What's with all the conspiracy theories?

[IanCG]

According to "official sources" - such as the NTSB - the UA 175 was flying when it hit the WTC. Just shy of 600 mph.

Pilots and Engineers say not possible.

An no, it's not necessary to believe your straw man argument that the airplanes flew below 1000 feet for the entire flight.



Told what? A strawman argument?



If you believe every counter argument is valid an "everything" I've said has been proven wrong - well I think it's a bit like the pot calling the Kettle black - you have your own confirmation bias.

But fill me in. What did OBL and the hijackers gain from 911? The collapse of some buildings and some lost lives? Cool trade off for getting invaded, then occupied for 10+ years with many thousands more lives lost.

Now ask yourself what the Banks, Corporations and Military Industrial Complex in general gained from 911.

You keep assuming that a plane can't be going that fast because they can't reach that speed at the altitude it was flying.

It doesn't need to reach that speed because it had already exceeded that speed when it was cruising, before descending and crashing. Yet you keep trotting out "it's impossible for it to be going that fast" and ignoring what people are telling you.

And irrational religious zealots don't act rationally, and don't rationally weigh risk vs. reward. To them, they're gain was entry into heaven.

Now, go change the subject or find some other "evidence" to latch on to.

 

[Husky7]

No, it is not a theory like the ones I am bashing. Let's not play the card of relativism (all theories are equally as likely). If there's some particular point that is giving you trouble, just say so...but there is a mountain of evidence to support the 'official story', and a whole lot of conjecture, misrepresentation, and plain old misunderstanding of science going on in the conspiracy theories. I have taken an enormous amount of time reading not only the claims of the official story, but also feel like I've heard about every conspiracy claim ever made at this point. And they're nonsense.

If you have something that's troubling you, shoot away.


Btodd

Really? That's interesting because I'd say the same thing for the official story. That narrative is a fable, it didn't happen, IT COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Let's take building number 7 for example, how did it collapse demolition style (in on itself) if it was never hit by a plane (assuming one plane can take down a building). Why did Osama bin Laden never admit to the attack? Al Qaeda has always taken responsibility for its attacks, why didn't he admit to it being that he's the leader of the organization? If Al Qaeda is the enemy, why are we supporting them overseas? None of these questions can be answered if the official story is the "truth."

 

[Btodd]

Really? That's interesting because I'd say the same thing for the official story. That narrative is a fable, it didn't happen, IT COULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Let's take building number 7 for example, how did it collapse demolition style (in on itself) if it was never hit by a plane (assuming one plane can take down a building). Why did Osama bin Laden never admit to the attack? Al Qaeda has always taken responsibility for its attacks, why didn't he admit to it being that he's the leader of the organization? If Al Qaeda is the enemy, why are we supporting them overseas? None of these questions can be answered if the official story is the "truth."

You were saying? If you're gonna harp about getting the facts straight, you might wanna get the facts straight first.

Bin Laden Admits 9/11 Responsibility, Warns of More Attacks | PBS NewsHour | Oct. 29, 2004 | PBS

And I still challenge you, or anyone else, to put the collapse of WTC7 in rational terms as to how it was necessary for some sort of vast conspiracy. Thanks.


Btodd

 

[iluvatar5150]

"Trainlady" - would you be convinced if someone on a message board that you don't know from Adam claimed to be there, had friends who were engineers and who all saw a missile, not an airplane?

I didn't think so. I am to you, as you are to me, complete strangers on an internet forum. Asking me to take your word for it is about as convincing as asking you to take my word for being an "eyewitness" or claiming to have friends who were.



It's called air density. At those lower altitudes air density is about 3 times as thick as it is at cruising altitude (35,000 feet). What that means is:

A) You need multiple times the engine power to reach those speeds at that air density

Perhaps, but the planes didn't reach cruising speed at low altitude. As I pointed out earlier, they reached cruising speed at cruising altitude, then descended rapidly.

B) You need an aircraft that is built to withstand the G forces at that speed at that air density

What g forces?

C) You need an aircraft that is maneuverable and controllable at those speeds at that air density.

Prove that these weren't.

they would have broken up at those speeds at that altitude, and they are not controllable at those speeds at those altitudes

Got any real evidence of this? How long would the aircraft have to fly at those parameters before breakup occurred? What does Boeing say are the operational limits of that aircraft at those altitudes?

I'll believe solid science over some T.V. fiction and paid actors any day.

No, it's quite clear you will not. You believe youtube fiction as if it were carried down from the mountain by Moses himself. You don't even bother to verify it so long as the information is consistent with your preconceived ideas.

Told what? A strawman argument?

You were told (at least twice, with evidence provided, and as of this post, three times) that the planes didn't achieve cruising speed at low altitude - they achieved cruising speed at cruising altitude and then descended rapidly. IOW, the engines did NOT have to overcome the increased air density as you've claimed they would have. That entire line of argument is moot.

-Dan.

 

[iluvatar5150]

To all of you folks who think that a building can't collapse "demolition style" without actually being professionally demolished: what would a skyscraper collapse look like? And by "skyscraper," I mean something 30 stories or higher, not something 10-15 stories.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

Before I take any time with your post Dan - please specify what you believe to be the rate of descent and for what time period up to the impact. Use any official source you believe to be accurate. Thanks.

Edit: If the official source you quote took more than a year to be released, I would also like to know the reason for the delay - because if it is accurate - then I see no reason why the reporting of such information was held up by any kind of delay - unless some sort of guesswork was involved, rather than a simple reporting of facts acquired by radar, etc.

 

[iluvatar5150]

Before I take any time with your post Dan - please specify what you believe to be the rate of descent and for what time period up to the impact. Use any official source you believe to be accurate. Thanks.

I already provided this link back in post 175: 9-11 Research: NTSB Reports

Looking at the chart for Flight 11, you can see the it descended at a rate of about 3200 feet per minute from 8:38 to 8:46, when it impacted. Flight 175 had a similar rate of descent.

Edit: If the official source you quote took more than a year to be released

It didn't. As you can see from the documents on that page, they were released in February 2002.

I would also like to know the reason for the delay - because if it is accurate - then I see no reason why the reporting of such information was held up by any kind of delay - unless some sort of guesswork was involved, rather than a simple reporting of facts acquired by radar, etc.

You "see no reason" but you have no idea what goes into issuing an official report, do you? How long it takes to compile this information, to go through the various review processes, etc? I could say I "see no reason" that the moon isn't made out of cheese, but since I don't know much about geology, astronomy, or cheese, my skepticism doesn't mean much, does it?

-Dan.

 

[Btodd]

To all of you folks who think that a building can't collapse "demolition style" without actually being professionally demolished: what would a skyscraper collapse look like? And by "skyscraper," I mean something 30 stories or higher, not something 10-15 stories.

-Dan.

Not to mention the kink in the building, or how the penthouse sinks into the building before the rest of it comes down (both signs of major structural failure)...and none of the signs of a demolition (where are the explosions?), other than it fell straight down...which is what gravity would dictate either way. The whole WTC7 thing doesn't make any sense as a conspiracy. None.


Btodd

 

[Nekoda]

I already provided this link back in post 175: 9-11 Research: NTSB Reports

Looking at the chart for Flight 11, you can see the it descended at a rate of about 3200 feet per minute from 8:38 to 8:46, when it impacted. Flight 175 had a similar rate of descent.

-Dan.

Thanks Dan. Excuse the electronic voice, and watch to the end. The NTSB report you quoted contradicts...

The 911 TV videos you believe are real:

Flight 175 reconstruction of final 4 mins 40 secs. - YouTube

- not to mention the break up of the aircraft at much higher altitudes at that rate of descent and speed.

 

[Btodd]

Someone do a count of how many 'CGI' clips there are in this video, from multiple angles, even on some shaky camcorders. It's amazing what the government can accomplish, eh?

2012 9/11 WTC SOUTH TOWER HIT PART 2 - YouTube


Btodd

 

[Trainlady]

Just FYI, when looking up an article for another forum on which I participate, I thought of this thread after reading the first paragraph.

Do American Indians also have such good reason to fabricate stories to protect the US government that they throw in false little details into seemingly unrelated stories?

The Mohawks Who Built Manhattan > The History Channel Club

 

[iluvatar5150]

Thanks Dan. Excuse the electronic voice, and watch to the end. The NTSB report you quoted contradicts...

It contradicts nothing. Not only does radar not typically track well at such a low altitude and in such a congested area, those charts don't have the resolution to show a dramatic change in pitch that may have only lasted a few seconds.

Additionally, the "official" story says that those videos are all real. If this is all an elaborate hoax, why release radar data that would contradict the multitude of doctored videos? Radar data would be MUCH easier to alter.

not to mention the break up of the aircraft at much higher altitudes at that rate of descent and speed.

You still have yet to provide anything beyond blind conjecture that those aircraft would not have been able to withstand those forces.

That rate of descent (~3200 feet/sec) is quick for a passenger aircraft landing, but it's hardly outside the realm of structural integrity. That represents a downward vector of only 36mph.

-Dan.

 

[Nekoda]

It contradicts nothing. Not only does radar not typically track well at such a low altitude and in such a congested area, those charts don't have the resolution to show a dramatic change in pitch that may have only lasted a few seconds.

Additionally, the "official" story says that those videos are all real. If this is all an elaborate hoax, why release radar data that would contradict the multitude of doctored videos? Radar data would be MUCH easier to alter.




You still have yet to provide anything beyond blind conjecture that those aircraft would not have been able to withstand those forces.

That rate of descent (~3200 feet/sec) is quick for a passenger aircraft landing, but it's hardly outside the realm of structural integrity. That represents a downward vector of only 36mph.

-Dan.

Dan, it contradicts the video footage. The NTSB report contradicts the video footage. I'm sorry if this rocks your world. You want to imagine a dramatic change in pitch in the seconds BEFORE any of the long shots of planes flying horizontally into buildings, that's your business. But keep in mind it's just that - you imagination. The NTSB DOES NOT SHOW ANY SUCH LEVELING.

I asked you to quote the most accurate source you knew of. You quoted it. Sorry - you cannot have it both ways. Here are your options:

A) The NTSB report is false and the video footage is true
B) The NTSB report is true and the video footage is faked
C) Both the NTSB report and the video footage is faked.

I do not have to provide "beyond conjecture" that the aircraft could not have reached those speeds at those altitudes for those time frames. Tests like these have already been done, Dan. Many many pilots and engineers already testify that it can't be done. A mere few percentage points over max speed per a given altitude creates structural damage. UA 175 was doing around 40% over its Va/Vma for much more than a mere few seconds. If it would have really done that at those altitudes, it would have been ripped apart in the air.

Btw, for anyone reading this - that flight simulator program in the last video is officially licensed by Boeing, and the simulation uses an almost identical aircraft. In fact the aircraft used would have been able to stand a bit more pressure than a 767.

PMDG's simulation products are being used by individuals, companies, pilots and professional flight crews in nearly every country around the world. A leader in the development of advanced simulation technologies, PMDG's simulation software has become well known for attention to detail, innovation and thoroughness.
The company works with some of the biggest names in aerospace[according to whom?] and partners with some of the world's largest airlines in order to produce highly detailed airliner simulations that are capable of reproducing the complex world of the modern flight deck in finite detail[peacock term]. It is a global business with employees and contractors working in Canada, Belgium, Germany, Greece, Russia, South Africa and the United States. In addition, the company currently has employees and contractors located in the following US States: Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Massachusetts, Nevada, New York, Ohio, and Washington.
PMDG is headquartered in Northern Nevada, approximately 15 nm north of Reno-Tahoe International Airport. On June 4, 2012, PMDG announced that they would move back to Virginia, where the company was founded, during mid-June.[4]

As for hoax, Dan - I wouldn't dare call it that. I believe 911 to be a very elaborate ruse to trick the American people in particular into fighting more wars for oil, for profit, for expansion of the military, for keeping open drug trade (opium fields the Taliban had shut down went back into operation under occupation), for natural gas, to install more puppet governments in the Middle East - to keep dollar hedgemony over the world.

I personally don't believe nearly as many people died that day as we are being led to believe - but this certainly isn't a pointless hoax - and the cost in human life, both for the "Allies" and countless individuals in the countries they have bombed, raped, imprisoned, tortured and done other unspeakable acts to. Hoax no. It's no laughing matter.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

Dan, it contradicts the video footage. The NTSB report contradicts the video footage. I'm sorry if this rocks your world. You want to imagine a dramatic change in pitch in the seconds BEFORE any of the long shots of planes flying horizontally into buildings, that's your business. But keep in mind it's just that - you imagination. The NTSB DOES NOT SHOW ANY SUCH LEVELING.

I asked you to quote the most accurate source you knew of. You quoted it. Sorry - you cannot have it both ways. Here are your options:

A) The NTSB report is false and the video footage is true
B) The NTSB report is true and the video footage is faked
C) Both the NTSB report and the video footage is faked.

I do not have to provide "beyond conjecture" that the aircraft could not have reached those speeds at those altitudes for those time frames. Tests like these have already been done, Dan. Many many pilots and engineers already testify that it can't be done. A mere few percentage points over max speed per a given altitude creates structural damage. UA 175 was doing around 40% over its Va/Vma for much more than a mere few seconds. If it would have really done that at those altitudes, it would have been ripped apart in the air.

Btw, for anyone reading this - that flight simulator program in the last video is officially licensed by Boeing, and the simulation uses an almost identical aircraft. In fact the aircraft used would have been able to stand a bit more pressure than a 767.



As for hoax, Dan - I wouldn't dare call it that. I believe 911 to be a very elaborate ruse to trick the American people in particular into fighting more wars for oil, for profit, for expansion of the military, for keeping open drug trade (opium fields the Taliban had shut down went back into operation under occupation), for natural gas, to install more puppet governments in the Middle East - to keep dollar hedgemony over the world.

I personally don't believe nearly as many people died that day as we are being led to believe - but this certainly isn't a pointless hoax - and the cost in human life, both for the "Allies" and countless individuals in the countries they have bombed, raped, imprisoned, tortured and done other unspeakable acts to. Hoax no. It's no laughing matter.

Oh, so they're Boeings now, not Airbuses? Just trying to keep up.

 

[IanCG]

You see, the youtube videos contradict every other account, so they must be true. When one thing is contradicted by everything else you know about reality, that one thing is proven true.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

You see, the youtube videos contradict every other account, so they must be true. When one thing is contradicted by everything else you know about reality, that one thing is proven true.

So... what about when one youtube clip contrasts another youtube clip?

 

[IanCG]

So... what about when one youtube clip contrasts another youtube clip?

They are then both true. No exceptions.

 

[Blackwater Babe]

They are then both true. No exceptions.

Ah. Got it.

 

[Btodd]

I still want Nekoda to tell me that every single one of the multiple videos I linked to, from multiple angles, and some from shaky camcorders, were 'all CGI', showing exactly the same crash from all those angles.

It would really make my day. Pretty please?


Btodd

 

[Trainlady]

<snipped>

I personally don't believe nearly as many people died that day as we are being led to believe - but this certainly isn't a pointless hoax - and the cost in human life, both for the "Allies" and countless individuals in the countries they have bombed, raped, imprisoned, tortured and done other unspeakable acts to. Hoax no. It's no laughing matter.

Curious as to how many you think died.

I have wondered, when I see similar claims; e.g., that the victims were all falsified/composite photographs, etc., how those who want this to be the case therefore explain the logistics of how such a ruse is pulled off.

For example--I live in New Jersey, where about 700 of the WTC dead also lived. You are aware of the book, Middletown USA, about the community of that name that lost, I think, 37 residents on 9/11, more than any other NJ town. They have a most beautiful memorial adjacent to their train station with the photos and names engraved on granite stones, and a lovely walk through a wooded parklike area. Other towns have their memorials, whether or not they lost people--and there is no way you can be missing those nearly-daily news items as the steel program gives out pieces of the WTC steel that was held in Hangar 17 to municipalities all over the country and the world--but those local towns that did lose people generally have the names of their dead posted somewhere on their memorial.

My question therefore is: Don't you think that if all of these people were not real, people in these localities would have noticed this by now? Maybe when they contact the family to participate in the dedication of a memorial or in the annual remembrance ceremonies and find they never existed? Or when people in general converse and realize that no one ever knew of/heard of such a person? It would be very difficult to pull this off.

And what about all the annual events held in the names of so many of the dead? A scholarship fundraiser held at Monmouth Race Track every September, golf outings, dinners, etc? Do you think all these people would show up if they hadn't actually known the person(s) who had died?