

Originally posted by turtle777:
So, what a missle CAN'T do, a 757 could ?
Rrrrriiiiggghtt !
-t

Well, a plane would have a lot more mass, so theoretically it would.

But that doesn't reconcile the missing debris, lack of marks on the ground, etc.

And instead of just chalking up the "conspiracy" sites as being silly, is anyone aware of anything that actually proves them wrong? For example, how about the wrong sized engine parts being found at the scene?

I believe that the theory is that a smaller plane that was loaded with explosives was run into the building, or that there were explosives in the building already.

If the wings really did "burn up" in the fire, then where did the bodies come from? Do human remains withstand temperatures that burn/vaporize metal? I don't think so...

TheBadgerHunter · Sep 9, 2004, 11:45 AM

Originally posted by york28:
Well, a plane would have a lot more mass, so theoretically it would.

But that doesn't reconcile the missing debris, lack of marks on the ground, etc.

And instead of just chalking up the "conspiracy" sites as being silly, is anyone aware of anything that actually proves them wrong? For example, how about the wrong sized engine parts being found at the scene?

I believe that the theory is that a smaller plane that was loaded with explosives was run into the building, or that there were explosives in the building already.

If the wings really did "burn up" in the fire, then where did the bodies come from? Do human remains withstand temperatures that burn/vaporize metal? I don't think so...

Yes, but you see the passengers weren't strapped to the fuselage or wings. They were inside. While death was certain the bodies would have remained relatively unburned since most of the fuel would be in the wings which were sheared off.

gerbnl · Sep 9, 2004, 11:47 AM

Originally posted by BasketofPuppies:
Uhh... all of that was there.

Oh, but just not in ANY of the pictures publicized. Hmmm, interesting, but unconvincing!

SimeyTheLimey · Sep 9, 2004, 11:53 AM

Originally posted by Luca Rescigno:

Way to bring some logic into the thread. That flash video just about had me convinced, but this is good. I'm sure someone in the know could debunk most of the points raised in the video.

CD Hanks: I think there's the outside chance that someone in the government knew about this ahead of time and let it slide. They would have never done so if they knew it was going to be as bad as it was, but it's possible that they assumed it would just be something relatively small, like a truck bomb, that they could use as justification for starting a war, first in Afghanistan and then moving on to Iraq. I don't think anyone could have predicted something as huge as the 9/11 attacks.

Keep in mind I'm just saying this is a POSSIBILITY. From the 9/11 Commission's report, it could be that everyone in charge was just incompetent and didn't know about it, or didn't know what to do about the information they had.

Believe me, if some evil war hawk wanted to manufacture a war with an attack on a US government building, it would have been the State Department that would have been hit, not the Pentagon.

gerbnl · Sep 9, 2004, 11:58 AM

Originally posted by BoomStick:
So where did N591UA go?

It disentigrated when it hit the ground, or was that a figment too?

I think your tin foil hat is too tight.

Who told you i had the answers? I'm having unanswered questions, questions you should be asking your government, not me.

But now you are evading questions about flight 77 by starting about flight 93, i have one for you: how come the flight 93 debris is found on two separate locations? not consistent with a plane crashing, but curiously consistent with a plane shot from the air.

Oh well!

Mrjinglesusa · Sep 9, 2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by gerbnl:
Cool, and the passengers, their luggage, seats, all the plastic finishing, not to mention wiring and stuff just *pooof* disappeared along with the aluminium?

Oh, i see it now!

Well, IF that is true, one might wonder where the corpses came from that where delivered at the morgue...

So, everything in the plane and the entire plane itself gets burnt to ashes but the bodies are still recognizable and sent to the morgue? When a body gets cremated (by heat less than that proposed here) there is nothing but ashes left. How did the plane "disappear" but the bodies of those on board did not?

turtle777 · Sep 9, 2004, 12:02 PM

Originally posted by Mrjinglesusa:
So, everything in the plane and the entire plane itself gets burnt to ashes but the bodies are still recognizable and sent to the morgue? When a body gets cremated (by heat less than that proposed here) there is nothing but ashes left. How did the plane "disappear" but the bodies of those on board did not?

Stop asking questions.

The whole Pentagon crash is like religion: you can't argue with the official version.

Besides that: everyone has his/her own pet explanation of things. Some make more sense, some less...

-t

Spheric Harlot · Sep 9, 2004, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by turtle777:
The whole Pentagon crash is like religion: you can't argue with the conspiracy theorists.

fix0r3d�

turtle777 · Sep 9, 2004, 12:52 PM

Originally posted by Spheric Harlot:
fix0r3d�

Did I say anything different ?

-t

RonnieoftheRose · Sep 9, 2004, 01:01 PM

This topic is a waste of time. No matter what happened back then or what's happening now you can't hold anyone accountable. The politicians washed their hands and blamed people in the intelligence field and the people who commited those acts are either dead or nowhere to be found.