Welcome To CK5!
Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.
Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.
Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by Emmettology 101, Oct 11, 2005.
Not sure if it is old or a repost...
CLICK HERE FOR A VIDEO
i've seen it, it really makes me wonder
Where's Timmay when you need him???
brought to you by the same conspiracy idiots who think the government blew up the WTC.. seriously...
most of those missile comments are taken out of context. there where over a 150 eyewitnesses to validate the planes size, etc..
go spend some time on their websites and see what real kooks they are... they honestly believe the WTC was taken down with C4...
I have never been to their site. Just found the video to be interesting and they bring up some good questions. Why are these videos unreleased? And from the photos, where are the plane parts?
I just searched breifly on the net looking at numerous sites. All pictures I looked at have no planes.
Some of those points are interesting and some are stupid. The fact that some windows were still intact does not surprise me at all. Thats what they were designed to do. Those windows cost like $1000 each and are very very very thick. Thick enough to withstand an impact of some sort. The fact that there were no plane pieces, no fuel, and the government took all the videos is kind of strange though.
Here's what I said to Timmay when he was spouting his version of what "actually" happened on 9/11 (BTW, I'm NOT comparing you to Tim...) -
See the whole sordid affair here
Please lock this thread before the ghost of TIMMAY shows up!!!!!!!!!!!
This pops up every so often. There are numerous sites that totally debunk the conspiracy wackos version of the events. But, people will believe what they want to believe facts notwithstanding.....
Interesting though that there are or seem to be no pieces of the plane and a relativly small entrance hole. In comparing other crashes they don't look at all similar. The grass out front is the most interesting and no wings left outside the building.
Try these on for size:
There are actually far more sites refuting the wacko conspiracy than there are purporting it. There are many sites who have good photos of landing gear, fuselage pieces, engine pieces, etc. in the crash site, not to mention eyewitness accounts from many disparate sources who saw the plane go in. It's also kind of hard for the government to convince all the passengers families who dies to play along with the conspiracy. Come on guys, let's show a bit of intelligent investigation here instead of paranoid wishful thinking. I know people on here are smarter than this.
Funny how in the first link it has a pole attached where 62% of the voters think there was no plane!
The second link shows a image by Purdue. It just seems odd to me that they show the plane so low, the engines look to be hitting the ground in the photo. Yet no marks on the lawn!
For the third, ponder this...... All these articles refuting the video and similar points of view say about how the WTC planes only hit glass and steel, but the flight 77 hit conrete and such. And they also state the WTC planes were going faster. Well the WTC planes only went in so far and stopped, destructed, etc. They didn't go through the build which was only glass and steel. Flight 77 going slower the the WTC planes had penetrated a conrete reinforced wall as well as the 2nd, 3rd (and 4th and 5th according to some articles) other layers of the Pentagon, possibly reinforced to some degree also... Please explain this to me....
You can do your own research should you choose to. I don't have to do it for you. Did you read all of each websites I posted? You are grasping at straws trying to find some kind of technicality that would support a conspiracy ignoring the overwhelming evidence of a plane crash. I can post many more debunking websites that you are welcome to read that explain the engineering side of the whole event. If you are already pre-disposed to believe the conspiracy theory, then you won't believe them either. I personally watched the immediate after effects of the first plane that went into the WTC and then watched the second plane go in live. I also watched the immediate coverage of the Pentagon crash live. I've read all the conspiracy theory sites and then all the debunking sites. I went into it with an open mind because I certainly don't have any illusions as to whether or not our government might engage sometimes in coverups. But, the evidence of these crashes are overwhelming in my opinion and it is just wishful thinking on the part of some to believe otherwise. By the way, guess who made the original claim? The French. Go figure.......
By the way, here is another good one from Popular Mechanics:
And yet some more:
I understand stand everyone has their own views. I may just be more skeptical since I am not happy with the way things are going these days with the gov't. But even before 9/11, the war, etc.. I've felt the gov't has the power to do pretty much anything they choose and believe anything is possible.
The bad thing is the people making the conspiracy sites are saying one thing, the debunking sites are saying another. No one except those involved or high up in the Gov't will know either way. The debunking sites, to me, seem just unreliable as the conspiracy since it's just words wrote down from people. They could be anyone and attach a fancy title to there name just to stir the pot or push their side/view of the event. Joe Conspiracy says this, Joe Debunker says that.... Who's to say either have the correct info.
Not really seraching or grasping for technicalities.. I never have heard of any ask about the penetration of the Penatgon versus the WTC..... Just stating it seems odd. There have bben serveral comments about how "flimsy" a plane is... Yet it can make it's way through the a fortress liek the Pentagon, but not the WTC.
I hear what you are saying, but I think you should look a little closer at who is proposing the conspiracy theories vs. who is debunking them. I've gone to many of the conspiracy websites and quite frankly, they are generally speaking some pretty wacked out folks. The "debunkers" on the other hand are generally reputable outlets. Popular Mechanics, major news organizations, engineers and scientists, etc. If there really was a good conspiracy, don't you think the liberal major news outlets would have a field day with it? Especially their blatant hatred of W? The government and their agencies are pretty powerful but not as powerful as you would like to believe. Also, putting aside who is providing the information, you can't get around eyewitnesses and the visible evidence. To foster a successful conspiracy, you have to control every aspect of the campaign. These are just too big to do that with. The Hells Angels have a saying; "Three can keep a secret if two ar dead". In this case, there are too many holes to plug.
All the video footage I've seen, from various angles, shows plenty of debris coming out of the Towers, 180* from the point of impact. This debris was likely a mix of aircraft wreckage and building wreckage. IIRC the engines of both WTC aircraft were found a couple blocks away from the Towers; they kept going on a ballistic trajectory after impact.
WTC aircraft hit buildings that were essentially hollow compared to the Pentagon. The strongest part of the Towes were the steel structural beams, and these beams are what broke up the aircraft as they transited the structure. There wasn't much kinetic energy transfer (relatively speaking, of course) to the Towers' structure; the damage that brought them down was caused by the fuel fires that caused the steel structure to yield until failure under the buildings' weight.
The Pentagon walls are reinforced concrete, with small openings for the windows, and heavy structure behind them. Almost all of the kinetic energy of the aircraft was concentrated on the outer wall, which likely caused a shockwave effect within the impacted section. That's probably where a lot of the impact damage to the inner rings came from.
Well, as much as I would like to believe Enemy of the State, or Conspiricy Theory could be true, I just dont see it being possible.
Just as a teacher told me long ago (and Desert Rat agrees), saying the government could cover something of that magnitude up would be implying that they are way too efficient. Look how long Watergate, Whitewater, Clinton Sex Scandal, etc... took to come out. You cant keep a secret when the people working with you are just normal people. Not all government agents are Men In Black...
Goes to the Roswell theory too. Our government does not have the resources or the ability to cover someting up that would change the world. Just my opinion though...
You are right on the money. When you go to a lot of these conspiracy sites, they all have one theme. That everybody in government is on the same page and they are all working on concert to some nefarious goal. The reality is, even within the federal government agencies infight. That is just amongst the military and LEO types. Then you have the civilians who's allegiance to their agency is dependent sometimes on their mood. You have state and local agencies that don't get along with the feds and sometimes each other. Trying to cover up something that includes the military, federal law enforcement, state law enforcement, state emergency workers, private ambulances, firefighters, local cops, the media, etc. would be a logistical nightmare. Even amongst local cops and local firefighters there is rivalry. The moment some local cop told a local firefighter to keep their mouth shut about some event you would have a fight. It just ain't gonna happen.....
the "there were NO plane parts!!" thing is a total lie. There was a great issue of Popular Mechanics recently that used real science to debunk all these bizarre conspiracy theory claims. They had a first responder in the article who not only found plane parts but literally walked among human remains wearing mangled-but-still-identifyable airline uniforms etc.
Its moronic to assume the effects will be the same when comparing a plane hitting the WTC and a plane hitting the Pentagon. They are completely different structurally and the planes likely hit differently also (pentagon, more of a dive, WTC basically level flight). The WTC is very much a hollow tube. The structure is mostly supported by a series of exterior columns. This design was used because it allowed for a MASSIVE amount of open/interior space. Other than the elevator core and the aforementioned exterior columns, there are no vertical support elements in the WTC. This design is great from a floor area point of view and it makes the entire structure very rigid/strong, which is why it was used. When hit by big planes however, many of the exterior supports were weakened (or sheared) by the impacting plane... a chit load of burning jet fuel did the rest. Additionally, that massive amount of open floor area provided a "cavity" for burning fuel to "sit" in while burning... giving it time to weaken the towers structural steel.
The Pentagon on the other hand, is (literally!) a fortress. If you've ever seen a wall detail of the exterior of that building (as built in the most recent upgrade) it is unbelievably over-built. The thing is a tank. Its like a bank vault or something. Super strong and super resistant to both impact and the heat created by fuel fires. The building is also relatively short (compared to WTC) so there isn't an ungodly amount of vertical load on the buildings structure and hence no massive structural failure/collapse. The WTC fell because it wasn't capable to holding up its own massive weight once its support columns were sheared/melted.
Some people just want to believe that there was something more to 9-11 than there really was. 19 terrorists comandeered 4 planes and used them as WMDs. Now its time to kick the terrorists asses, end of story.
Separate names with a comma.