pedro padilla

yeah i think a few guys with box cutters would look like a fuckin no brainer when the other option is fiery death slamming into a skyscraper. self preservation is worth some deep gashes here and there.

blocker22

love conspiracy theories. Unfortunately I didn't like the misic either

zenmaster10665

You guys are forgetting that the hijackers were lying to the people on the plane in order to placate them.

It was only after the last plane found out about the plan, relised that they were all going to die, and did something about it that the hijackers were overpowered.

Movies and conjecture aside, before 9-11 no one had ever dreamed that a hijacked plane would be used as a missile against a building...the people on the first 3 planes probably thought that if they stayed calm, they would go free...as most other hijackings have ended.

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

pedro padilla

which tom clancy book is it where the jet slams into the presidential inauguration? came out in 98 or 99? all his fault. al qaeda reads right wing propaghanda novels sold in airports near you.

anna1985

Im trying to follow all these threds but a lot of these things you guys are saying dont add up! I mean it could have been some kind of cover up for something but I dunno. I mean why would they kill a whole bunch of more people to cover up killing other people, it just dont make since to me, but this is a messed up world. I also dont understand, if the plane was shot down else where, where did it go? and why didnt ne one else notice it? Dont you think something would have came up with some kinda evidence that it got shot down somewhere else, a plane and a whole bunch of passengers cant just disapper. Hmm im not really sure what i should belive but untill something comes up concret that the goverment is trying to fool us for some reason,im going to just live my life cuz really how much can I do bout it anyways? And knowing might lead to more desaster I erally dont want to see.

__________________
Where can I dowload a life?
denial, its cheaper then therapy
If your not living life on the edge then your taking up to much space!
Success always occurs in private, and failure in full view.
Save the Earth, it's the only planet with Chocolate
Learn from your parent’s mistakes use birth control

Rdr4evr

They directed the plane to a secluded area without any humans and shot them down.

Sargeman

So if it's a big conspiracy, then that would mean that everyone in Washington(politicians) is involved correct? Otherwise some politician surely would of come out by now and presented much evidence to the contrary. Surely these same Dems that were against the war would of stepped up and asked questions questioning who really was the culprit for 9/11.

Or have some politicians already done this and I was asleep?

__________________
...because there are no facts, there is no truth, just data to be manipulated. I can get you any results you like, what's it worth to you.....

pedro padilla

this is rather interesting: http://www.kitcomm.com/comments/gold....bweeeeeee.htm

xepherys

Wouldn't it have been easier just to cover up the shoot down by saying THAT plane was hijacked??? I'm not saying something isn't fishy, but all of the explanations that supposedly disprove it being a passenger jet are pretty easy to overcome. Anyone have a theory that actually makes sense?

darkmagnus

Excellent, now when I am on a plane that is hijacked, I can make sure not to leave a dangling participle on the end of my the words I am yelling, as I bum rush the terrorists and become a hero!! Thank you.

Stompy

You're missing the point.

The point is, you have what.. 4 or 5 terrorists with box cutters vs. 100+ passengers and... no one does anything? There had to have been more.. either more hijackers or more weapons.

Sorry, but if someone hijacked a plane with boxcutters, you can bet your ass they would get rushed to the floor. No one's willing to die over some moron with a razor blade. Get a few slices in your arm or... die in a burning inferno? Hmmm..

__________________
I love lamp.

zenmaster10665

I see what you are saying Stompy, but nonetheless, in a pre-9-11 world, when terrorists are telling you that there is also a bomb on board...that you will be fine if you just wait it out...most people would assume that this is a "standard" hijacking....

I dont think this type of takeover would ever work again in the US as people know the ruthlessness of the Hijackers now, and at least some of them would be willing to give themselves to save others...

It was a different situation on the morning of 9-11...things changed after that for everyone.

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

xepherys

VERY good point... and oh so true!

zenmaster10665

I found this on the other thread on Tilted Politics:http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Link to the other thread: here

__________________
"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before.
He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-Kurt Vonnegut

pinkie

After passengers caught news of the other crashes, they did fight. That's why one of the planes went down in a field instead of hitting another building, I've read.

Moobie

Also in defense of the passengers think of this: You're on a plane with a bunch of hijackers taking over the plane with nothing but box cutters. They tell you to remain calm and once your government concedes such and such you can go home. Or just as easily they could say that there's a bomb on the plane and if you resist everyone will die. Or better yet, one of the hijackers grabs a child. Holds the "box cutter" to his/her throat and threatens anyone that moves with having the child's blood spilled all over the place. What American "hero" is going to rush the hijacker's in that situation?

There are many ways to placate someone. There's a lot of people who have already mentioned some very good insights into the hostage mentality. Survival is the driving force and as long as there seems to be a way out self preservation will kick in.

__________________
Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.

We like money. Give us your money you stupid consumer whore.

pedro padilla

bullshit. looks like an official white house press release. even quotes rumsfield. these are exactly the issues being debated. it´s not much of an argument.

pedro padilla

bullshit. looks like an official white house press release. even quotes rumsfield. these are exactly the issues being debated. it´s not much of an argument.
oh sorry, thats all about the zenmasters smopes link.

Moobie

On the conspiracy related topic. There are a few necessary needs for a conspiracy.

One: it needs to be as simple as possible. The more convoluted the conspiracy the less likely it is to succeed. Something of this nature, I will admit that we by no means have all the information on, would take many people involved from different organizations and different backgrounds. Unless the government has found a way to keep all of these people silent it wouldn't work. Killing them would be too obvious, as would paying them off. So I can't figure out how that would be done.

It seems too complicated.

Two: You need to have a patsy. I think this one is covered pretty well with Al Qaeda. Fanatical Islamic group, know for acts of terrorism across the world. But there's a problem with the idea of Al Qaeda being used as a patsy. Bin Laden would probably have been very happy with what happen on 9/11 if he hadn't been involved. But the instant that the American media/government singled out Al Qaeda as the perpetrator they would have done something to deny it. Only a retard wouldn't be expecting America to strike back. If they were responsible they would have nothing to do but take it. But if they were innocent of the attacks they would have tried to shift the blame, to deny it, to keep America from kicking their asses. A patsy only works if you silence him fast. We haven't silenced them. They haven't denied it.

Al Qaeda doesn’t fit the patsy role.

Three: Motive/gain. There has to be something for the perpetrators of the crime to gain from the act. This is perhaps the easiest, and hardest, concept to pin down. There are so many possibilities. Money, power, revenge. If your going to try to pin it on the American government then a few pop out as prominent theories. The best being that of finding a new post Cold War enemy to galvanize the American people. Fear is a powerful controlling agent. I don’t think anyone can deny that the American government has used this tactic in the past on its own people. Money is a little more convoluted idea, like someone posted earlier it’s not that easy to make assloads of money off of war anymore. Peace time seems to be more profitable. Now I’m sure there are those making money off of the war, if there’s a way for money to be made people will figure it out. But to plan it in advance, to provide the catalyst to kick start the war would leave too much of a paper trail for people to follow. My vote would be for the power/control theory.

One thing that really bothers me with the idea that the Pentagon attack was faked is that would have to mean that the WTC attacks were also faked. I cannot believe that terrorists on their own would attack the WTC in this incredibly calculated and well executed fashion. And then the American government cobbles together in a matter of hours/minutes (?) the idea to crash/shoot something into the Pentagon. Why? It doesn’t make any sense. If they shot down the plane as a preventative measure why fake the Pentagon attack? Having to shoot down a civilian plane is bad enough. But to cover it up you do something as stupid as to try and blow up part of one of your own buildings? Not to mention that why would you spend all of the time and precision necessary to fly two planes into the WTC and then go half-assed in attacking the Pentagon? It doesn’t add up either way.

Something sounds fishy about the Pentagon attack, but I have a feeling the reason it doesn’t match what we know about the WTC attacks is because the government is hiding something about that attack. Either something about the way it was carried out or the events that happened afterward. It may have something to do with the Pentagon itself. I’m stretching here. Any thoughts on the matter would be helpful.

__________________
Obscenity is the crutch of inarticulate motherfuckers.

We like money. Give us your money you stupid consumer whore.

locke23

I always thought that it would be scary if the U.S. goverment actually staged a majority of the attacks to somehow give them the justification to go to war. The facts just dont add up. I dont know what they are hiding or why, but they are hiding something, and I do not like it.

Ransom342

Is it not possible that they confiscated the video due to security reasons. Perhaps there were other things visible that would have comprised a security risk such as the location of existing security devices around the pentagon that they would have wanted to keep quiet?

DJMala

I'd like to think that if our government were going to stage attacks to give them an excuse to go to war, they would at least stage attacks from the country they want to go to war with. Regardless of what the administration now wants you to think, Al Qaeda != Saddam Hussein

bonehed1

I agree with your statement here.....I still have some doubts about the pentagon issue though....my uncle flys test planes for the military and his office is actually in the pentagon and he wouldn't even give me the slightest tid bit on what happened....its like all hush hush crap....I still think it was a missile that hit the pentagon but maybe we will never know all the facts....as far as the planes crashing I dont remember seeing any wreckage accept for the 2 towers....it may also be that the government did stage these things which isnt totally out in left field....the government has been known to hide/do things before so why would they stop now....

__________________
Stuff is Good

Willravel

Very good to point this out. Remember, though, it was not the government who named our attackers. It was the media that originally named ossama as the primary subject. In the first few months, the government tried to explain to keep an open mind, but bin ladden was already on the tips of everyones collective tongue. It's possible that they had to change their plan last minute to accomidate the bin ladden theory. That is why the connections between bin ladden and hussain are so weak.

ManWithAPlan

In Plane Site... everyone who enjoyed this thread should watch that documentary.

also,, even if the rest of the plane is light, it is still quite sturdy to support the amount of pressure on the wings during turbulance in a flight, therefore if the wings were attached to the body (invariably, they are), then the wings would have done damage.

__________________
In the end we are but wisps

DJMala

There's a video I saw just a few days ago, I'll try to dig it up, of a test that was done of a reinforced concrete wall. It had something to do with a nuclear reactor, I think, to protect the reactor against attack. To test it, they attached an F4 Phantom to a sort of a sled, and flew it straight into the wall. You can see it in slow motion and from several angles, the jet simply *disappears*. From the side, it looks like it is flying into a tunnel. The only thing left even somewhat intact are the tips of the wings, which stuck out beyond the edges of the wall. You can see them continue past the wall in a nearly straight line, as if they were still connected to a plane.

When it comes to an impact with a solid object, modern aircraft are not nearly as strong as you would think.

EDIT: Found it... http://www.big-boys.com/articles/concreteplane.html

ManWithAPlan

.... the plane was "atomized" because the wall didn't give. if the wall had *given* (like in for example the pentagon) the plane wouldn't have simply turned to dust, it would have been scrapped, but not "ATOMIZED".

__________________
In the end we are but wisps

onewolf

One fatal flaw in this theory involves comparisons between this crash and other crashes. This crash is most certainly different than most other crashes for a very big reason: Most airline crashes occur at low speeds in a situation in which the pilot is trying damn hard to land the plane or in the very least, minimize impact. The pilots on this one of course were doing the opposite - they wanted to maximize impact.

Thus, one would certainly expect the crash scene of an injured plane with a capable pilot to look much different than the crash scene of a plane in perfect operating condition moving at maximum velocity aimed at a single point of impact.

The "crashed" plane would leave lots of destroyed ground (the makeshift runway) and lots of plane parts where the plane comes to a rest/crash.

So to look at some normal crash sites, like the video does, and compare them, doesn't make much sense. A good crash site to compare this with would be the ValueJet crash in the Florida everglades. That one nose dived and hit the ground at similar speed to this flight 77. It also disintegrated to some extent, although much of the plane was found since swamps are much more forgiving than 16' reinforced concrete/steel walls. Absolutely no bodies or body parts were recovered from the ValueJet however.

This also is key in terms of the sound people reported. Everyone quoted as saying it sounded like a missle and not like a plane - well those people, just like you and I, have never actually heard an airplane going 500+ mph within a few hundred yards of them. It would most certainly sound like a missle. And no, it would not sound anything like a plane taking off or landing at closer to 200 mph.

Also, different subject, somebody mentioned some crap about no actualy list of passengers. Wasn't neo-con Barbara Olson on board?

Anyway, keep these thoughts in mind as this lively discussion continues!! It's a fun theory - I like it. I don't buy it, but I like it.

ManWithAPlan

the video wasn't just a crash, it was a plane going at 500 miles on purpose into a reinforced concrete wall - sounds pretty simular?

__________________
In the end we are but wisps

onewolf

Aha - found a couple of valuejet everglades pics.

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/photo.shtml



http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/vj592/2.shtml



Gee whiz - where's the plane? Maybe this too was a conspiracy theory? I see less signs of an airplane crash in the second picture than I do in the pentagon.

onewolf

I was referring to the crashes the video shows when it says "crashes leave debris and destroy land." No those would not be simUlar to a 500 mph plane steered into a single point of contact.

I have one question for all the folks quoted in the video that "it sounded like a missle." Exactly how many missles have they heard before? My guess is that they've never heard a missle, or a jet aircraft at 500+ mph from close range. Thus how would they know the difference when they heard one for the first time in their life? Answer: they didn't - it's just that the sound was so different to them than (1) a plane landing or taking off or (2) a plane traveling 500 mph that's 20,000 ft in the air; that they guessed it sounded more like what a missle would sound like.

niethan

Well, most peaople have seen movies.. and I believe most movies are fairly realistic in that matters.

Willravel

Onewolf, in response to your sounds like a missle question, it's quite simple. How fast are you going if you are on a regular civilian communter flight? I would guess that you are somewhere between 350 and 500 mph. Bing in the cabin does decrease the decible level of the engines, but it does not change the pitch and general sound. Therefore, anyone who has ever been on a plane knows what a plane sounds like. As for what a missle sounds like, go ahead and watch CNN if you want to know what a missle sounds like. I'll bet that sometime in the next 48 hours, you will get to see, and hear, a missle. Aside from CNN, most people can safely assume that a missle sounds more like a jet fighter's engine than the engine of a 757.

I know that a plane sounds different when going 500 mph at a much much lower altitude, but it is not so much different as to sound like a missle. The 500 mph mark is also just an estimate, as no one but the pilot knows the actual speed.

As far as the atomization, the 'plane' was not atonized. Remember seeing the picture of the inner engine? Actually it was the wrong size to be the engine from a 757.

onewolf

Now this is rich. You're telling me that the sound of a plane passing you at 500 mph is the same that it sounds inside the plane? You have some serious physics to read up on before any more "quite simple" answers. Start with the chapter on "sound and speed of sound." At 500 mph, you are hearing a fraction of what someone being passed hears. I live near a Navy flight pattern for F-15 fighters. About 3 days a week, a pair passes very low - it's an exciting event for anyone the first time they hear it - and their first reaction is always the same: they duck quickly, look up and around, and say (either verbally or with facial expressions), "what in the hell is/was that??" Trust me - it sounds like what we all assume a missle sounds like. And it doesn't sound anything remotely like the hum of engines that you hear inside the plane. Note that pilots don't hear the sonic boom their planes generate when they pass mach 1. It's because the sound is behind them.

My point is, the first time you hear a jet plane go by at 500 mph at reasonably close range, your first reaction is certainly not, "oh - a plane". My other point is that anybody who says, "it sounded like a missile" is only guessing since none of those people have ever heard a missile.

Blasa

Both the PA plane and the Pentagon planes disappeared. I have been thinking this from the time the actual events were first reported. Especailly PA - I mean, plane crashes leave evidence of a *plane* and there are no planes evident in either of the supposed *plane crashes* in PA or at the pentagon. I loved this link. Thanks. I hope we find out the truth one day.

onewolf

Again, the ValueJet everglades plane "disappeared" also. Is that a government cover-up too?

I am curious, just to get an idea of what we're dealing with here - how many of you don't believe the holocaust occurred, or that Neil Armstrong walked on the moon?

Mr. Pink

Wow...
Just... Wow...

1st things 1st... How fucking delusional do you have to be to believe this shit? They shot a plane down because they were afraid it was going to hit the White House, BUT instead of telling the American public that, they fucking covered up the wreckage from a downed 757-200, then immediately launched a missile to hit the Pentagon... Wow... That's the stupidest thing I think I have ever read... Consider this... Let's say that the gov't shoots the 757 down... Assuming that they would be reluctant to tell the American people that they followed protocol and took what could be assumed to be a hostile aircraft down over thoroughly restricted airspace... Why would they then send a missile to crash into the PENTAGON?!?!?!?!?! why not crash in front of it, into another building... into the ocean... That part of the theory doesn't hold true... Consider the heroics that we heard so much of from the Pennsylvania flight, would it be too much of a stretch to assume it happened on two separate flights?

That is, assuming that you can't see the simplest fact for the most likely one to be true... Keep it simple, stupid...

Edit:
Would some of you please start to give out at least partial résumé’s as to why you are qualified to say things like and other type bullshit... Do you design or assemble airplanes for a living? Are you an aircraft mechanic that specializes in commercial airliner work? Or are you some fat dweeb who thinks he knows everything?
Edit 2:
Untrue... The outer cabin would speed the sound waves and when they were released back into the inner, they would sound adversely lower, more of a "hum" And if you've ever heard an aircraft of that size take off; you would definitely experience the "scream" of the engines... Assuming the terrorists were trying to cause maximum damage to the Pentagon, they would have throttled all the way forward, therefore causing that same "scream" we are all so familiar with.

Edit 3:
To forestall any such remarks, here is my mini-résumé , as it pertains to what I have said. I am a physics/music education major in college, and I am currently enrolled in 2 different acoustics classes, so I DO know what I am talking about in my 2nd edit. And the rest is pure reasoning, and not a bit of fat dweebishness...

Willravel

Calling people stupid on TFP is a personal attack and is against the rules.
Now, let's disect this. You say that the government shot down the 757 and shot a missle into the pentagon. The fact is that there was not a 757 that hit the pentagon, whether the plane was shot down is a matter of opinion. I personally have no idea what happened to the plane if there was one. As I am not a big fan of reposting, I suggest you read one of my lengthy posts for an explaination for my belief that a 757 ddid not hit the pentagon.

Of course not. Just as you probably have no direct knowledge of airline mechanics...therefore you can't say that we are wrong. The information such as the size of the engine is redaly availble online, so go look for it. In on of the pictures taken at the pentagon crash, the engine is next to a person; very useful for figuring out the size. Compare that to the specs you can find online, and you will see that even esaimations aside, it is not possible. I know as much as I learn. Don't call me a 'fat dweeb'.

Do you know what a missle sounds like?

Your dissrespect is blatent and uncalled for. I have not wronged you, as no one else on this thread has wronged you. You need to go and read the rules of TFP. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=45061 (part II, Section B specifically) People can and do get banned for posts that are blatently dissrespectful. As you are new, I would just like for you to know the rules so that you do not get banned right off the bat.

If you have more questions you need answered, I'd be glad to inform you.

Booboo

Everyone interested in this topic should go out and rent/buy the dvd called "911, in plain sight" it basically goes over all of this with some really good footage and fairly unbiased information, they present no conclusion just the evidence of "mistruths" about what we were told and other possibilities. I thought it was really well done, though the guy talking during the whole thing is kind of boring to listen to (I think he's the host of the radio talk show "The Power Hour".

Some things they mention that I havn't seen on here yet is the possibility that the plains were not passenger planes. Multiple witnesses close to the towers that reported seeing no windows on the planes.

There was also some live footage shown right after the first plane hit the tower (they were doing an interview with tom clancy) that shows a huge plume of smoke come from the bottom of the towers. This footage was never shown again on TV.

The one other good argument about the pentagon senerio is that the plane was supposedly a transcontinental flight, meaning there was a large amount of excess fuel on the plane when it hit. I think the number they gave was somewhere around 8,600 gallons. The fuel used in those planes has a BTU rate of something like 86,000,000 and if it had been ignited would have burned at around 3000 degress fahrenheit. A blaze like that would take a long time to put out. If for some reason it had not ignited, it would have called for a very large clean up as that much fuel is considered an environmental hazard.

Also, when the pentagon was initally hit by this "plane" the roof was still completely intact, it wasn't until later(not sure how long) that the building collapsed. The 757 is I think 44ft high and the pentagon is 73ft high. Unless the plane rolled into the side I am pretty sure there would have been some contact between the tail and the roof line. No damage was seen in those initial pictures (before it collapsed) to support a plane hitting it. Some of the windows above the hole made werent even broken.

There is a lot of other stuff in there as well, and they go into more detail about the stuff mentioned above, I just wanted to put in some of they key points incase you dont get to see it. I definately recommend watching it if you are interested.

Ignore any mis-spellings.. =P

Oh and if any of this is repeated, I'm sorry but I havn't gone through the whole thread yet... reading off and on at work, and am writing this during my lunch.

__________________
"Your life is yours to live, go out and live it" - Richard Rahl

Willravel

On the 'What happened on 911' thread, there is a link to a site where you can download a ~120 Mb movie file of In Plane Site. I would reccomend you show it to friends and family. It's a good way to see how open minded people can be.

One link that the video missed is that the FEMA report explains how the fire from the crash melted the frame of the building, however the same fire basically put itself out at the pentagon. They used the same fuel. Go figure.