• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.

9/11 Science Club: Mass Does Not Accelerate as it Accumulates, It Can Only Slow Down

Discussion in 'News & Current Events' started by ManFromUncle, Jan 14, 2013.

  1. Sayen

    Sayen Cranky Old Man

    306
    +24
    Christian
    Married
    The heart of the issue - you think. Unless you're a pilot, or airplane disaster investigator, or expert witness, just having a contrary opinion doesn't invalidate the official story. Idle speculation from non-experts fuels these conspiracies.

    The big question no conspiracy theorist has ever answered for me is this: Just for fun, lets say it was a staged, false flag attack. Why not just claim it was a missile if it was a missile? OR, why go through the trouble to fake an airplane crash, instead of just...crashing an airplane? The damage, especially at the Pentagon, was not irreparable or last, so even if the plane didn't hit the message would still be sent - whether by terrorists or gov'ment agents. So why fake a complicated plane crash....instead of just, oh I don't know, crashing an airplane? If it was a missile, why not spin a story that terrorists had stolen/commandeered a missile instead? The most complicated explanations are most likely wrong.
     
  2. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    ^_^ Ok, "skim" is kind a poetic thing ^_^ But the Pentagon won't squish flat as if a sumo wrestler jumped on me. And if said sumo wrestler came in at a 15 degree angle, it would be a glancing blow, not doing much. Likewise the plane would bounce more than penetrate, and might not even blow up until it landed in the courtyard int he middle.

    If the plane came in at even a 30 degree decline, it would be going so fast this unskilled pilot might likely miss, and steeper than that would be preferable for penetration.
     
  3. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    Ah, David Ray Griffin.

    He seems to be arguing with Popular Mechanics more than anything else, so this must be pretty old.

    The argument that Hani Hanjour couldn't have flown Flight 77 is pretty bogus to me. It's not that his flying maneuver at the end was highly skilled, it's that it was highly reckless, and other pilots have said so. Even his instructors, the ones whose partial quotes are used to bolster the idea that he couldn't have done it, have said that they did not doubt he could hit the Pentagon. Most of his poor piloting had to do with being able to land, which was never his intention.

    If you take a look at the turn-and-descent that is being referenced as a 'great maneuver', it's indicative of something important. Hanjour came in way too high to fly straight into the Pentagon, so he had to loop around and descend to hit it. That's why he ended up hitting the side that he did (which again was a 20% chance, no matter what side he would have hit).

    And the bottom line is still: What else could have hit the Pentagon, and explain how all the light poles got knocked down (which is also reported by several eyewitnesses), how a 2-ton generator got hit and moved toward the building, how all the eyewitnesses saw a plane and not a missile, how all of the wreckage got there within minutes of the crash while people were out of their stopped cars on the highway watching, where Flight 77 and all its passengers went...what else could possibly explain these things?


    Btodd
     
  4. true2theword

    true2theword Newbie

    752
    +21
    Non-Denom
    Private


    because with a plane crash you are killing people from all walks of life and more than likely impacting a greater amount of Americans, making them very angry and willing to get behind a war they normally would care the least about

    theres somthing about killing a mans family that will warant attack from even the most passive man
     
  5. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    Why do experienced 757 pilots say they couldn't have done that particular maneuver?

    Anyway the last link you furnished, sort of an independent NIST report on the Pentagon, was ALL new info to me, so thank you. What it amounts to is I was indeed lied to about the damage the plane did to the Pentagon via all the pictures in the news, and anytime I thought it didn't add up I was completely reasonable to think so. I think it's perfectly obvious that debris was chopped off by a demolition crew before repairs could be made, and its simply irresponsible use of the freedom of the press to disseminate such info to the public as though that's what damage the plane caused.
     
  6. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    If you want to go there, please address this:

    Saddam had violated the terms of his cease fire agreement, giving us every right to strike at will. Why didn't we just do that? Once set up in the region, why not just take out AQ training camps? What benefit did the US gain by any more involvement in AF than that?
     
  7. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    I don't know, but I do know that no matter what crazy theory you propose, there will always be at least a few crackpots who will attest to it. And it seems that people who fall for the conspiracy always take the word of a few over the word over the many.

    I fail to see how you were lied to about the damage; you seem to not understand what you are looking at. On top of that, your incredulity of Flight 77 having hit there fails to provide any answers to the light poles, the generator, all the eyewitness accounts, the plane wreckage, and where Flight 77 and all of its passengers went that day.

    The crash of Flight 77 answers ALL of those questions. The incredulity about Flight 77 crashing there answers NONE of them.


    Btodd

    ETA: The NIST report had nothing to do with the Pentagon. It was the collapse of the WTC buildings.
     
  8. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    Because the pictures spread by the media are of what you are terming "after the collapse." You know, where there's an entire section of the building removed? W/o any explanation that these were taken after ... an entire section of the building was removed, and NOT damage caused by the plane.

    Oh, and the rest of your strawman there is ridicule worthy. And another thing, all "conspiracy theory" means is that people agree on an explanation. Every official statement you adhere to on any and every topic is a conspiracy theory. You should consider that before you go spreading your message of condescension.
     
  9. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    Huh? If you saw pictures of the collapse in the media, then how is this a lie about the damage that Flight 77 caused? It DID cause that collapse. If you feel otherwise, that's your right, but you have no evidence of a 'demolition' or anything else.


    I like how you equate me pointing out all of the things that have to be accounted for, explained, that happened that day...with condescension. I'm pointing out that the crash of Flight 77 explains every one of those facts, and unless someone comes up with a better one, then there is only one reasonable explanation.

    That's the reality of the situation. I didn't call you any names, I merely pointed out the things that have to be explained.


    Btodd
     
  10. true2theword

    true2theword Newbie

    752
    +21
    Non-Denom
    Private


    true but unless a great fear was perpetrated on the American public, they would not of given up so many of their freedoms almost overnight, you may not realize it but if you are deemed a terrorist, you are not granted any of your normal rights as a US citzen, such as a trial or call to a lawyer

    they can throw you in a cell in some foriegn country, and nobody will hear from you again........these kinds of laws would have never passed had a false flag attack not happened
     
  11. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    The entire section removed clean through is NOT what the plane did. A demolition crew carted that off and cut it cleanly away so repairs could be made. Had the press explained this at all, even with 10% of the info presented in your last link, any legitimate skepticism would've either never sprung up in the first place, or been a mere fraction of what we've seen.

    Yah, except I didn't. We need a Wizard of Oz quote at the ready for all these strawmen.
     
  12. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    Are you saying that the only picture you ever saw in the media after 9/11 was photos after some of the cleanup? There were photos of the Pentagon when it was still on fire, while the fires were being put out, right after the collapse, and during cleanup.

    But I did point out all of those things, and you skipped over them to complain about condescension. I'm actually confused about what you're driving at currently...that you actually doubt Flight 77 crashed there, or that you thought a particular photo wasn't being presented as on-the-level by the media at the time, and if people knew then what you know now, the conspiracy theories wouldn't have taken off like they did?


    Btodd
     
  13. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    From this side of the screen, our media pawned off the hole clean through the Pentagon (after extensive clean-up) as having been caused by the plane. I never really had problems with that, being much more focused on the towers, the subway system, and the ensuing wars. Still, that never seemed plausible to me, and I was RIGHT.

    Correct! Not everyone with an opinion contrary to your own is an idiot. Neither is a 757 pilot with 30 some odd years of experience a nutjob, but I digress.

    I never said anything to that effect, although that hasn't stopped people from making that assumption.

    EXACTLY! Responsible use of the reason freedom of the press was granted in the first place (dissemination of information) dictates that the pictures broadcast be accompanied by explanation that this hole is far larger than the damage left by the plane, and what we're looking at is collapse after the fact, rubble having been cleared away, edges having been cut off straight, etc.

    And in this thread there are at least 2 good pictures of the actual hole left by the plane, after the smoke cleared. If our media couldn't get their hands on that well ok, but it seems like they weren't trying. Contrast that with all available footage of the towers on TV non-stop, and its a stark difference.
     
  14. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    I never called you anything of the sort, and I'm starting to think you're a bit trigger happy on the whole getting offended thing. Even when I lay out a great number of things in detail, if you sense a single sentence in multiple paragraphs that you found sarcastic or condescending, then that's all you bring up out of the whole post. Sorry if you don't like my style, but think you're also exaggerating.

    I think it's because you make some statements that are quite unclear about how much doubt you're expressing on a given point, or that the doubt being expressed is not a doubt about whether the event really happened.


    You would have to present whatever past reports you're referring to. Remember, this was all being reported as it happened, and it wasn't often clear what had happened (especially when the media tries to put out reports faster than their competitors, which isn't helpful). But I don't think it's some deliberate lie, or even careless, to have been showing pictures of the Pentagon at various stages of the catastrophe. People wanted to see what was going on.

    It's also the duty of each person to seek out information. How come I was able to link you to a thorough outline of evidence for Flight 77 crashing there, and you had never heard of some of the points brought up? Is that the media's fault, or do you at least partially bear some of the blame for not knowing?

    And please...don't take that last part as condescension; it's a legitimate question. We all have some sort of responsibility to actually check the facts before we go throwing out all manner of careless speculation, and that's my main problem with the Truth movement (not saying you're part of it, either). This information has been available for years, and it's not that hard to find if one really is serious about answering questions.


    Btodd
     
  15. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    Exaggerating? Here's what you said:

    Please explain how I "exaggerated."

    So which is better: clarification, or assumption?

    Of course, but to show the pics of the HUGE section of the Pentagon completely missing, and to represent this as the plane crash w/o any further explanation, is asking for trouble if not outright disinformation.

    Correction, I hadn't heard ANY of the points brought up. As I've said before, I never really paid much attention to the Pentagon and flight 77. I did listen to accompanying dialog when pics and footage was shown on the news at the time though, and if you'll recall that was no major thing that dominated the airwaves for a few days - it was MONTHS. I watched the boob tube entirely too much that whole time, in basic shock, while my own business stagnated, with no reason to think I could change that for the better.

    I don't see this website as functioning that way. I think its perfectly acceptable to ask questions about whatever, and it seems designed for exactly that. Your reaction to that is mirrored by some Christians who diss non-Christians for having basic questions, and I jump their case about that, too. A person with a question is not required to "be responsible." A person with a response is responsible to be civil, hopefully correct, and thought provoking is even better.
     
  16. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    The phrase 'you propose' in that sentence is not referring to the person I was responding to personally, it's meant in the sense of 'whomever' is proposing it (he had linked to a video of someone else talking). And yes, there are such things as crackpot theories. I try to give questions the benefit of the doubt as to being sincere, but there are some things that are so inane that they don't deserve a serious response. Notice that I DID, however, give a serious response to the actual points brought up.


    Clarification, up to a point. After a while, it's also the duty of the speaker to articulate their points more clearly.

    I still don't know what you're referring to in regard to past media reports. I remember seeing pictures of the crash right after it happened, as well as later pictures of the collapsed portion, and being told it had collapsed in on the impact zone. It didn't lead me on any path of disinformation or confusion.

    I don't think all of the details were fully collected and formed into a full timeline for quite some time. But things like the light poles being knocked down were reported by witnesses in the media that day and in following ones. Here's at least one example.

    "Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'"
    - "Pentagon Eyewitness Accounts." The Guardian, 12 Sep 2001

    My reactions aren't singular in style. At times I'm sarcastic, but I've also laid out a lot of serious rebuttal time in this thread. I don't mind you pointing out when I'm sarcastic, but I do mind if you make it out as if I'm doing that more than providing actual substance to the discussion.

    Anyway, this isn't about me or you, so we're getting off-track and bickering over things that also don't help the discussion, either.


    Btodd
     
  17. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    Except for the fact that a pilot of 30+ years who flew primarily 757's said he wouldn't have been able to do what the terrorist in question did. Note that I'm not supposing the plane didn't crash there, nor that anyone else flew the plane. Only that this is odd.

    Well that's just plain terrible journalism!

    You've furnished good info, and its appreciated!
     
  18. Btodd

    Btodd Well-Known Member

    +279
    Atheist
    Private
    I agree that it's odd, but look at what else he had to say about it, and see if he has a good handle on the facts after we've all seen multiple pieces of 757 wreckage at the Pentagon.

    Capt. Russ Wittenberg says, "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." "It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. …The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." --Capt. Russ Wittenberg


    I really don't know what to say to that. It's just false, and doesn't jive with any of the eyewitness testimonies, the light poles, and all the other things I mentioned. So yes, I agree...his testimony is odd.


    Btodd
     
  19. GarfieldJL

    GarfieldJL Regular Member

    +602
    Methodist
    Single
    US-Republican
    It's called aircraft aluminum has a melting point....

    Also they weren't going to leave the airplane parts that were still around laying everywhere... In order to repair the building to say the least, the surviving parts had to be carted away.


    The one conspiracy theory that I've heard concerning 9/11 is the plane that went down in Pennsylvania was actually shot down, and the passengers fighting the terrorists for the controls was a cover story.

    If anything, that is a conspiracy theory that is plausible and understandable. The other theories flying around are quite frankly ridiculous.
     
  20. seeking Christ

    seeking Christ Guest

    +0
    I saw that just last night on one of these youtuber videos, and while its sad it does make sense. If people value this type of behavior, it could serve as a deterrent. It kinda messes up Neil Young's song "Let's Roll" though ...
     
Loading...