9/11 non-conspiracy

[Yossarian]

Yeah most of what you say makes sense especially the final bit. Why was America attacked? One answer is to say it was perfomed by terrorists who aren't bound by normal rules of logic. That isn't very satisfactory though. The best answers (IMO anyway) are 1) The US were/are seen as a genuine enemy of these guys because of their presence in Saudi Arabia and support for Israel and 2) An attack that big was going to attract supporters to them. I do think it is fair to say that the pay offs were nowhere near the cost for Al Qaeda but acts of terrorism often fall into that category. Those guys have a track record in it themselves. What was the bomb planted in the WTC in the 90s going to achieve? Bugger all but it's the symbolism that is important to these guys. There were much better strategic targets but they gave up the element of surprise to attack office buildings. As it was they were lucky to get off the Pentagon attack and the 4th target (Capitol? White House?) didn't happen at all.

Yes the US response was overblown - if they stuck with Afghanistan this would be pretty much all over. It only took a few weeks to overthrow the Taliban. Without the stupid distraction of Iraq they would have been in a much better position to deal with Afghanistan and mop things up there.

As for the question on Flight 93 I'm not sure what the problem is. The photos I've seen look like a plane that crashed at high speed with lots of fuel. Keep in mind it crashed in the middle of nowhere so it burnt out before anyone could get there.

 

[alien]

the field where the plane crashed, are there lots of houses and buildings around that field?

 

[Yossarian]

As I understand it, the crash site was in a rural area. There are a stack of witnesses though.

 

[alien]

As I understand it, the crash site was in a rural area. There are a stack of witnesses though.

ah ok. i was just wondering if it was just luck that it crashed into a field instead of into houses/buildings.

 

[Yossarian]

As I understand it, the crash site was in a rural area. There are a stack of witnesses though.

ah ok. i was just wondering if it was just luck that it crashed into a field instead of into houses/buildings.

Well overall I'm guessing most of America is rural so the odds are actually in favour of hitting nothing, especially in the part of Pennsylvania. I think it was luck that the attack from the passengers happened when it did. I'm sure if those (insert word that Mods would delete) could of, they would have slammed it into a town or building.

 

[happy_tiger]

As I understand it, the crash site was in a rural area. There are a stack of witnesses though.

ah ok. i was just wondering if it was just luck that it crashed into a field instead of into houses/buildings.

Well overall I'm guessing most of America is rural so the odds are actually in favour of hitting nothing, especially in the part of Pennsylvania. I think it was luck that the attack from the passengers happened when it did. I'm sure if those (insert word that Mods would delete) could of, they would have slammed it into a town or building.

Supposedly that flight was planned for the White House or Capital Hill

 

[Yossarian]

As I understand it, the crash site was in a rural area. There are a stack of witnesses though.

ah ok. i was just wondering if it was just luck that it crashed into a field instead of into houses/buildings.

Well overall I'm guessing most of America is rural so the odds are actually in favour of hitting nothing, especially in the part of Pennsylvania. I think it was luck that the attack from the passengers happened when it did. I'm sure if those (insert word that Mods would delete) could of, they would have slammed it into a town or building.

Supposedly that flight was planned for the White House or Capital Hill

Yep. That's the best guess based on "evidence" from Al Qaeda members who found themselves in the company of US security agencies. As I said earlier, it says a lot about Al Qaeda's mindset that they went after the WTC before the White House.

 

[alien]

<big>Were Twin Towers felled by chemical blast?</big>

•Mix of water, melted metal "felled towers"
•Theory contradicts reasons in official report
•Report blames failure of structural beams


The collapse of the towers has previously been blamed on over-heated steel beams. Picture: AP

A NEW theory claims to give the real reason the Twin Towers fell after the terror attacks on September 11, 2001.
A leading scientist claims that the blasts were caused by a violent chemical reaction between molten aluminium from the aircraft and water from the sprinkler systems in the World Trade Centre.

"If my theory is correct, tonnes of aluminium ran down through the towers, where the smelt came into contact with a few hundred litres of water," said Christian Simensen, a scientist at SINTEF, an independent technology research institute based in Norway.

"From other disasters and experiments carried out by the aluminium industry, we know that reactions of this sort lead to violent explosions."

The official report blames the collapse on the overheating and failure of the structural steel beams at the core of the buildings, an explanation Mr Simensen rejects.

Given the quantities of the molten metal involved, the blasts would have been powerful enough to blow out an entire section of each building, he said.

This, in turn, would lead to the top section of each tower to fall down on the sections below.

The sheer weight of the top floors would be enough to crush the lower part of the building like a house of cards, he said.

The aluminium-water scenario would also account for explosions from within the buildings just prior to their collapse that have fuelled conspiracy theories suggesting that the structures had been booby-trapped.

Mr Simensen presented his theory at an international materials technology conference in San Diego, California, and has detailed his calculations in an article published in the trade journal Aluminium International Today.

"The aluminium industry had reported more than 250 aluminium-water explosions since 1980," he said.

In a controlled experiment carried out by Alcoa Aluminium, 20 kilos of molten aluminium was allowed to react with 20 litres of water, along with a small quantity of rust.

"The explosion destroyed the entire laboratory and left a crater 30 metres in diameter," Mr Simensen said.

By comparison, the aircraft carried 30 tonnes of aluminium into each of the towers, according to his calculations.

Mr Simensen speculates that the two commercial jets were immediately trapped inside an insulating layer of building debris within the skyscrapers.

The debris - especially plaster, which blocks the transfer of heat - would have formed a shield protecting the rest of the building.

At the same time, however, it would have created a super-hot, oven-like zone around the aircraft, heated by burning fuel.

Aluminium alloy, which in jet hulls also contains magnesium, melts at 660C. If heated to 750C, the alloy "becomes as liquid as water", Mr Simensen said.

This molten aluminium could then have flowed downward through staircases and gaps in the floor, causing a chemical reaction with water from sprinklers on the levels below.

A meltdown period of 30 to 45 minutes would be consistent with the timing of the explosions and subsequent collapse of both buildings in relation to the moment of impact.

Mr Simensen said there are lessons to be learned, if his theory is correct, that could help avoid a similar disaster were another skyscraper to be hit by a big jet.

"We could develop means of rapidly emptying sprinkler systems in the floors beneath the point of impact," he said.

Firing a rocket with fire-retardant that could coat the aircraft body could also help prevent metal alloy from melting.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/were-twin-towers-felled-by-chemical-blasts/story-e6frfro0-1226143261174

 

[Yossarian]

It's an interesting idea. Leading scientist is probably a stretch but the guy doesn't seem to be a complete nutjob and at least he's not suggesting there were no planes. Personally I still subscribe to the overheating theory but they're talking scientific concepts that are a bit out of my league!

 

[T-D-C]

Still doesn't explain what happened to Tower 7\. No Plane hit it yet it still collapsed the same as the other 2 towers.

 

[GNR4LIFE]

Still doesn't explain what happened to Tower 7\. No Plane hit it yet it still collapsed the same as the other 2 towers.

was watching a clip on youtube about an hr ago, that showed a clip from a doco where Larry Silverstein who held the licence to the towers, said he ordered tower 7 to be pulled

 

[Yossarian]

Still doesn't explain what happened to Tower 7\. No Plane hit it yet it still collapsed the same as the other 2 towers.

was watching a clip on youtube about an hr ago, that showed a clip from a doco where Larry Silverstein who held the licence to the towers, said he ordered tower 7 to be pulled

This has already been discussed in some detail in this thread. Silverstein has consistently said that he did not suggest that WTC7 came down on his orders and that his discussion of pulling was in reference to firefighters inside WTC7\. You need to ask yourself whether it is practical to pull down a building under those circumstances with nobody else admitting involvement. Nor is there any evidence of equipment needed to "pull" a building being used. There was also zero incentive for Silverstein to want the building destroyed.

TDC - I've already provided links to FEMA and NIST reports that explain what happened to WTC7\. No plane hit it but plenty of debris from other buidlings did, primarily when the North Tower collapsed. The footage from that day clearly shows that when the main towers collapsed, large pieces went everywhere. Again, the FEMA and NIST reports deal with the logistics in much more detail.

Long story short, WTC7 caught fire, there wasn't enough water pressure to deal with the fire, and given what happened in the two main towers, they pulled the NYFD before WTC7 collapsed.

 

[Kul]

thread title appropriately changed

 

[alien]

its just a bit hard to believe that the wtc7 building fell the way it did from just fire and debris. the whole building fell straight down and altogether.

 

[Yossarian]

its just a bit hard to believe that the wtc7 building fell the way it did from just fire and debris. the whole building fell straight down and altogether.

It's easier to believe that demolition experts were able to sneak in, plant devises, detonate them, and remove the evidence later? If a building burns that long (8 hours) with virtually no water to fight it, eventually it will come down.

 

[jais_tigez]

I have been doing a little reading of what happened at the pentagon that day. Why did the FBI only release 5 frames of footage of the attack on the pentagon and not 1 frame shows the plane? It would have to be one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet and that's all the footage they have of the attack? Why did they confiscate footage from a nearby service station and hotel within 4 minutes of it happening?
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED

 

[Yossarian]

I have been doing a little reading of what happened at the pentagon that day. Why did the FBI only release 5 frames of footage of the attack on the pentagon and not 1 frame shows the plane? It would have to be one of the most heavily guarded buildings on the planet and that's all the footage they have of the attack? Why did they confiscate footage from a nearby service station and hotel within 4 minutes of it happening?
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED

No offence but read some more. There is a well documented chain of evidence including radar, eye witnesses, the CCTV footage you mention, and more. Plus there is the not inconsiderably matter of the people on the flight that crashed into the Pentagon. These are real people not just made-up names. But onto the evidence.

The plane was travelling at a considerable speed and the camera in question was not designed to capture this type of thing - it's a CCTV video. If you watch the whole tape you see a police car go past and you get an appreciation for the limitation of the video - even the slow moving car seems to jump between frames. You can't really expect it to capture a jet travelling at full power and more so than you can expect the Zapruder Film to show the bullet in the air.

Your wording seems to be the same as a youtube video I saw. Yes it's heavily guarded - I've been to a similar facility and the checks are pretty strict - and if you try to enter the building you will be challenged. That said, it's the largest office building in the world - not every square metre of the building has multiple cameras trained on it, especially the outside. The purpose of the cameras is not to film a plane hitting it.

Why did they "confiscate" video footage? You can't work that out for yourself? The same reason why the LBJ administration wanted the Zapruder film - it's evidence of a criminal event. It would be a bigger issue if they didn't get it. As I understand it both of those tapes have subsequently been released.

At the end of the day, what is the motive to fake this attack? The WTC had already been attacked by this point. The "evidence" of conspiracies for 9/11 never adds up and falls apart pretty quickly in the face of actual evidence.

 

[jais_tigez]

Maybe I came across the wrong way. Not for one second do I think that this was not carried out by nut cases intent on murdering as many people as possible. Little things just don't add up. Can you provide a link to the footage that has been released coz I can't find it anywhere
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED

 

[alien]

At the end of the day, what is the motive to fake this attack? The WTC had already been attacked by this point. The "evidence" of conspiracies for 9/11 never adds up and falls apart pretty quickly in the face of actual evidence.

i heard a theory that billions of dollars went missing and the only records of where those funds went were in wtc building 7 and in the part of the pentagon that got blown up. its probably b.s. though. i dont remember where i heard that from

 

[Yossarian]

Maybe I came across the wrong way. Not for one second do I think that this was not carried out by nut cases intent on murdering as many people as possible. Little things just don't add up. Can you provide a link to the footage that has been released coz I can't find it anywhere
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED

No problems - it's okay to question these things but I hate seeing people (and I don't mean you) subscribing to these whacky theories. Some things don't add up because of the nature of the events - they didn't think there would be a need to have cameras set up to capture a plane hitting buildings. But the "mainstream" version of events is always backed by better evidence than conspiracies who change their line to suit different evidence or ignore the actual evidence. Anyway here you go:

Doubletree hotel http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vq7Een-tx3s
Citgo Gas Station http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jl1wpFCvQY