Do you buy into any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories?

[hiwaygal]

I disagree with you 100%. Explain building 7 to me.

From: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors — along with the building's unusual construction — were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

Basic structural engineering. If the loads exceed the design capacity, beams/columns/structural elements will collapse.

 

[BuckyFan04]

nevermind....hiwaygal beat me to it.

 

[Conservative Hippie]

In my opinion, if you have anything higher than highschool chemistry and physics in your background, there is nothing to buy. You KNOW there's no way the towers could have fallen in the way they did from an airplane crashing into them, you KNOW it was impossible for building 7 to collapsed by the cause in the official story, and you KNOW the hole in the pentagon could not have been made by a plane. It's all a matter of being open to believing the American government is lying to its own people, which is the hardest thing to get your head around.

Edited to add: I'm not accusing the American government of orchestrating the attacks. I'm accusing them of pushing a story contrary to the truth for some reason, and I am quite suspicious as to why.

DH (see tag) thinks otherwise.

 

[JR6ooo4]

The plane as a whole did not actually impact the Pentagon. A large part of it did after the plane impacted the ground right in front of the building.

First shots show no marks on the grass. Then they covered the lawn right away????

 

[Charade]

First shots show no marks on the grass. Then they covered the lawn right away????

Where is flight 77 then if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

 

[JR6ooo4]

Where is flight 77 then if it didn't hit the Pentagon?

That is the problem. Believing all the details of the conspiracy is way too extreme and unimaginable.

But the simple things have not been explained either. Like hardly any marks on the pentagon, just a hole. no marks from wings or tail etc... If it hit the ground and broke up there would be parts outside.

how a less than average pilot was able to make an airliner perform fighter jet maneuvers.

Mikeeee

 

[GeorgeG]

I don't believe any of the theories, but there seems to be no shortage of self-proclaimed experts who are determined to fabricate some.

As with most NYC area firefighters, we were shown exactly how the towers were constructed and a detailed sequence of events that eventually led to the collapse of all the buldings. As one who has a number of fire science and building design engineering courses under his belt, everything makes sense.

In the cases of the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania, the lack of debris was the result of high-speed impact pulverizing much of the planes and contents.

Could the PA plane have been shot down? Perhaps, but since there was ample justification to do so and given that fighters had been scrambled to do just that, there's really no reason to deny it if it's true.

The conspiracy theories are, in fact, conspiracies in their own right. It's politics at its ugliest.

 

[wardfamily1]

...In the cases of the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania, the lack of debris was the result of high-speed impact pulverizing much of the planes and contents...

Yes, people have to remember that usually when you hear of a plane crash, it's at the take off or landing, not from 15,000+ feet in the air, so of course there isn't going to be much debris because of impact.

 

[BuckyFan04]

That is the problem. Believing all the details of the conspiracy is way too extreme and unimaginable.

But the simple things have not been explained either. Like hardly any marks on the pentagon, just a hole. no marks from wings or tail etc... If it hit the ground and broke up there would be parts outside.

how a less than average pilot was able to make an airliner perform fighter jet maneuvers.

Mikeeee

Some things may not seem to be explained well, but this is what I found.
There are pictures of some of the debris from the plane, as well as eyewitness accounts from people who said they saw the plane flying into the building.

(I hope it's okay to post these.)
http://www.flight77.info/debris.html
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

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.

-- http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=6

 

[chisnpeke]

I don't believe any of the theories, but there seems to be no shortage of self-proclaimed experts who are determined to fabricate some.

As with most NYC area firefighters, we were shown exactly how the towers were constructed and a detailed sequence of events that eventually led to the collapse of all the buldings. As one who has a number of fire science and building design engineering courses under his belt, everything makes sense.

In the cases of the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania, the lack of debris was the result of high-speed impact pulverizing much of the planes and contents.

Could the PA plane have been shot down? Perhaps, but since there was ample justification to do so and given that fighters had been scrambled to do just that, there's really no reason to deny it if it's true.

The conspiracy theories are, in fact, conspiracies in their own right. It's politics at its ugliest.

You are totally correct that it's politics at its ugliest.

 

[jensen]

In the cases of the Pentagon and the field in Pennsylvania, the lack of debris was the result of high-speed impact pulverizing much of the planes and contents.

Does anyone remember when (professional golfer) Payne Stewart's plane crashed? It happened about 15 miles from my home and I watched the plane go down. There was absolutely nothing left of that plane!!!! It was a hole in the ground with a few scraps of metal in it - I won't even talk about the bodies. If I hadn't seen the plane go down, I might have had a hard time believing that it was possible for a plane to disintegrate like that, but I now know it's possible.

I have a family member who lived in NYC at the time of the attacks. He is absolutely convinced that it was a huge conspiracy and even gave me a copy of the Zietgeist video to watch. But, I don't believe any of it.

I am just not one who is willing to believe that my government is capable of pulling off something that big... I am, however, beginning to believe that not everything they tell us is true and maybe someone else was invovled in the Kennedy assasination.

 

[Golf4food]

That is the problem. Believing all the details of the conspiracy is way too extreme and unimaginable.

But the simple things have not been explained either. Like hardly any marks on the pentagon, just a hole. no marks from wings or tail etc... If it hit the ground and broke up there would be parts outside.

how a less than average pilot was able to make an airliner perform fighter jet maneuvers.

Mikeeee

Sorry to burst your bubble, but airliners are as easy to fly as any smaller jet. A modestly trained pilot could do it. Heck, a completely untrained passenger could fly it - landing is the hard part. Once they are cruising there really isn't much you need to do as long as the engines are all working and you have fuel. Landing is complicated. Knowing all the safety routines is complicated. Just plain old keeping it in the air isn't that big of a deal, just like driving a car on a straight, flat highway isn't that big a deal.

Planes that crash on a normal landing have been slowing down and lost a lot of air speed. Planes that crash on takeoff have not built much airspeed. Both situations leave more debris. High speed crashes leave very little of anything, as would be the case with someone deliberately trying to use the place as a weapon and who would not be throttling back and applying air brakes, etc. - I'm sure it was running full throttle. If it hit the ground just in front it would have begun shearing into nothing pretty darn fast.

I don't buy any of it. No president would be stupid enough to do a stunt like that on purpose or to want it (not even Bush if you consider him the height of stupidity). The impact on the economy, etc. would be too much. Nothing good could come out of it. There are better ways to pick a fight if you want a war - ways that don't involve killing so many of your own people and destroying your own economy in the process. The risks are just far too great.

I suppose all the DC residents who were stuck in traffic and SAW the plane flying overhead and then crashing were suffering from a mass halucination brought on by secret government mild altering satellites? (The same ones that convinced over half the country to vote for Bush in 04, no doubt...)

 

[HOGFAN]

No, though I don't trust everything the gov. says I think the theory's concerning 9/11 are ridiculous.

Ditto, and how convenient for Al Queda(sp) to claim responsibility.

 

[SydneyBristow]

No

 

[lunabkat]

Conspiracy, people are dead dudes, what the heck?

 

[Charade]

Sorry to burst your bubble, but airliners are as easy to fly as any smaller jet. A modestly trained pilot could do it. Heck, a completely untrained passenger could fly it - landing is the hard part. Once they are cruising there really isn't much you need to do as long as the engines are all working and you have fuel. Landing is complicated. Knowing all the safety routines is complicated. Just plain old keeping it in the air isn't that big of a deal, just like driving a car on a straight, flat highway isn't that big a deal.

Planes that crash on a normal landing have been slowing down and lost a lot of air speed. Planes that crash on takeoff have not built much airspeed. Both situations leave more debris. High speed crashes leave very little of anything, as would be the case with someone deliberately trying to use the place as a weapon and who would not be throttling back and applying air brakes, etc. - I'm sure it was running full throttle. If it hit the ground just in front it would have begun shearing into nothing pretty darn fast.

I don't buy any of it. No president would be stupid enough to do a stunt like that on purpose or to want it (not even Bush if you consider him the height of stupidity). The impact on the economy, etc. would be too much. Nothing good could come out of it. There are better ways to pick a fight if you want a war - ways that don't involve killing so many of your own people and destroying your own economy in the process. The risks are just far too great.

I suppose all the DC residents who were stuck in traffic and SAW the plane flying overhead and then crashing were suffering from a mass halucination brought on by secret government mild altering satellites? (The same ones that convinced over half the country to vote for Bush in 04, no doubt...)

Exactly. To repeat what I posted earlier.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

IOW, it would be easier for 20 determined terrorists to pull this off than potentially hundreds of people from dozens of various governmental agencies.

 

[salmoneous]

I highly encourage anyone who has the slightest interest in what happend to read the official report. It is not only a very detailed and throuough accounting of the events and what lead up to them, but it is highly readable. It comes accross more as a gripping book and a governement report.

There's really no excuse - you can get it free online, or pick up the printed paperback version cheap.

http://www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/fullreport.pdf

 

[rayelias]

No president would be stupid enough to do a stunt like that on purpose or to want it (not even Bush if you consider him the height of stupidity).

But, you're forgetting... how long would it have taken to completely wire all the WTC buildings with enough dangerous explosives, in secret, and with a small enough team in order to keep the secret?

A WHOLE LOT longer than 7-8 months. Therefore, if there was a conspiracy to blow up the WTC (and the Pentagon if you want to lump that in), it HAD to be done under the prior administration. There's no WAY it could've been planned and implemented under GWB, especially since he is the dumbest President in history. Or, is he the craftiest. I keep forgetting.

And, isn't it interesting that since 9/11, there haven't been any attacks within the US. But, under the Clinton administration, there were numerous attacks within the US - even on the WTC!

Hmmmm....

It makes me wonder if all these conspiracy theorists just hate GWB and are searching for a way to link him to it.

My own personal theory is that a bunch of Muslim extremists hijacked some planes and flew them into buildings. (And, I've got a lot of FACTS to back that up.)

 

[Mickeyistheman]

This is something that I am very passionate about and it raises my blood pressure when I read things like this. I have watched Loose Change and yes they have had to change it NUMEROUS times because they really had false information.

Not that I would EVER, EVER, EVER defend Bush BUT there is no way we could have been prepared for the event that occured.

With that being said, I do not think in any capacity our own Presidents would fathom creating this US tragedy. Previous posters were right on. There would have to have been so many people involved in order for this to occur.

Why would they want to do it and kill their own people. Clinton and Bush are not Saddam that is just ridiculous to even think about.

Bush had the facts and he ignored them. The US soil was only attacked once while Clinton was President and my Aunt worked in the towers at that time. That was nothing compared to what happened in 2001.

The US Cole was not in the US, our friend and neighbor who was an FBI agent went there to investigate. Then after that he came home spent time with his family and took his kids to the 4th of July Parade and other school funtions, spent time with his wife and friends was even a volunteer fireman for our town.

He was on his way to work, called his wife and said I have to go to the city something crazy is going on. I love you see you later. He never came back.

That is 1 of 4 friends I lost that day. So for all of you who keep talking about conspiracy stop.

It happened.

We can't bring any of those people back and I would sell my soul to make that happen.

Now we are still in war that we should not be in and even more Americans are dying FOR NOT REASON.

There is only 1 theory that I have believed from the beginning is that the plane that went down in PA did get shot down or at least attempted to. We won't know that for another 25 years or so.

Also for all the conspiracy lovers out there, why would the governement want to kill so many of its own people and THEN have to pay out SOOOOOO MUCH MONEY to their families? If they themselves created this whole thing? That doesn't make any sense.

You can all flame me but this hits way to close to home for me. I also work in the travel industry and live in NJ, so when I finally made it to work that day EVERY SINGLE phone call was horrible. Every day after that was horrible but we made it through.

Just remember to vote this year, and really think about what each candidate is saying. Not if you "like them or not because of their personal choices"

ie who they married, if they did drugs etc. Look at their platforms read up on each of them and choose the one you want around for the next 4 to 8 years.

Our country is really in dire need of good if not excellent leadership, cause what we have right now well its the Dis I have to be nice STINKS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry so long.

 

[Cor44432]

Numerous attacks on U.S. soil???

OK. City........WTC in 2003.........were there others??