9/11 - what happened?

[shel90]

Cloggy I'm seeing the same arguments being used over and over again. (Mine included) It's deja vu all over again.

I'm going to have to withdraw from doing any debating in this thread. Not because I can't, but because it's too time consuming and there's enough materials out there where we can form our own conclusions. I've already had my fair of fun doing this in another forum, but it does gets tiring. (and boring)

I will say however, there is a conspiracy nevertheless and there are a few lingering questions that warrants an answer. (Hello, Iraq war?)

And lets impeach Bush already.

Glad that I am not the only one who feels the same about debating on this topic. That's why I stopped participating in this thread...in 2003, I was involved in a similiar debate about 9/11 and this thread had some of the same theories. 9/11 happened and what caused it is something we all probably will never really know.
I just marked it as a very very tragedic event that will be in the history books for centuries ahead.

 

[Cloggy]

Cloggy I'm seeing the same arguments being used over and over again. (Mine included) It's deja vu all over again.

I'm going to have to withdraw from doing any debating in this thread. Not because I can't, but because it's too time consuming and there's enough materials out there where we can form our own conclusions. I've already had my fair of fun doing this in another forum, but it does gets tiring. (and boring)

I will say however, there is a conspiracy nevertheless and there are a few lingering questions that warrants an answer. (Hello, Iraq war?)

And lets impeach Bush already.

Agree...

And regarding the site you quoted:

Conspiracy theorists are taking the above out of context in an effort to mislead readers into thinking the NIST and I are in disagreement. We are not. As I mentioned above, the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down and therefore NOT part of the NIST investigation. The NIST only studied the collapse until "Global collapse was inevitable". Any conspiracy theorist that tells you the NIST said the building NEVER pancaked is lying. The building didn't pancake CAUSING the collapse but evidence is strong the building pancaked AFTER the collapse was "inevitable".

So they came up with a theory how it could have happened... and then stopped.
That the building fell at freefall speed was not interesting, because it allready fell. "Who cares how fast.... let's investigate that, because it could have a conflict with our theory....."

And then, the drawings sometimes "forget" the center colums, sometimes they are drawn. But never they have been part of the simulation.

And another remark: They discuss the core and say

"Note what's left of the core with most of the debris from inside the building around it. This photo was taken in October 3rd so many of the columns were already picked up but the major debris is located closest to the core."

So, that was the only picture they could come up with.
I'm sure there have been some pictures BEFORE they started to clean up!!!

I understand their problem. It's difficult reasoning against logic!!

Well, I'll have to look on that site for a WTC-7 excuse, because you didn't give an answer....
I agree that the easy way out is not answering.....

 

[xentar]

Well, I'll have to look on that site for a WTC-7 excuse, because you didn't give an answer....
I agree that the easy way out is not answering.....

Nice try, ain't gonna work on me. Still not going to come back in here to counter-argue the points you made here. It's tempting but I gotta make good use of my time.

And yes, the site does have a page on the WTC-7

 

[Cloggy]

Nice try, ain't gonna work on me. Still not going to come back in here to counter-argue the points you made here. It's tempting but I gotta make good use of my time.

And yes, the site does have a page on the WTC-7

LOL.. it worked....

Yes, been there.... lots of wiggling!

 

[lsfoster]

So Reba linked to this thread, and after 13 pages, I'm almost speechless. I can't believe that people still don't get it.

Here's what it boils down to. People like Cloggy and myself have questions. Perfectly normal, simple questions which arise naturally from the events of that day, and the explanations that have been provided for those events. You cannot make a question go away by asking us other questions which we clearly could not answer. I don't know how many times I saw Cloggy ask "Why did WTC7 fall down?", and Reba's answer was, "What would the government gain by demolishing it?" This not only completely fails to address the original question, but is something you should be asking yourself and possibly the government. Not us.

If you have so many experts, and so many witnesses, and so much evidence on your side, why are there still so many questions that can't be answered? If this is such a clear-cut easy situation to explain, why has the government avoided it for 8 years?

8 years later, there is still no actual evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon. There are still only theories (on both sides) about what brought the WTC towers down. There are so many things that should be so easy to answer, and yet the government doesn't. If they don't have anything to hide, then why are they?

I'm not asking any of you for the answers. I don't want links to any "experts" explaining what happened. Trust me, I've read them from both sides, and I've formed my own opinions. What I do want people to answer, is why you don't think it's weird that the government has done nothing to answer the thousands of questions surrounding that day. Especially when, according to you, it should be so simple to explain everything.

 

[shel90]

So Reba linked to this thread, and after 13 pages, I'm almost speechless. I can't believe that people still don't get it.

Here's what it boils down to. People like Cloggy and myself have questions. Perfectly normal, simple questions which arise naturally from the events of that day, and the explanations that have been provided for those events. You cannot make a question go away by asking us other questions which we clearly could not answer. I don't know how many times I saw Cloggy ask "Why did WTC7 fall down?", and Reba's answer was, "What would the government gain by demolishing it?" This not only completely fails to address the original question, but is something you should be asking yourself and possibly the government. Not us.

If you have so many experts, and so many witnesses, and so much evidence on your side, why are there still so many questions that can't be answered? If this is such a clear-cut easy situation to explain, why has the government avoided it for 8 years?

8 years later, there is still no actual evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon. There are still only theories (on both sides) about what brought the WTC towers down. There are so many things that should be so easy to answer, and yet the government doesn't. If they don't have anything to hide, then why are they?

I'm not asking any of you for the answers. I don't want links to any "experts" explaining what happened. Trust me, I've read them from both sides, and I've formed my own opinions. What I do want people to answer, is why you don't think it's weird that the government has done nothing to answer the thousands of questions surrounding that day. Especially when, according to you, it should be so simple to explain everything.

My friends who were driving on 395 from VA to DC saw the 757 crash into the pentagon. I dont think they would lie about that.

 

[Reba]

So Reba linked to this thread, and after 13 pages, I'm almost speechless. I can't believe that people still don't get it.

Here's what it boils down to. People like Cloggy and myself have questions.

Lots of people have questions. The difference is, we don't all accept the same answers.

I don't know how many times I saw Cloggy ask "Why did WTC7 fall down?", and Reba's answer was, "What would the government gain by demolishing it?"

That wasn't my only reply.

8 years later, there is still no actual evidence that a 757 hit the pentagon.

Yes, there is--parts of the plane and witnesses. If you don't want to accept the evidence, that's up to you.

What I do want people to answer, is why you don't think it's weird that the government has done nothing to answer the thousands of questions surrounding that day. Especially when, according to you, it should be so simple to explain everything.

The government provides information but it can't force people to accept it.

 

[lsfoster]

Yes, there is--parts of the plane and witnesses. If you don't want to accept the evidence, that's up to you.

If it was possible to accept it, I would. But look at this.
http://donsplace.us/pentagate/rotor_found.jpg
This is supposed to be the engine rotor of a Boeing 757.
For another view of this part of the plane, see this picture.
http://www.geocities.com/s911surpri...ight_77/boeing-com-757-767-engine-v-human.jpg
If you think those match up, then that's your choice.

Maybe it's more fun as a game?
Pentagon : Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! - L'Asile utopique - www.asile.org

 

[Byrdie714]

The rotors of a 757 are in layers so what you probably are seeing are different parts of the rotor of the 757.

On impact into the Pentagon, most likely dismantled the whole thing. You won't see it as a whole.

 

[lsfoster]

The rotors of a 757 are in layers so what you probably are seeing are different parts of the rotor of the 757.

On impact into the Pentagon, most likely dismantled the whole thing. You won't see it as a whole.

Apparently not, since despite only damaging the outer layer of the building, all that remained of the plane were scraps of metal, each able to be carried off one person at a time. Take another look at the second picture I just posted, and explain how that plane seemingly disappeared into thin air.

 

[Byrdie714]

Remember when you are flying a 757--think about the fuel. Upon impact, the fuel not only ignites but has the capacity to melt metal--which from your posts I have not seen you take that into consideration.

 

[lsfoster]

Remember when you are flying a 757--think about the fuel. Upon impact, the fuel not only ignites but has the capacity to melt metal--which from your posts I have not seen you take that into consideration.

Ok, let's take the fuel into consideration. Now first of all, let's consider the huge fireball that shot out of the building upon impact (basically the only footage in existence). So if we consider how much fuel was lost in that explosion, we then have to consider that jet fuel at peak conditions can only reach about 1500ºF. This patent states that about 75% of a Boeing 757 is made of aluminum.
Nanocrystalline aluminum alloy metal matrix composites, and production methods - Patent 7097807
http://www.chemicalelements.com/elements/al.html
So the melting point of aluminum is around 1220ºF. Fine. If you want to say that at peak conditions, left unchecked, there was enough fuel left over from the blast to melt the entire plane, fine. I certainly don't have the resources to test that theory. But that wouldn't account for the damage done only to the outside of the Pentagon. For that to happen, the plane would literally had to have vaporized on impact. Now the boiling point for aluminum is around 4500ºF. If you can give any scientific explanation for how the remaining jet fuel immediately reached over three times its maximum burning temperature and was able to basically "disappear" the whole plane (oh, except for the few scrap pieces that were found, and which, by the way, weren't melted at all, despite the temperatures which vaporized the rest of the plane), I'd really love to hear it.

 

[lsfoster]

Some more things to consider, here's the wreckage from a plane that flew at full speed into the side of a mountain.
http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/police-017.jpg
Look at the size of what's left. Ok, fine, maybe since there's snow around, that affected the heat of the burning jet fuel somehow? :roll:
Then take this one. Wasn't traveling at full speed, but caught on fire, and was described by witnesses as "a fireball rolling across the highway". So clearly the fuel was burning full force. And yet, no melted (let alone vaporized) plane.
http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20080920/425.barker.am.crash.092008.jpg

These are all from a recent plane crash in Indonesia. Again, look at the amount of wreckage left over.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/yogya_crash.jpg
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Jul/Week4/15052474.jpg

 

[Reba]

If it was possible to accept it, I would. But look at this.
http://donsplace.us/pentagate/rotor_found.jpg
This is supposed to be the engine rotor of a Boeing 757.
For another view of this part of the plane, see this picture.
http://www.geocities.com/s911surpri...ight_77/boeing-com-757-767-engine-v-human.jpg
If you think those match up, then that's your choice.

Maybe it's more fun as a game?
Pentagon : Hunt the Boeing! And test your perceptions! - L'Asile utopique - www.asile.org

There's no end to this because there is no end to websites that one can post, pro and con.

The Frustrating Fraud: March 2007

 

[lsfoster]

I promise I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I obviously don't claim to know what actually happened that day. Here's what I know: the government presented explanations that don't match the documented evidence from that day, and that in some cases are just scientifically impossible. Does this mean that our government planned 9/11 and that Bush is actually Satan and wants to kill all Americans? No. I don't know what the government is covering up, or why, or even who's acts they're covering. But they are hiding something. I know that there are things the government doesn't and shouldn't tell the general public. But the way that they have handled this whole thing not only makes it look more suspicious, but is also just a slap in the face of every American.

For people to say, "But this had never happened before, so how can you say the science doesn't make sense?" is really just a ridiculous, and almost offensive argument. Science isn't based on whimsy. To say that because every single one of those exact conditions hadn't happened before, the thousands and thousands of examples of exceedingly similar situations suddenly don't apply? Planes have crashed. Planes have crashed into buildings. Other things have crashed into buildings. Buildings have fallen as a result of structural defects, planned demolitions, and things flying into them. When you compare all of those situations, throughout history, they're all consistent. All of them. Because they all obey the same laws of science and nature that apply every other day in the world. Except for one. For this one day, we're supposed to ignore everything that has been learned, studied, researched, and discovered because it doesn't match the story that the government gave us? Sorry, but to me, science doesn't work that way.

 

[Babyblue]

I think it was a little of both.

I will admit I do watch on the Discovery channel. "Demolition" They do weaken the support beams by either drilling holes in them or cutting them. It helps the building to fall down instead of toppling over side ways (hence the pancaking)

I do feel that it was an act of terrorism. It was planned, so the support beams were compromised before the planes hit the towers.

 

[Byrdie714]

Ok, let's take the fuel into consideration. Now first of all, let's consider the huge fireball that shot out of the building upon impact (basically the only footage in existence). So if we consider how much fuel was lost in that explosion, we then have to consider that jet fuel at peak conditions can only reach about 1500ºF. This patent states that about 75% of a Boeing 757 is made of aluminum.
Nanocrystalline aluminum alloy metal matrix composites, and production methods - Patent 7097807
Chemical Elements.com - Aluminum (Al)
So the melting point of aluminum is around 1220ºF. Fine. If you want to say that at peak conditions, left unchecked, there was enough fuel left over from the blast to melt the entire plane, fine. I certainly don't have the resources to test that theory. But that wouldn't account for the damage done only to the outside of the Pentagon. For that to happen, the plane would literally had to have vaporized on impact. Now the boiling point for aluminum is around 4500ºF. If you can give any scientific explanation for how the remaining jet fuel immediately reached over three times its maximum burning temperature and was able to basically "disappear" the whole plane (oh, except for the few scrap pieces that were found, and which, by the way, weren't melted at all, despite the temperatures which vaporized the rest of the plane), I'd really love to hear it.

Remember that this plane was flying from Dulles to LAX when it was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. Therefore with the amount of gallons of fuel and crashing into the building--one would expect chemical reactions vs. crashing into a mountain side as presented in your following post:

Some more things to consider, here's the wreckage from a plane that flew at full speed into the side of a mountain.
http://www.losthorizons.com/Newsletter/police-017.jpg
Look at the size of what's left. Ok, fine, maybe since there's snow around, that affected the heat of the burning jet fuel somehow? :roll:
Then take this one. Wasn't traveling at full speed, but caught on fire, and was described by witnesses as "a fireball rolling across the highway". So clearly the fuel was burning full force. And yet, no melted (let alone vaporized) plane.
http://images.eonline.com/eol_images/Entire_Site/20080920/425.barker.am.crash.092008.jpg

These are all from a recent plane crash in Indonesia. Again, look at the amount of wreckage left over.
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/03/07/knPLANE__1_narrowweb__300x369,0.jpg
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/yogya_crash.jpg
http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2008/Jul/Week4/15052474.jpg

I promise I'm not a conspiracy nut, and I obviously don't claim to know what actually happened that day. Here's what I know: the government presented explanations that don't match the documented evidence from that day, and that in some cases are just scientifically impossible. Does this mean that our government planned 9/11 and that Bush is actually Satan and wants to kill all Americans? No. I don't know what the government is covering up, or why, or even who's acts they're covering. But they are hiding something. I know that there are things the government doesn't and shouldn't tell the general public. But the way that they have handled this whole thing not only makes it look more suspicious, but is also just a slap in the face of every American.

For people to say, "But this had never happened before, so how can you say the science doesn't make sense?" is really just a ridiculous, and almost offensive argument. Science isn't based on whimsy. To say that because every single one of those exact conditions hadn't happened before, the thousands and thousands of examples of exceedingly similar situations suddenly don't apply? Planes have crashed. Planes have crashed into buildings. Other things have crashed into buildings. Buildings have fallen as a result of structural defects, planned demolitions, and things flying into them. When you compare all of those situations, throughout history, they're all consistent. All of them. Because they all obey the same laws of science and nature that apply every other day in the world. Except for one. For this one day, we're supposed to ignore everything that has been learned, studied, researched, and discovered because it doesn't match the story that the government gave us? Sorry, but to me, science doesn't work that way.

Nice to know.

Reba said it best in over the censorship thread--there are going to be things that won't be reveal to the American public due to national security and this is going to be one of them due to it being the Pentagon.

However the one thing I am impressed about it is that while the Pentagon was attacked--the workers were still working!

 

[lsfoster]

Remember that this plane was flying from Dulles to LAX when it was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon. Therefore with the amount of gallons of fuel and crashing into the building--one would expect chemical reactions vs. crashing into a mountain side as presented in your following post:

First of all, the amount of fuel present does not change its maximum temperature. Temperature is an intensive property. Secondly, I'm not sure what types of chemical reactions you're imagining. Both planes had jet fuel, same with the plane in the other example I gave which crashed while taking off, and therefore had a full load of fuel. If you can find an example of a plane crash where the jet fuel reached over three times its maximum scientifically allowed temperature, then again, I'd really love to see it. And I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, I'm completely serious. As a scientist, the "facts" here don't make sense to me. So if you could present a situation like what you're presenting, that would help.

Also, keep in mind that even if the jet fuel did somehow manage to reach temperatures over 4500ºF in enough time to vaporize the plane before it damaged more than the outside of the building, that 184 out of 189 of the Pentagon victims were identified. Since DNA denatures somewhere around 200ºF (at the highest end of that spectrum, since the melting temperature of DNA depends on the composition), and bone (which generally sublimates) can, under pressure, melt somewhere around 2700ºF, I would love to meet the forensics crew who was able to identify the victims under those circumstances...

 

[shel90]

I dont understand the argument of whether it was a plane that crashed....there were hundreds of witnesses who saw the same thing. A plane crashing into the Pentagon and two into the WTC.

 

[Byrdie714]

First of all, the amount of fuel present does not change its maximum temperature. Temperature is an intensive property. Secondly, I'm not sure what types of chemical reactions you're imagining. Both planes had jet fuel, same with the plane in the other example I gave which crashed while taking off, and therefore had a full load of fuel. If you can find an example of a plane crash where the jet fuel reached over three times its maximum scientifically allowed temperature, then again, I'd really love to see it. And I don't mean that to sound sarcastic, I'm completely serious. As a scientist, the "facts" here don't make sense to me. So if you could present a situation like what you're presenting, that would help.

Also, keep in mind that even if the jet fuel did somehow manage to reach temperatures over 4500ºF in enough time to vaporize the plane before it damaged more than the outside of the building, that 184 out of 189 of the Pentagon victims were identified. Since DNA denatures somewhere around 200ºF (at the highest end of that spectrum, since the melting temperature of DNA depends on the composition), and bone (which generally sublimates) can, under pressure, melt somewhere around 2700ºF, I would love to meet the forensics crew who was able to identify the victims under those circumstances...

Well good luck in your research because all we can do is speculate. By speculating--nothing is going to come out of it. Also in your 4th sentence--you're talking about two planes? Now are we talking about the attack at the WTC or at the Pentagon?

Let's stick to the Pentagon since it was brought up.

As shel90 has pointed out--there were numerous witnesses including some of her friends that witnessed the attack on the Pentagon. Also I think he husband works at the Pentagon, correct me if I am wrong Shel90.

Secondly it will be classified information due to national security.

Third--why are we bringing this up again after 8 years? Just because we have a change in the new administration doesn't necessairly mean that everything will be revealed. There are going to be things that we would know about and other things that would remain locked under lock-n-key.