Concluding that 9/11 is a Government Conspiracy is Grotesque

reply to post by FlySolo


Yeah, I didn't see any wings in the photo. They just show some measily little piece of debris that could have been inserted graphically with software. Where are the wings?

The reason it cost 20 million dollars for the NIST to come up with the investigation results was because they needed a lot of time to cover the truth with software, paying people to tell lies, and making sure that their stories even sound credible to the engineers. There are just too many questions.

BUT THE POINT IN THE END SHOULD BE THAT EVEN IF the government did not directly attack America, they certainly encouraged it! The return of Pearl Harbor!

Don't tell me the government didn't know about it! That would make the US look like the greatest intelligence failure in the history of the world! The US can spot and find anyone and anything as long as they want to! This is the 21st century! Stop kidding me!

They hunted down and killed dozens of leading terrorists, but no one can find Bin Laden? Oh, they don't want us to know he died? Well, they certainly wanted everyone to know Saddam Hussein died!

9/11 was conducted from a cave in Afghanistan? You can't contact anyone in the desert, nevermind a cave, not with GPRS and not with 3G! I worked with security equipment!

reply to post by weedwhacker



No no, wait a minute here. If you want to get into a debate about the laws of physics then fine. However, Popular mechanics clearly states SHEARED off. Not crumpled, dissolved, destroyed, pulverized, etc etc or any other synonym. They said sheared. Period. If they want to go out on a limb to protect and defend the official story, then don't you think they would have given a better explanation?. Sounds like their answer was the best fitting. Don't you think?

Sure, I can see the wings vaporizing into dust after hitting a reinforced concreted wall at 500 km/hr. But, then we will get into a debate at how just incredible it would be to maneuver a plane that big into position at those speeds so low to the ground without busting up prior it hitting.

Lets talk about flight paths shall we?

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/28827b7c5230.jpg[/atsimg]
[edit to show SHEARED wings on 7-9-2009 by FlySolo]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by FlySolo]

[edit on 7-9-2009 by FlySolo]

Pathos i have a question for you.

you talked about how it makes NO SENSE AT ALL for a president/goverment to do this to there own ppl. It's beyond you why anyone would do that to anyone.

how much sense does it make that a couple of arabs one day get up and say "hey, lets just go hijack a plane and fly into something...hmmm....O O i know how bout the WTC!!" O_o???

either way it's not going to make sense, the difference is there is more proof of the goverment doing it then the mastermind osama

reply to post by MightyAl

The buildings were designed to survive plane crashes and jet fuel fires thus contradicting NIST’s predetermined theory.

Building designer John Skilling states that “our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel [from a plane impact] would dump into the building. [But] the building structure would still be there.”

This is oft-used, and stated as IF it were a foregone conclusion.

What are the specifics used by the designer, John Skilling? You see, ALL must be studied in context. Where I'm going here, is this: Mr. Skilling (and I assumed others on his design team) assumed a Boeing 707 impact. OK, makes sense because the B767 didn't exist yet. B707 big and heavy enough to be generally comparable.

EXCEPT: The speeds. Did Mr. Skilling and his team anticipate, and design for, a very, very high-speed impact? A simple undestanding of airplane speeds at about the 1,000 foot level, and below, in NORMAL operations would have had the designers conclude that any accidental impact would occur at much slower speeds than were seen on 9/11.

An impact just after take-off, when the jet is most heavy, because of fuel, would see airspeeds in the 150-200 knots range. Same with arrivals, below 1,000 feet. In fact, at 1,000 feet most large jets are fully configured for the landing, and slowed to normal approach speeds. On departures, the clean-up and acceleration to normal climb doesn't begin until PASSING 1,000 feet.

SO, knowing this, it must be calculated into the equations. The airplanes inflicted substantially more physical damage to the structure of the buildings because of their velocities. This had to have more of an effect than was anticipated.

...so why weren’t alternative hypothesis such as controlled demolition examined as part of the NIST study as even a remote possibility?

Well, THAT is what all of the "Truthers" are trying to do...too bad most of their efforts rely on junk science. As to NIST? Well...anyone with the knowledge of how extensive a project it would be to pre-plant sufficient material to achieve a CD of BOTH the Towers would pause, and realize how ridiculous the notion is, and not waste time entertaining the idea. Seems it was more important to analyze the design and engineering, and determine what was WRONG with the design and engineering, so that future buildings won't be so prone to collapse.

How can we explain similar major fires such as the fires in Beijing and Madrid? Those building's structures were still standing after being burnt down.

Illogical comparisons. Very different construction designs, and techniques from those buildings and the Towers. AND no additional damage from impacts in Madrid and Beijing.

Like all of us, I thought the fires would continue to burn upwards, exhaust themselves or eventually be put out, and the buildings would be repairable. The energies of the force of impact weren't readily apparent as seen from the distances we saw. The extent of damage appeared, on the outside, to just be the facade. I don't think any of us understood the design concept, and how much the buildings relied on the tensile strength and support in combination of all the exterior framing...because there really was NO interior framing!! (Unlike those buildings in Madrid and Beijing). Only the central core, which to my untrained eye would be the equivalent of the spine in a Human, with the supporting muscles and ribcage representing the outside structure of the Towers. Cut the muscles, break the ribs, and you lose a lot of structural integrity.

Especially, in the second Tower hit, since the gash was off-center. That must have put a tremendous strain on the central "spine" columns. Heat from fire, steel begins to lose strength. (NOT melt, but the heat altered its metallurgical stability, for sure).

Once collapse was initiated, after enough failure points overwhelmed more, then it became a cascade, with gravity providing all of the energy. BECAUSE of the mass, and its potential energy via gravity. All understandable in physics.

Finally, IF there was a planned CD....dontcha thnk the ones doing it would have made the FIRST Tower to be hit fall first?? I mean, that would make more sense. The fact that they fell the way they did points AWAY from planned CD, doesn't it?

removing post, weak argument

2nd line

[edit on 7-9-2009 by FlySolo]

reply to post by FlySolo

Popular mechanics clearly states SHEARED off.

Gotta see the entire context, the full statements made by PM. When/if you just focus on that one word, you do a disservice to understanding.

Oh, and your photo in edit? Not sure if you intended it to be cropped that way, for it's hard to make out. BUT, I'll guess it was that bizjet that crashed in Teterboro during a failed take-off? IF that's the accident, it was a few years ago.

In any event, I can see the fuselage is still intact, though obviously damaged by the ensuing fires.

THAT was a slow-speed impact. It has NOTHING similar at all to the Pentagon crash of the B757.

This is the problem that recurs repeatedly. Inaccurate "comparisons".
___________________________________________________

Edit for some photos:

DC-8 in Sacramento, CA. Where are the wings, they "sheared off" on impact:





El Al B747 into an aprtment building, in Amsterdam. At least it's a similar event, although likely, again, much slower speed than on 9/11:




A DC-9, Cerritos CA. Result of a mid-air with a Piper Cherokee, the DC-9 impacted far less than 450 knots. It was on approach to LAX:




An airplane that impacted a granite wall. Where are the big pieces?









[edit on 7 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

It's a fact the CIA manipulates other govts for the benefit of so called "US interests". CIA agents use plants, moles, double agents.. whatever.. through bribery, black male, threats, murder and all that good old American value stuff.

Why then is it so hard to believe that another country (Israel / mossad) wouldn't do the same thing to the US? in part for their interests? It's not like the US govt is "manipulation proof", a 5th grader can take a brief look at special interests, wall street & DC "lobbiests" to figure that out.

Back in 1985 it was predicted Israel would manipulate the US into a ME war, and once our resources were drained "they" would crash our economy. The person who wrote about these alleged plans was murdered. Link

It wouldn't take "everyone" in govt to be in on it, our CIA doesn't recruit everyone in foreign govts, it only takes a handful of influential people in the right places. Like dick cheney and his shadowy overlord neo-clown crew perhaps?


20-year USMC infantry / intelligence officer, 2rd ranking civilian in U.S.M.C Intelligence, and former CIA clandestine services case officer: Cheney Responsible for 9/11

Once the "official 9/11 story" is put out there, even if it's far fetched.. like it was a few dirt urchins with box cutters , it becomes exactly like the "official" stance on marijuana. Decent people who know better will go in public and, with a straight face, belch official talking points about weed being worse than crack, horrible in every way without knowing a damn thing on the subject.. They tow the govt line, spew the official propaganda.. because if they dare have a different opinion, they get reamed.. it's career suicide.

Just ask Obamas whatever czar with the nerve to use freedom of speech doubting his bosses 9/11 party line... letters were written, hostile speeches made, investigations promised... silly DC drama of the highest order to ensure silence.

The horrific damage done to humanity because of this lie is too big now, the US govt elite knows if the real truth came out.. a-lot of high profile DC mafia lackeys would face genocide charges, both parties and the USA would lose any sliver of credibility remaining, pissed off Americans would call for attacking Israel.. there might even be revolution. So despite being an open murder case, by design the govt allows all new evidence to go officially un-checked and enter the bizarro world of "conspiracy theory".

reply to post by weedwhacker


Yes I am aware this was a slow speed impact. I wasn't making an attempt to compare the two regarding air speed. Just showing the wings. Besides, PM even go on to say the "other" wing sheared off when hitting the ground. There is no impact on that one so shouldn't it be at least somewhat intact?

reply to post by FlySolo

I suppose you'll try to say the structural integrity isn't the same.

Not the "structural integrity". The designs of the buildings are very different.

Even steel frames will be overcome by sheer force of speed and mass.

Again, the outer walls of the Towers were designed to be strong in a DOWNWARD direction. The central core supposedly providing the most support. The exterior walls were hollow steel structures, BOLTED together I'm told with mostly one-inch diameter bolts. The attachment points (bolts) would have been the weakest link in the whole shebang.

You should look for some of the construction photos, as the building was being assembled. It was an "innovative" design, I think if you investigated you'd find it also used less material than more "traditional" construction techniques in high-rise skyscrapers. I think there may have been an attempt at some cost savings, there too.

AND, it occured to me, not sure anyone else brings this up (Architects? Engineers?)

When you look at the exterior sections as they were assembled, you can see in their design that they were pre-assembled subsections components, somewhere else, before being craned up into place.

This would indicate to me that the sections were WELDED together, from the various steel "tubes" (actually more like squared-off "tubes"...rectangular).

I've always assumed that the welds would be a weak point, as compared to the actual steel itself. AND the joints of the sections were staggered, vertically.

Again, the whole thing was meant to maintain most of its integrity via gravity, as I'm sure compression played into the design stability. Naturally, there is built-in designs for the wind effects too. AND, wind can be a very strong force, as it acts on the entire side of a structure. BUT, a smaller, more dense mass of metal traveling at 450 knots??? More concentrated destruction, in a smaller area. Something's gonna have to give.

Originally posted by Pathos

reply to post by spacevisitor

 

Here is your answer:

I read the information [see below] regarding the pentagon attack in the site you provided.

Big Plane, Small Holes

Claim: Two holes were visible in the Pentagon immediately after the attack: a 75-ft.-wide entry hole in the building's exterior wall, and a 16-ft.-wide hole in Ring C, the Pentagon's middle ring. Conspiracy theorists claim both holes are far too small to have been made by a Boeing 757. "How does a plane 125 ft. wide and 155 ft. long fit into a hole which is only 16 ft. across?" asks reopen911.org, a Web site "dedicated to discovering the bottom line truth to what really occurred on September 11, 2001."

FACT: 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.

Debris

Claim: Conspiracy theorists insist there was no plane wreckage at the Pentagon. "In reality, a Boeing 757 was never found," claims pentagonstrike.co.uk, which asks the question, "What hit the Pentagon on 9/11?"

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/bf043554fb6b.jpg[/atsimg]

Aftermath: Wreckage from Flight 77 on the Pentagon's lawn — proof that a passenger plane, not a missile, hit the building. (Photograph by AP/Wide World Photos)

FACT: Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon after the crash and helped coordinate the emergency response. "It was absolutely a plane, and I'll tell you why," says Kilsheimer, CEO of KCE Structural Engineers PC, Washington, D.C. "I saw the marks of the plane wing on the face of the building. I picked up parts of the plane with the airline markings on them. I held in my hand the tail section of the plane, and I found the black box." Kilsheimer's eyewitness account is backed up by photos of plane wreckage inside and outside the building. Kilsheimer adds: "I held parts of uniforms from crew members in my hands, including body parts. Okay?"

www.popularmechanics.com...

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/c1fd9f7d50b4.jpg[/atsimg]

Look what is stated here.

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.

You really believe then that the fuselage in its whole length and with all in it, penetrated itself due that whole of 75 ft. wide deep into the building, but that the wings (and I assume that must also has happened to that huge tailfin and engines) changed into something that was closer to a liquid than a solid mass and disappeared almost completely into the walls.

And despite all that, you really believe it is possible then, that that piece of fuselage debris as shown in the picture, escaped from that hellhole undamaged and coincidently fluttered in a clearly brand-new state in front for all to see on the Pentagon’s lawn.

And despite all that, you come with a thread named “Concluding that 9/11 is a Government Conspiracy is Grotesque” ????

In which you also said;

Originally posted by Pathos
I keep asking myself "What type of human being do you have to be in order to believe 9/11 is a conspiracy?" After pondering this question for a few days, I concluded that there is something seriously wrong with some of you.

Don’t you think that there could be really something seriously wrong with yourself?



[edit on 7/9/09 by spacevisitor]

reply to post by FlySolo

Besides, PM even go on to say the "other" wing sheared off when hitting the ground.

See, I'm not sure PM has it entirely correct in that bit. I mean, just like in all analyses, they could have written something that later turned out to be incorrect, but it remains out there for all to see nonetheless.

BUT, let's examine it anyway:

When did one wing hit the ground? IF it was just a split-second before impact with the outer Pentagon wall, then again its momentum will have carried it forward regardless. It would then do its crumple, smash, shred, utterly be destroyed scenario, along with the other components IN and attached TO the wing.

Actually, for the B757 and B767, the notion of a wing "shearing" off probably brnigs to mind a false image. The "wingbox" as it's called, the main strength that carries through between the wings, as they attach to the fuselage, is VERY strong. The support extends out to a point outboard of the engine attach points. That entire secton is THE most substantial portion of the airplane.

The engines, heaviest single components on the airplane, AND they are pulling with thrust force equal to some 35,000 to 40,000 pounds. The structure has to be able to withstand that.

Also, the Main Landing Gear are attached in the same area. They have to not only support the entire weight of the airplane, but the forces of a hard landing, when those occur.

Therefore, any "shearing" would likely only have happened to the outermost sections of the wings, and, again, so fast as to be imperceptable.

We're talking about a vehicle moving at at least 675 feet/second! (Maybe faster).

People tend to forget that, they have some sort of Hollywood image in their minds I guess. Hollywood action/adventure movies have done more to destroy people's knowledge of science and math and physics than can be calculated.

Just saw a "Mythbusters" episode where they debunked a scene from some movie..."Point break" I think. Maybe it's online.....

EDIT:

Have you seen this example? It's the Ethiopian B767 that was hijacked. Eventually, it ran out of fuel and the pilots were trying to "dead-stick" a landing, choosing to ditch close to the beach. (No airports were within gliding range, I suppose).



Not to be critical of the pilots, but as you can see dragging one wing in the water isn't a great technique in a ditching.

Notice, though, how the entire wing tends to remain in nearly one "piece".

I'm told that part of the reason for that much destruction was that the left engine struck a submerged rock outcropping. Engines are supposed to shear off, too. BUT, it doesn't always work as designed, eh??

BTW, his airspeed there? I didn't see any flaps/slats extended, so it would be somewhere around 185-195 knots minimum clean wing, at a guesstimated weight of pretty light (no fuel, remember.)

[edit on 7 September 2009 by weedwhacker]

mmmm... i never realized commercial jets had swept wing technology

lol

this is a first for me

Originally posted by spacevisitor

You really believe then that the fuselage in its whole length and with all in it, penetrated itself due that whole of 75 ft. wide deep into the building, but that the wings (and I assume that must also has happened to that huge tailfin and engines) changed into something that was closer to a liquid than a solid mass and disappeared almost completely into the walls.

And there it is. "Assume". That is where your version of the story fails. Compare your credentials and experiences to the first structural engineer on the scene.

"Blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer was the first structural engineer to arrive at the Pentagon" - Popular Mechanics Article.

I would trust an eyewitness and credited individual who touched the stuff hands on rather than someone who is assuming.

Yes. I believe Allyn E. Kilsheimer's perspective.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

my friend I think what youre experiencing is what most people feel when first introduced to such a theory. We were all brought up being told were part of the greatest and most righteous empire to ever form and we are always victorious because we are the good guys and yada yada yada and we want desperately to be a part of this great civilization, but the sad truth is nice guys finish last. The true heroes of this nation are not on Capitol Hill they are buried in places like Normandy, Okinawa, Arlington, etc. and it really sucks, but dont force yourself to be ignorant because of denial. Deceit is the greatest weapon, and America has perfected its use.

RESEARCH the FACTS and make your own conclusion.

Oh and a newer piece of the puzzle that most people not from the DC area havent heard about- the man who defiantly ordered fighters to scramble on 9/11 was killed when the metro train he was riding on collided with another. The brakes on his train had been tampered with.

Originally posted by doctorvannostren
Oh and a newer piece of the puzzle that most people not from the DC area havent heard about- the man who defiantly ordered fighters to scramble on 9/11 was killed when the metro train he was riding on collided with another. The brakes on his train had been tampered with.

Wow! Still trying to create a narrative to fit your story. You made an assumption based upon something you read from an unknown source.

You also don't even know the man's name. Fail.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by billybob
i'll back you on that, bsbray. in the same breath, it is hard to let baseless insults and plays on emotion go unchallenged in kind.

I didn't let it go unchallenged, I directly questioned it, and immediately afterward OldDragger posted his last post on this thread (or so he said).

If someone has nothing to contribute but trash talk, just ask them why. And if it's because they have no interest in discussing facts or objective data, then they have already lost whatever cause they think they are representing.

Wow! Still trying to create a narrative to fit your story. You made an assumption based upon something you read from an unknown source.

You also don't even know the man's name. Fail.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

correct me if Im wrong, but arent you making a few assumptions as well?

www.infowars.com...

Originally posted by doctorvannostren

Wow! Still trying to create a narrative to fit your story. You made an assumption based upon something you read from an unknown source.

You also don't even know the man's name. Fail.

correct me if Im wrong, but aren't you making a few assumptions as well?

www.infowars.com...

No assumption. I went by the facts.

InfoWars? You need a better source.

[edit on 7-9-2009 by Pathos]

Originally posted by Pathos

Originally posted by spacevisitor

You really believe then that the fuselage in its whole length and with all in it, penetrated itself due that whole of 75 ft. wide deep into the building, but that the wings (and I assume that must also has happened to that huge tailfin and engines) changed into something that was closer to a liquid than a solid mass and disappeared almost completely into the walls.

And there it is. "Assume". That is where your version of the story fails. Compare your credentials and experiences to the first structural engineer on the scene.

I did that, because if I am correct, blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer did not mention anything about what happened to those also quite important and pretty big parts in that particular statement, but if you think that I was wrong, that those parts did not changed into something that was closer to a liquid than a solid mass as blast expert Allyn E. Kilsheimer claimed as has happened with those wings, can you tell me then what has happened with those parts?

And why did you avoided the part in my reply regarding that piece of fuselage debris as shown in the picture, that obviously miraculously could escape from that hellhole and coincidently fluttered undamaged in a clearly brand-new state in front for all to see on the Pentagon’s lawn?

Think back to all the attacks during Clintons term. Perhaps government members may had something to do with it. Cole, Waco, Ok city boming, NYC bombing. And look who's been pushing this left wing attack George Soros.