9/11 myths debunked . . .

Why is it so important that he Government lie about shooting down flight 93?

No one has yet come up with a logical explanation for that.

Howard.
I dont know if they lied about shooting it down, but it wouldnt suprise me too much if they had.
Id assume that they might just so people didnt get bad images about their own government. National Security and all that.

Originally posted by HowardRoark
Why is it so important that he Government lie about shooting down flight 93?

No one has yet come up with a logical explanation for that.

They wanted the phony cell phone messages and the "let's roll" macho men bs to play
Shooting it down, when no pictorial evidence suggests it ever existed at the alleged crash site, just don't pluck the patriotic heartstrings so good

No black box
No flight recorder
Remember?

Originally posted by Seekerof
And despite what it says there Siberian, the freedoms shared within the US are still among the best and freest in the world.
You live where again?

seekerof

[edit on 11-2-2005 by Seekerof]

Are you living in a egg? The US is the most corrupt country on earth, theres is no getting arround that.
Every intelligent person knows that, what R you-=

The US is not the most corrupt government in the world. I cannot believe you just posted that!

How many countries besides the US have you been to? Do you have any idea what other countries are like?

as posted by motionknight
Are you living in a egg? The US is the most corrupt country on earth, theres is no getting arround that.

"Egg" is good. Shows great character.
Question:
How does "corrupt" have anything to do with the "freedoms" I was speaking of?

Every intelligent person knows that, what R you-=

Huh?
Oh wait....
That was an attempt at humor; I get it.




seekerof

Originally posted by dh
No black box
No flight recorder
Remember?

Flight 93? Both were recovered.

Oh God.. here we go again. Howard, look. I don't really know what kind of background you have but I don't think you are qualified to tell us exactly how the WTC structure should have behaved under the circumstances dealt it on 911 or tell us exactly how the core was constructed. I respect your oppinion but that's all it is.. an oppinion.

"No, no, that is wrong. No concrete was used in the construction of the towers other than in the composite floors slabs. This is quite well known by structual engineers who have studied the design of these buildings, but apparently, not by the BBC editors."

Not so fast Mr Roarke.
I have found so much conflicting information concerning what was covered with what in the WTC core that it's not even funny. But I'll bet my bottom dollar that there was more concrete in the core than JUST the floor slabs. (Will post a bit more shortly) Not to mention, those floor slabs were PART of the core so you can't really look at them seperately and the fire in the WTC was no where as bad that the one in the Madrid and on and on ad nauseum. I also love the way you state the sprayed on fire protection used in WTC was "friable" (Love that word) and that is easily just came off. That's a crock of bull. Have you ever been to the WTC and tried to peel any of that fire protection off yourself? I doubt it. Fact is code at the time WTC was constructed required all spray on fire protection to last for a minimum of 3 hours to a specified temperature. (Got one source stating 2) Did the fires even burn that long? I think not. What about ALL the other skyscrapers (Besides Madrid) in the past that had horrid fires that made WTC look like mickey mouse and didn' colllapse. How were those cores constructed? You simply can't compare the WTC core to another buildings core for 2 reasons.

#1. Unless you have access to some EMPIRICAL data concerning the WTC core construction all you have are oppinions really.. It's difficult to base a comparison on oppinions. I'm currently working on a write up concerning the WTC core relating to other building cores involved in fires but it's difficult with all the contradictory information found on the web. I've gone to the library and found some "interesting" information from many years ago that will shed some interesting light on what's REALLY going on when it comes to the WTC core. (Will post something on this later when I have something more concrete) lol

#2. The fire in the WTC was not as bad as Madrid and DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO BURN LONG. (The Madrid fire burned for 20+ hours)What about all the other INTENSE (besides madrid) skyscraper fires that didn't cause buildings to collapse? How were THOSE cores constructed? You simply can't argue this. There were no (Or VERY little) flames visible from the outside at the WTC conflagration.. Trying to say that's because those floors were huge (according to you) and there had to have been hot spots is silly. Huge is a relative term and 1 acre is really not that huge when it comes to a fire. The 1975 fire in the world trade center had flames CLEARLY visible from the outside. (Oh, and it didn't collapse back then BTW and it burned for 3 HOURS AND had 70+ floors above the fire zone) How is then that the 1975 fire had flames VISIBLE at the windows but on 911 you really didn't see any? One things that's obvious.. (To some people) is that the fire really didn't have the "chance" to get that bad did it?


And also, I wish some people would stop spouting off about how much jet fuel was left behind in the buildings after the crashes when you can't really prove that. (I can't really either) I mean, those planes were really moving.. around 500+ mph.. Last time I checked jet fuel has inertial mass just like anything else. I doubt much of it stayed in the toweres themselves. People, look at the videos and all the "Stuff" coming out the other side of each crash and you tell me what went THROUGH the building and what stayed inside.

ugh.. same old stuff.





[edit on 30-4-2005 by TxSecret]

ugh.. same old stuff

Touche!

I keep hearing the same old stuff from both sides of this argument, mostly from the conspiracy side. Same old rhetoric and bad science.

TxSecret,
I don't believe any of the WTC conspiracy stuff, but I must give you credit. You're attempting to research the events and come to a logical conclusion. I respect that. Most of the people on your side are the gullible types with little scientific knowledge who believe anything they read on some quack's website. I have some questions for you about what YOU feel happened on 9/11. Please don't think I'm attempting to mock you or anything. I want to analyze both sides of the arguement.

1. Who do you feel was responsible for the 9/11 attacks? Why?
2. What was the motivation of the orginization who carried out the 9/11 attacks?
3. What data exists to support your answer to question #1?
4. What do you think caused the WTC towers to collapse?

To be fair, I'll post my answers to these questions.

1. I feel Al Qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. I believe there has been plenty of evidence found to support this. There have been countless documents discovered in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and other countries that show Al Qaeda had been planning the 9/11 attacks for some time. Training manuals, computer files, email and cell phone intercepts, etc., all clearly point to Al Qaeda, as well as statements that the group has made.

2. Al Qaeda has a long history of conducting terrorist attacks on US interests. They bombed thw WTC in 93 in an attempt to destroy the towers. They bombed the Khobar towers in Saudi Arabia which was an Air Force barracks. They bombed the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. They launched a suicide bombing on the US Cole. They conducted the Madrid train bombing to try to get Spain to leave Iraq and cause fractures in the US-led coalition in Iraq and against Al Qaeda in general. Al Qaeda hates the US presence in Saudi Arabia, the home to the two holiest sites of Islam, and they will do anything to remove the US from Saudi Arabia. They have attacked the US and Saudi Arabia countless times to try to reach their goal.

3. Data exists in the form of documents found. Training manuals. Al Qaeda members with pilot training. The one-way tickets the hijackers purchased and the fact that they didn't have any luggage with them. The notes and documents left in the hijacker's cars at the airports. Computers that have been seized from Al Qaeda bases, safe houses, and members. Intercepted emails and cell phone conversations. The video shown on Al Jezeera that shows OBL and his croonies talking about how they planned the attacks and how happy they were when they saw it was a success. The testimony from captured Al Qaeda operatives. The intelligence gathered from nations that normally don't cooperate with the US, such as Yemen, Sudan, Chad, etc., not to mention data gathered from countries who opposed the Iraq invasion like Germany, France, and Russia.

4. I firmly belive the impact of the aircraft and the resulting fires brought down the WTC. I think it's a miracle of modern architecture that they stood as long as they did after the plane crashes.

Peanutbutter.. How can it be bad science when no one here seems to have any REAL imperical data to base the science on? I mean will we EVER? hehe The buildings and the "evidence" are now gone. (In short order I might add) I'll admit to trying to compare the WTC core with other building cores to others involved in fires in earlier posts (You DEFFINITELY can't compare the fires) but I'm at a point now that I'm going to save those assertions about the WTC core until I have more concrete information. What do I think caused the buildings to collapse? Explosives. I really didn't think too much about the whole thing up until about a year ago... A friend of mine has been up in arms about WTC building 7. He kept twisting my arm about it and I finally did a little research and found that there was no way in my book that building 7 came down on it's own. (I may still be a little grey on bulidings 1 & 2 BUT building 7? NO DOUBT in my mind it was razed by explosives) Now the question became HOW could building 7 be leveled by explosives and 1 @ 2 not be? Then there was that explosion in building 6 that happened WAY before 1 @ 2 colllapsed.. Have you guys ever really studied building 6? You REALLY need to look at aerial photos (And videos before the collapse showing #6 "explosion") of this building after it collapsed.. (Building 6 really collapsed twice!) after the "explosion" the perimeter of the building was still standing but the core was "hollowed" out. The remaining "perimeter" of #6 was later brought down. In fact, there was this VERY suspicious looking crater at the bottom #6. I don't really have time to get to carried away in this particular post but I really want to answer your questions Peanut Butter and will get on it when I get back here in a few. I will say this much.. I hope and PRAY that our government didn't have anything to do with 911 and the very thought of that makes me sick to my stomach.. I especially shudder at the thought that bush possibly might have had foreknowledge of the attacks. I really don't think posting in a forum like this is going to give me any absolution but I hope to have some closure in the not so distant future because the doubt of the afformentioned is really hard to live with.

Originally posted by TxSecret
Peanutbutter.. How can it be bad science when no one here seems to have any REAL imperical data to base the science on? I mean will we EVER? hehe The buildings and the "evidence" are now gone.

Engineering is based on well established principles.

I'll admit to trying to compare the WTC core with other building cores to others involved in fires in earlier posts (You DEFFINITELY can't compare the fires) but I'm at a point now that I'm going to save those assertions about the WTC core until I have more concrete information.

just be sure to look at the data as an aggregate.

What do I think caused the buildings to collapse? Explosives. I really didn't think too much about the whole thing up until about a year ago... A friend of mine has been up in arms about WTC building 7. He kept twisting my arm about it and I finally did a little research and found that there was no way in my book that building 7 came down on it's own. (I may still be a little grey on bulidings 1 & 2 BUT building 7? NO DOUBT in my mind it was razed by explosives)

Did that research include studying structural engineering, or was it based entirely on reading conspiracy web sites?

Now the question became HOW could building 7 be leveled by explosives and 1 @ 2 not be?

The question should be how was it that explosives were used without leaving any physical evidence to prove that they were used?

Then there was that explosion in building 6 that happened WAY before 1 @ 2 colllapsed.. Have you guys ever really studied building 6? You REALLY need to look at aerial photos (And videos before the collapse showing #6 "explosion") of this building after it collapsed.. (Building 6 really collapsed twice!) after the "explosion" the perimeter of the building was still standing but the core was "hollowed" out. The remaining "perimeter" of #6 was later brought down. In fact, there was this VERY suspicious looking crater at the bottom #6.

Building 6 now, huh? Ok Got some real data to support this?

Originally posted by ashmok

Originally posted by dh
No black box
No flight recorder
Remember?

Flight 93? Both were recovered.

Oh yeah?
What did they reveal?

HR, you made absolutely no sense in that last post. Building 6? Let me guess.. You've never seen aerial photos of the scene have you? Can you not think for yourself?

I especially love the part"Engineering is based on well established principles."

Imperical data and principles are two totally different things.. You understand this dont you?

As far as proof to explosives being used: I'm not going to sit here and post links to anything. There are alot of eyewitness accounts out there with their own websites stating some very interesting stuff. Have you not noticed also all the investigations denied? I can post a PLETHORA of links pertaining to this. There is a alot we don't know because of "obstruction" of investigations. At this point I've given up on you and you just need to do you own homework. Hopefully you can lean to think for yourself and see the self evident. (I don't think you know what thay means either) Seperate yourself from the sheeple that can't think for themselves and take whatever is spoon fed to them.

Originally posted by TxSecret
At this point I've given up on you and you just need to do you own homework. Hopefully you can lean to think for yourself and see the self evident. (

Nah, he only thinks for the government
He has no capacity to think for himself
His homework is his work

Originally posted by dh
Oh yeah?
What did they reveal?

Enough to play cockpit audio tapes to the Flight 93 relatives, for instance, so I don't think they believe there were no black boxes.

They also revealed enough to form the basis of more conspiracies, because the tape supposedly ends at 10:03 & the crash time is 10:06. So the people looking at that apparent discrepancy seem to think the black box was found, too.

Oddities about New York:
The Port Authority of New York/New Jersey owned the buildings. They have a sterling reputation as being not corrupt, not linked to the Mafia, and generally aboveboard. Right? www.manhattan-institute.org...

A brand new lease was written for a new investor. (random Silverstein link:
www.legalreader.com...
He's making out on insurance. Scam?

Adnan Khashoggi vacated his apartment finally that summer
slate.msn.com...

There was asbestos in the towers. Definitely not in style.
www.nycosh.org...
Tenancy and income were way down. Asbestos abatement procedures deemed too expensive.

Lots of architects and urban designers hated the World Trade Center anyway, thinking it bad design. Mohammed Atta was post-grad in Architecture and Urban design. encyclopedia.thefreedictionary.com...

this is a facinating site and definately not the 'same old stuff'

thewebfairy.com...

Finally, FLIGHT 93 WAS NOT SHOT DOWN!!! It is true that two Air Force aircraft were scrambled to intercept it. They were supersonic near the MD/PA border when 93 went down. I saw an interview with one of the pilots where he talked about trying to cope with the fact that he may have to shoot down an airliner filled with innocent American citizens. He was not given permission to fire at the time the plane went down, and he was too far away to have it on his radar.

Do you want some proof that the plane was not shot down? Are you old enough to remember Pan Am flight 103? It was blown up by Libyan terrorists over Lockerbe, Scottland. If you remember that bombing, you'll surely remember the pictures and video of pieces of the plane, luggage, etc, scattered for what seemed like miles through the fields of Lockerbe. That is what happens when a plane explodes. In the case of Flight 93, the plane hit the ground in one piece and left a BIG crater when it hit. If it was shot down there would be a huge debris field from the missile. Whether it was brought down when the passengers fought the hijackers or by the hijackers themselves when they realized they couldn't fight off the passengers remains to be seen. However, it was not shot down.





Can i just point something out here.
In my opinion you cannot use how the aircraft crashed as definative proof whether it was shot down or not.
air to air missiles are quite erratic, they attempt to follow the target and when they get within a set range explode, attempting to cause damage to the target.
If aircraft pieces were scattered all over the place, as lockerbie, to me, that would suggest an internal explosion was more likely than an external shoot down. Becuase it would suggest large parts of the aircraft simply exploded.
an air to air missile would not necessaraly have that effect, it may do but it is difficult to say for certain that it would have.
I am pretty certain the aircraft could be damaged enough to crash, without
spraying large amounts of wreckage everywhere.
so you cannot rule out a shootdown

Howard why dont we start from the begining.

The flight istructors mention words like "i am still amesed on this day that they managed to fly the planes"
Or
"i can not see how they managed to fly i dont belive it "
This are quotes from the flyght instructors

To get to the buildings first of all they had to know how to fly.

But when u'r failing u'r flight courses and continue to pay for them and the istructorors say "they didint know how to fly we are amased that they managed to fly" than questions pop up .
Or should we just say ohhh nooo the istructors what a dumb bunch of people what do they know.

They didint even know english howard the controls were in english
but forget that just remember they sucked bad at flyng.
To make hummor out of it they didint even know how to drive a darn car
not does it matter just for the record.

Do you know the implications of flyng such a big plane and what would it take since they navigated around america with out ground control and how would they navigate in the first place when they didint know how to fly.

They just looked at the map and said there we go huh? when even a expirianced pilot on such of big plane would have trouble navigateing with out a ploted course set up by ground control.

Please do better if any one is going to take you serios






[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]

[edit on 9-11-2005 by pepsi78]