9/11 - More evidence it was set up by people in the shadows

[Damocles]

..words..

Ok, serious question. What evidence would it take to convince you that this was a plot by the American Government? What would be your "tipping point" so to speak?

...words...

Same question, opposite way round. What evidence would it take to convince you that this was an Al-Qaeda plot in which the US Government had no prior knowledge of?

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Some people watch a couple of conspiracy programmes and they are brainwashed!

 

[Damocles]

Some people watch a couple of conspiracy programmes and they are brainwashed!

Racists believe that the rest of the world is brainwashed by liberal media too, and that their race is really the master race. My point is, "brainwashing" is one of those things that is essentially a lazy way of having an argument. You can't debate "brainwashing", you can only scoff at it. It's like saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, end of!"

One of the reasons that I like buzzer is that he actually goes out and reads up about stuff. He doesn't believe things because "I heard it on the news", he believes stuff because he scours various sources for information. He researches topics without blindly accepting a single source as his master. Personally, I feel that he needs to assess his sources better and his own defence mechanism has created a stubbornness in his opinion but essentially, he's making the effort to educate himself on subjects that interest him.
Then people post on here in one line about how it is all bollocks because is is "well known" that X is Y and present no evidence to the contrary. This tends to frustrate me, more than any other types of post really. The lad does all of this research, stringing together various sources using different mediums, and gets told that he's wrong because he "just is".

I get this same annoyance when a guy like MCFCinUSA, who has obviously done his research into 9/11 in a large way, gets told that everything that he thinks is wrong because "guys in the shadows" do "shadowy things" spurred on by "shadowy figures" in a "shadowy organisation".

Telling somebody that they are wrong without making the effort to back up any sort of a statement about why, is a bit of a cunts trick in my opinion.

 

[scenecreamer]

We've had Dunning-Kruger for someone stupid they're incapable of knowing they're stupid. Is there a term for someone so blind that they don't recognise they're blind?

.

Anosognosia

 

[bernabias home shirt]

Some people watch a couple of conspiracy programmes and they are brainwashed!

Racists believe that the rest of the world is brainwashed by liberal media too, and that their race is really the master race. My point is, "brainwashing" is one of those things that is essentially a lazy way of having an argument. You can't debate "brainwashing", you can only scoff at it. It's like saying, "I'm right, you're wrong, end of!"

One of the reasons that I like buzzer is that he actually goes out and reads up about stuff. He doesn't believe things because "I heard it on the news", he believes stuff because he scours various sources for information. He researches topics without blindly accepting a single source as his master. Personally, I feel that he needs to assess his sources better and his own defence mechanism has created a stubbornness in his opinion but essentially, he's making the effort to educate himself on subjects that interest him.
Then people post on here in one line about how it is all bollocks because is is "well known" that X is Y and present no evidence to the contrary. This tends to frustrate me, more than any other types of post really. The lad does all of this research, stringing together various sources using different mediums, and gets told that he's wrong because he "just is".

I get this same annoyance when a guy like MCFCinUSA, who has obviously done his research into 9/11 in a large way, gets told that everything that he thinks is wrong because "guys in the shadows" do "shadowy things" spurred on by "shadowy figures" in a "shadowy organisation".

Telling somebody that they are wrong without making the effort to back up any sort of a statement about why, is a bit of a cunts trick in my opinion.

I dont need to do any research 2 planes crashed into 2 towers both piloted by terrorist,and likewise the pentagon & flight 93.......People need to stop listening to michael moore!

 

[SkyBlueFlux]

Having been startled by some claims that the plane which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon didn't create a large enough hole to have been a 757, I went and reviewed a couple of websites testimonies.

The conspiracy theorists are saying a cruise missile hit, while the 9/11 commission say it was a 757.

First and foremost, some have argued there was no debris at the site. This is untrue, I have seen enough pictures featuring debris to confirm that there was indeed debris at the site and a quick search will bring these pictures up for you. Here's one for starters though:

Now to move onto the main point, was the hole created by the alleged plane, large enough?

Well having searched on three or four sites arguing against this, I can confirm that the theories I came across supporting the notion of a cruise missile were all based on images of the Pentagon partially obscured by smoke or other objects, such as the one below.

This image was used by one Gerard Holmgren to support the hole being 65 feet wide at most.

In all these websites arguing against there was a wide variety of interpretation between the size of the hole ranging from 15 feet to 100 feet. This disparity alone led me to suspicions, surely if it was clearly too small it would be easy to make out by how much it was too small.

Anyway, after evaluating a few of these I found the arguments compelling but not conclusive so I switched to try and find the arguments for the hole being the correct size.

Eventually I came across this graphic, preserved by a mirror site (link here) when the original site was brought down:

This image systematically uses several composites of before and after photographs to eliminate the places which appear to have 'remained unaffected'. As you can see the person who made this graphic has dedicated quite a lot of time to making sure this is accurate and has no way tried to fudge any results with lax estimations. However, you can see that on the bottom graphic, although the hole appears to be 'plane shaped' it isn't quite broad enough to fit the wingspan of the 757.

The original author came to the conclusion that it appeared the hole would have had to have been made by a smaller plane, but a plane nonetheless. On the same website they argue that the planes wings were not level as it entered the building, but rather one wing was higher up, causing it to splinter and fracture upwards putting it into the higher floors where damage had been reported.

Conclusion: Although not entirely coherent, the most believable evidence I have found suggests that the hole would in fact be large enough for a 757, if and only if, it were to crash into the perimeter in a particular fashion. I have found no contradiction to say the plane could not have crashed in this fashion and so I believe that a 757 did indeed crash into the Pentagon and it was not a cruise missile. This is corroborated by most (if not all) eye witness reports I have found.

I know this is only a small part of the jigsaw of 9/11, but it was one thing that bothered me, so I endeavoured to find out more about it.

 

[Damocles]

I dont need to do any research 2 planes crashed into 2 towers both piloted by terrorist,and likewise the pentagon & flight 93.......People need to stop listening to michael moore!

That comment instantly evaporated anything relevant that you had to say in this thread.

 

[scowy68]

One of the lads at work goes in for all these conspiracy theories.Reads a lot of the Nexus magazine and believes in the illuminati.Thinks a race of aliens was here before mankind and all sorts of other weird shit lol.

 

[MCFCinUSA]

I'm not going to get into all the stupidities of what some people 'argue' or think, but I'll just leave this for you Damo because it should give you another angle which some people on here have tried to express in their own ways:

IF the WTC buildings were blown-up ask yourself how the explosives got in them?

IF the WTC buildings were rigged, ask yourself who did it?

It makes utterly no sense, and should be immediately obvious to anyone with any knowledge of this kind of thing:

- the Twin Towers were huge, and if they were going to be detonated would take a staggering amount of explosive charges to bring them down, and you're talking about truckloads and truckloads of the stuff, along with all the wiring and equipment necessary to get everything into place and make everything work. All of that isn't something you sneak into a building in a brown paper lunch bag when 'someone' is looking the other way. Pro-demo experts have estimated that it could take up to a year to rig that kind of job, not 'a couple of weeks' you see people talking about because they think some sneaky refurb job was going on at the time on such-and-such a floor. The WTC complex, for people who were never in them - and I've lived in NYC over an extensive period (I ate at Windows on the World) and I took my sister on a visit with my bro-in-law to the top of WTC2 - operated around the clock, and had very strict security, especially after the 1993 attempt to blow-up a bomb underneath it. Imagine trying to carry in tonnes of explosives and wiring equipment (I mean, they wouldn't even fit in the lifts all at once, and there were nearly 100 of them, and how many people are you going to need to carry in so many loads in all of those?) you're just not 'sneaking' stuff in here, this isn't a James Bond film where he's blowing up a little refinery with explosives and a detonator he has hidden in his dinner suit, know what I'm getting at?

- secondly, aside from the simple logistics of doing a demo-job and the sheer scale of it, who did it?

The WTC was an active building, who in their right minds is going to rig it (aside from the impossibility of all that happening) for explosion? Other than terrorists, naturally.

Doesn't anyone stop and think to ask that if they were approached by 'someone' to rig the BT Tower for explosion they might stop for a moment and ask "but aren't there are still people in it?"

The sheer scale of stupidities involved in trying to 'think everything through' with regards to the 'idea' that the WTC was an inside job is just on the above alone, ridiculous.

That is why all the other chatter is redundant.

That is why, especially when you have commercial jets crashing into it, the balance of probability lies in a terrorist attack and the aircraft being hijacked, and I guess the probability increases somewhat when you have all the evidence of Al-Q and their involvement and planning, which is not only known to various intelligence agencies around the world (including the Americans) but is also something that Al-Q happened to come out and admit themselves directly.

Only the feeble-minded believe that all American intelligence agencies, operatives, and assigns are all bent, and that somehow the 'Americans' conspired to blow-up their own buildings and cause massive economic dislocation the world over because of 'oil' or 'money', or 'reasons to invade Iraq or Afghanistan' (for 'money' or 'oil' etc etc) it just gets sillier and sillier. I've talked about such rubbish enough in other postings on this site, along with how idiotic are some of the notions of how 'rich' or 'powerful' people behave.

The president of the USA can't even take a piss in private - even if he was deranged and had a total brain fart of a treasonable act (sorry idea) in his head, as he'd be straight-jacketed and whisked away by the rest of the US Gov't. The president can't even get a BJ from an intern without jeopardising his job FFS.

So anyway Damo, it's all nice and dandy waxing lyrical about having an open mind, and I've had many experiences that I'd say aren't explainable in conventional western terms, but thinking (and especially admitting to people in public) that 9/11 was 'an inside job' is only something someone really, really stupid would do, probably because they're too stupid to realise how stupid it all is, and how stupid such an admission happens to be.

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.

Martin Luther King, Jr.

- and when you think of all the terrible things that have happened, 9/11 being one of them, stuff that happened during WWII another, and that less than fifty years ago people were still being publicly strung-up in trees in some parts of the US where I've lived, you begin to get a feel of how dangerous being stupidly ignorant can really be.

 

[BulgarianPride]

MCFCinUSA can you show that the amount of explosive required needs to be very large amounts? We supposedly have buildings, that require huge amounts of carefully placed explosives to be denoted in a controlled matter, falling in this controlled matter by an airplane hitting them at a randomly picked spot. This is why we have science. The amount of energy transferred on the building by the planes and the resulting fires can be calculated. The damage can be calculated. NIST has supposedly shown (computer models) that this damage is enough to take down the buildings in the exact same matter it happened, BUT their model has never been independently verified. Why should i trust NIST? If Jo the scientists does an experiment and he gets result A and every other scientists gets results B, who is right? Now if Jo is the only person that has done this experiment, is his result correct?<br /><br />-- Sat Sep 17, 2011 10:43 pm --<br /><br />

Having been startled by some claims that the plane which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon didn't create a large enough hole to have been a 757, I went and reviewed a couple of websites testimonies.

The conspiracy theorists are saying a cruise missile hit, while the 9/11 commission say it was a 757.

First and foremost, some have argued there was no debris at the site. This is untrue, I have seen enough pictures featuring debris to confirm that there was indeed debris at the site and a quick search will bring these pictures up for you. Here's one for starters though:

Now to move onto the main point, was the hole created by the alleged plane, large enough?

Well having searched on three or four sites arguing against this, I can confirm that the theories I came across supporting the notion of a cruise missile were all based on images of the Pentagon partially obscured by smoke or other objects, such as the one below.

This image was used by one Gerard Holmgren to support the hole being 65 feet wide at most.

In all these websites arguing against there was a wide variety of interpretation between the size of the hole ranging from 15 feet to 100 feet. This disparity alone led me to suspicions, surely if it was clearly too small it would be easy to make out by how much it was too small.

Anyway, after evaluating a few of these I found the arguments compelling but not conclusive so I switched to try and find the arguments for the hole being the correct size.

Eventually I came across this graphic, preserved by a mirror site (link here) when the original site was brought down:

This image systematically uses several composites of before and after photographs to eliminate the places which appear to have 'remained unaffected'. As you can see the person who made this graphic has dedicated quite a lot of time to making sure this is accurate and has no way tried to fudge any results with lax estimations. However, you can see that on the bottom graphic, although the hole appears to be 'plane shaped' it isn't quite broad enough to fit the wingspan of the 757.

The original author came to the conclusion that it appeared the hole would have had to have been made by a smaller plane, but a plane nonetheless. On the same website they argue that the planes wings were not level as it entered the building, but rather one wing was higher up, causing it to splinter and fracture upwards putting it into the higher floors where damage had been reported.

Conclusion: Although not entirely coherent, the most believable evidence I have found suggests that the hole would in fact be large enough for a 757, if and only if, it were to crash into the perimeter in a particular fashion. I have found no contradiction to say the plane could not have crashed in this fashion and so I believe that a 757 did indeed crash into the Pentagon and it was not a cruise missile. This is corroborated by most (if not all) eye witness reports I have found.

I know this is only a small part of the jigsaw of 9/11, but it was one thing that bothered me, so I endeavoured to find out more about it.

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1a3jx_9-11-pentagon-cctv-footage-cam1_webcam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1a3jx ... am1_webcam</a>

<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1a3ky_9-11-pentagon-cctv-footage-cam-2_webcam" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1a3ky ... m-2_webcam</a>