9/11 Pentagon Conspiracy Theory

[kenshinsbabe]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia][URL=http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/flash.htm#Main][U]9/11 Conspiracy Theory Video[/U][/URL]

The link above leads you to a video. If you weren't able to watch it, I'll give you the overview.

Pretty much what it's saying is that the Boeing 757 never crashed into the Pentagon. What's more, it gives more evidence than the government gave us saying that it did. There was no debris from the crash.

The "plane" crashed through three rings of the pentagon before slamming into a fourth. There was a neat, perfectly round hole left in that wall. What's more, to hit those walls, the 757 would have had to have been flying TWO FEET above the ground. The highway close to the Pentgon would have had reports of turbulance, would they not?

So what could have done it? Many people say that it was explosives. Some others, like some in the video, claim to have heard a missile. Still others say that the plane hit the ground and skidded into the Pentagon. But there were no skid marks on the perfect lawn of the Pentagon.

What do you at the OB think?[/FONT][/SIZE]

[The Newfie]

[COLOR=SeaGreen]Having watched that video previously, and having many of my own conspiracy theories concerning 9/11, I must ask two looming questions:

1, if a Boeing didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did? I know that there is that video 'evidence', of somthing small crashing into the Pentagon, but it is a doctered video done by an amature and released by al-Queda to stir up trouble.

2, if a Boeing didn't crash into the Pentagon... where did it go? What happened to the passengers and the plane itself?

My conspiracy theories are much more sinister, and I'd likely be flamed for even bringing them up, so I'll leave it at that.

'Da Newf

Oowatanite[/COLOR]

[JJ]

[Color=DarkBlue]Oh the theories we could come up with as a group. XD

But seriously. should the American people be surprised by any of this? Look at everything that's happened since 9/11 and tell me that it's not even a little bit suspicious.

Now, to start the quote war...

[quote name='The Newfire']1, if a Boeing didn't crash into the Pentagon, what did? I know that there is that video 'evidence', of somthing small crashing into the Pentagon, but it is a doctered video done by an amature and released by al-Queda to stir up trouble.[/quote]

Why assume that Al-Quaida is the one who made the doctored video? Who says it's doctored anyway? For all any of us know, it could have been the Antartic aliens that made the video.

I do think like Newfire in the way of, where did the fourth plane go? It's weird, but in a way, I like to think they're still living on island being stalked by mechanical monsters. ^_^[/color]

[Solo Tremaine]

[COLOR=#503F86]Conspiracy theories are all very interesting, but I just about wet myself while watching that video. I found it quite hilarious, heh ^_^;

I've no doubt that there are aspects of all major events that the US covers up for whatever (or perhaps no) reason, but I don't really think it was an event perpetrated by their own government, or whatever.

I read [URL=http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77.htm]Urban Legend.com's 'Hunt the Boeing!'[/URL] article and [URL=http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14]this page linked from it[/URL], and I thought those were more informative, personally.[/COLOR]

[Gavin]

[SIZE=1]Interesting, most interesting.

This reminds me of a conversation I had with an fellow called John who came over from the States with his father round where I live because his ancestors came from the area. To say this guy was a conspiracy theorist would be akin to say that the ocean might be a little wet, even though I didn?t show it I was tempted to fall round laughing given most of his theories.

Back on topic however, I recall this being brought up in an episode of Conspiracy Theories on Sky One, at least I think that's what it's called. Anyway I think there's definitely something dubious about the whole affair, there was seemingly no wreckage from the plane found which is decidedly suspicious and the damage to the Pentagon itself was inconsistent with an impact by a aircraft as large as a 757.

I'm no great fan of conspiracy theories, more often than not there just someone's delusional ideas having watched far too many episodes of the X-Files. This one however does raise some interesting questions, but they've already been said so there's no point in me repeating them. [/SIZE]

[Semjaza]

I can't use Flash right now, but is this that lame video that's got a bunch of hard rock music in it and a quotes? Most of them seemed worthwhile, but there was one that was obviously from a forum member of some place lol.

In any case, a lot of the things that did happen at that scene are suspicious... Between the photos, quotes from people there, the actual damange, etc. What exactly that means is any one's guess really.

[The Newfie]

[COLOR=SeaGreen][QUOTE=Chabichou][COLOR=#004a6f]I haven't watched the video yet. But a couple years back though, I went to a conference held by a professor at my university, A. K. Dewdney explaining some conspiricy theories concerning 9/11. He discussed how the two towers could not have collapsed from the planes crashing into due to the fact that the building were constructed from metal that melts at a higher temperature than the temperature at which the plane's fuel combusts, something like that. He also mentioned how it was absolutely impossible for cell phones to work at the altitude the planes were at when they were first hijacked (the scientists tested this out themselves), though there were reports of cell phone calls made from the planes....
[/COLOR][/QUOTE]


It isn't a matter of the metal melting, it's a matter of structural integraty. These buildings aren't built to withstand a plane crash - I mean comon, a strong breeze makes them rock back-and-forth. The planes were trans-contenental - that means that these things were absoutly LOADED with fuel. Even before 9/11 they were described as 'Flying Bombs'. The explosion would have been more than enogh to structurally destabalize the Towers.

Considering that Cell Phones use Satelites, than, unless the Terrorists were supposedly flying around Mars at the time, the Cell Phones could work from any where as long as they have the right service provider, or if they have SatPhone. Besides, a lot of planes have built in phones that can contact the ground - they have to work somehow, don't they?

My conspiracy theories are not directly related to the 9/11 attacks themselves or the results, but rather the events leading up to them and the ensueing world-wide conflicts. Here goes:

Back during the time of JFK's presidency, the US wasn't very friendly with the communist nation of Cuba. They knew that Cuba had the potential to launch missiles etc and could be a cornerstone in any Red invasion. But, being a democratic country, they couldn't just attack. So, Operation Northwoods was concocted.

Operation Northwoods is simple. America would commit acts of terrorism againts itself, and than blame the Cubans - thus giving the US an excuse to attack Cuba. Various attacks on cruise ships and coastal towns etc were commited by American agents or people paid by Americans or other covert whatnot. The ensueing chaos was blamed on the Cubans. Result? The Bay of Pigs.

It is my theory that 9/11 is a very similar event, although more complex. Put simply, the US (Not going to specify which leader...) had been long aware that Oil is going to be running out soon. They also knew that if that was the case, than Oil would become rediculously expensive (And it has!). By having a puppet government in the Middle East (In this case two, Afganistan and Iraq) they have easy access to this oil. If it does turn into an oil war, they'd also be in a great position to defend their oil intrests from whatever enemies there may be (Most likely China at this point).

All the needed was an excuse. Since it looked like Saddam wasn't going to invade anyone, they looked elsewhere. They needed a new scapegoat. The answer was, again, terrorism. Rather than just outright hire some people to hijack a plane, they may have gone right to the higher-ups of al-Queda and simply bought them off. They would have had to simply put the plan in motion, because their followers would never rat them out and would follow unquestionably. May have happened when bin Laden recived his CIA training.

So, there you have it. The Trade Towers and the Pentagon are wrecked, a plane going to hit the White House is braught down by passengers. Than a bunch of imformation is concocted (Such as the aformentioned passport) and the attacks linked to al-Queda. Afganistan is 'liberated'.

They don't stop there. They make up another story about Saddam and his missiles. They 'liberate' another country and install another puppet government.

If that wasn't enough, because of the fearmongering ways of the US government, they scare the holy hell out of everyone. People load up on weapons and defenses and spend rediculous amounts of money. Result? The Government gets one hell of a lot of money from taxes.

That's just one simple Newfie's opinion, mind you.

'Da Newf

Oowatanite.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

Am I the only one who finds some of this just the least bit laughable? Not so much the Pentagon suspicions, because I hold some of them, as well, but the WTC stuff?

I mean, come on. I read architectural studies of the WTC towers that outright refuted what "Operation Pearl" was saying. The towers were strong, absolutely. They were built to withstand a lot of stress. But not the kind of stress that two large Boeing aircraft punching holes in them can introduce.

I find it incredibly absurd to see phrases like "This scenario [terrorists] is accepted by gullible people but rejected by realists" are used in this Operation Pearl rubbish, when the clear irony there is that a "realist" wouldn't go spouting off conspiracies like this. Would a "realist" write an entire article/analysis with a very clear motivation to "expose" the "terrorist explanation" as false, yet [u][b][i]frigging open the article[/i][/b][/u] with "This general principle by no means implies that all terrorist attacks are bogus, only that with appropriate resources, any such attack can be simulated"?

These people (the conspiracy theorists regarding the WTC) are so concerned with asking questions, eh?

Yeah, and there are a few questions they need to ask themselves, like...I don't know...

"Is what I'm saying actually making any sense?"

"Am I coming off as intelligently questioning my government or just as some nutcase with too much free time and an overactive imagination?"

And my personal favorite, "Does my dialogue sound realistic?"

Lastly, according to Operation Pearl, the terrorists apparently were lousy pilots, so therefore they couldn't have piloted the planes into the WTC.

What I'm wondering is...how [i][u][b]good[/b][/u][/i] of a pilot does someone have to be to [u][i][b]crash[/b][/i][/u] a plane?

I really can't believe that the conspiracy theorists label people like me (those with common sense, really) "gullible" because I use common sense, when they're the ones concocting all sorts of bizarre Hitler-esque paranoia scenarios and convincing themselves that's how it actually happened.

Just so I get this straight...because I looked at what happened, saw the footage of the WTC towers collapsing LIVE, saw Bin Laden and his group almost frigging take responsibility for 9/11, saw the evidence over the past 8 years that something was boiling in terrorist cells regarding the WTC (anyone remember the first bombing back in the 90s?)...[i]I'm[/i] the [b]gullible[/b] one?

I recall someone here saying something about this very same issue a while back, something along the lines of "For the entire thing to have been a conspiracy, I don't think any conspiracy theorists really understand just how complicated the entire thing would have been, and just how many people would have had to been in on it."

Op.Pearl states that the cellphone calls were impossible. Something tells me that those family members on the receiving ends of those cellphone calls would say otherwise, or else they were in on the entire thing, as well, which would mean that the government enlisted the aid of regular citizens for a massive Shadow-Ops designed to springboard the nation into a global conflict for what? Acquisition of oil in the middle east, right? Figure since we're talking conspiracy theories, might as well bring in Michael Moore.

One of the main reasons the Left is hurting so much in this country is because of lunatics like these conspiracy theorists.

[Lord Rannos]

Two statements I'd like to disagree with real quick here.

[quote name='The Newfie][COLOR=SeaGreen']Considering that Cell Phones use Satelites, than, unless the Terrorists were supposedly flying around Mars at the time, the Cell Phones could work from any where as long as they have the right service provider, or if they have SatPhone. Besides, a lot of planes have built in phones that can contact the ground - they have to work somehow, don't they?[/COLOR][/quote]

Actually, normal cell phones send their signals to towers. Not satellites. So, without towers, they wouldn't function. However, there are towers near New York. Plenty of 'em. Which brings me to my second point...

[quote name='chabicou'] He also mentioned how it was absolutely impossible for cell phones to work at the altitude the planes were at when they were first hijacked (the scientists tested this out themselves), though there were reports of cell phone calls made from the planes....[/quote]

I find this unlikely, considering that

A) It's very possible for a tower's signal to reach the altitude of a plane and
B) I've had my cell phone ring on planes.

So unless the planes were flying unusually high, and stayed that high until right before crashing the plane, a cell phone could probably work.


Anyway, I personally think it's fairly unlikely that the U.S. would have fabricated 9/11. The time and money alone to create the entire illusion of this would have been incalcuable.

Second, this requires crashing a plane full of people into a building full of people, resulting in a couple thousand deaths. Considering the sheer amount of first hand accounts of people that had loved ones or friends in the towers or on the planes, I'd say it's likely that people did indeed die. And I can't believe the government would kill that many people for money.

With the video, I actually think they made some very good points. Let us, for the moment, assume all quotes, pictures, and facts concerning what material was released is true. A bit to assume, maybe, but if they are, it paints a good case for a government cover up. I wonder, personally, why the FBI would never release footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. Also, the question as to where the wreckage of the plane went, and how it punched that neat little hole.

Naturally, this video could be complete crap. But it makes you wonder...

[Corey]

[size=1]I remember when this video first came out, I showed it to the girl I was dating at the time. She said that it scared her. I told her it made me laugh. It pretty much caused the first serious fight of that relationship.

Anyway, it still makes me laugh.
It's my personal opinion that my country got what it deserved.
"OH GOD!!! THEY FLEW A PLANE INTO A BUILDING AND KILLED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE!!!"
Yeah? So? We've been terrorizing other nations for years. This is what we get. Besides, it's in the past. Who gives a ****.
Stop looking backward and start looking forward. The past doesn't hold any advancement.[/size]

[kenshinsbabe]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]I'm sorry, Corey, but I have to disagree with you on a few counts. You can think what you like, I'm just trying to point out some things.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[QUOTE]Originally Posted by [B]Corey[/B]

It's my personal opinion that my country got what it deserved. "OH GOD!!! THEY FLEW A PLANE INTO A BUILDING AND KILLED THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE!!!" [/QUOTE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]Sure we may have deserved what we got, but do you really think it's right for other countries to take out their anger on our government by killing thousands of innocents? Do you think anyone did anything so horrible to deserve to be killed in an act of terrorism?[/FONT] [/SIZE]

[QUOTE]Stop looking backward and start looking forward. The past doesn't hold any advancement.[/QUOTE]

[SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]In my opinion, this isn't true. If we don't keep the past in mind, we'll keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and this will happen in the future. The only thing different will be that there are different thousands of people.

But back on topic, there are alot of things the government keeps from us. You don't actually think that they'd tell us everything, do you? What they like to do is keep the nation in a false sense of security. Not to sound like some whacked out extremist. Just stating what I think.[/FONT][/SIZE]

[Saya]

[The following I just typed up is roughly 4 pages. Don't read it if you don't want to, but please do try if you find my introductory comments appealing or interesting.]

This video is perhaps one of the silliest things I?ve ever seen. Why the hell is there German playing in the background opening of the video? The implications are dangerously absurd and I for one take offense to the morons that made this video. That alone led me to expect the worst before reading any of the comments on here.

Rock music playing in the background? Foolishness.

I haven?t seen one shred of sufficient proof (or a good ?theory?) as to why people COULD believe that this was a fabrication. Did I not see the videos in which it wasn?t clear whether or not the plane hit the pentagon, if it even was the Jet? Sure, I saw what they showed me, and took into consideration the overall view point of those who created the video. First off, I?m not entirely sure that was the official video, and if it was, why is it so hard to believe that fuzzy video could depict a plane crash? So the plane was gone after? Did you not notice that the video quotes [b]its own sources[/b] when it says that reports say that it was something like a missile or ?small craft? that hit into the pentagon not a jet.

What makes you think that these sources weren?t just constructed for this video? Why were there so many asterisks next to many of the statistics they gave? Obviously the statistics were inaccurate, estimations, or just plain misleading to start ? that can be the case, or it can be the case that they were citing yet another source who sides with their argument.

I?m not even getting into many of the logical errors found within the sources the video has used quotations from. I couldn?t even watch this video in full because of how stupidly it was all presented and how downright absurd the sources sounded. I honestly came into it with an open mind (before hearing the beginning that is), hoping to see a good theory, instead I walked away from it feeling appalled that some morons would believe junk like this based on this crappy evidence.

[quote name='kenshinsbabe'] But there were no skid marks on the perfect lawn of the Pentagon.[/quote]Were you there that day or you simply reiterating what you learned from the video? Maybe it was from more than one source other than the video, another conspiracy theory site? I don?t know about you but I don?t know what the hell the yard actually looked like moments after the incident, in fact, I don?t know what the yard looked like before the incident either.

I?m also not quite sure as to the scientific data concerning the making of skid marks at various velocities at which planes move. Unless this source has all the answers, then it leaves quite a bit of room of doubt. I?m not comfortable doubting something based on a silly video and a few scared ducks out there.

You know there are a number of wacky theories out there, such as African American slave theories and anti-holocaust theory. While I was in Italy I happened to cross a building that held an organization of people who said the holocaust was a ?Zionist lie.? Now how they could possibly come to that conclusion with a handful of pamphlets, a few loud mouth morons, and deluded sources is beyond me ? but saying they did what it does do though is run in the face of actual history. No intelligent individual will tell you that it never happened? why? Because there are detailed accounts that it did. More proof there than here? True, but what one must take into consideration is that skepticism can be cast over nearly anything it doesn?t make a said point of view more powerful than another point of view (and certainly not over historical facts).

If someone doesn?t like that they weren?t on a need to know basis with the United States government about such things they should just bugger off. No one owes anyone anything. I didn?t lose anyone I know in the 9/11 attacks but I know plenty of people that did ? next there will be theories out saying that was done by Halliburton so that the administration could go to war and tap away our hard earned money. No way? don?t trust everything you read (and no you really can?t guess my political persuasion merely by reading this, so ad hominem responses to this will be disregarded and reported).

Why won?t I admit that the theory at least is a sound one? No firm evidence running against widely held beliefs (facts) concerning the events that transpired, and I do not believe you can mention other incidents and say that because this one relates poorly or well the argument must be a solid one (I will not mention the JFK incident because quite frankly it has [b]nothing[/b] to do with this video, nor will I say that because some plane crashes in the past left a lot of debris this one should too).

[quote name='Brasil'] Am I the only one who finds some of this just the least bit laughable?[/quote]No? and in fact I would be laughing at it if I wasn?t downright pissed off.

[quote name='Brasil'] I mean, come on. I read architectural studies of the WTC towers that outright refuted what "Operation Pearl" was saying. The towers were strong, absolutely. They were built to withstand a lot of stress. But not the kind of stress that two large Boeing aircraft punching holes in them can introduce.[/quote]Undeniably true, and it?s just too bad some people are taking such things into consideration. And just because what Brasil said was so damn right, I?m going to repost it.
[quote=Brasil] I really can't believe that the conspiracy theorists label people like me (those with common sense, really) "gullible" because I use common sense, when they're the ones concocting all sorts of bizarre Hitler-esque paranoia scenarios and convincing themselves that's how it actually happened.

Just so I get this straight...because I looked at what happened, saw the footage of the WTC towers collapsing LIVE, saw Bin Laden and his group almost frigging take responsibility for 9/11, saw the evidence over the past 8 years that something was boiling in terrorist cells regarding the WTC (anyone remember the first bombing back in the 90s?)...I'm the gullible one?[/quote]Paranoia is exactly what it is, and it never stops, only gets worse. [quote name='Brasil'] One of the main reasons the Left is hurting so much in this country is because of lunatics like these conspiracy theorists.[/quote]You know what, Brasil, you are absolutely right.

Recently I watched some liberal event on C-Span (excuse me ignorance but I can?t for the life of me remember the name of the event), and it had the worst organization ever. Is the stereotype correct in that very liberal democrats tend to have poor organizational skills? Not individually, but as a whole? you bet? know why? In my opinion it is because of conspiracy theorists and because of a myriad of different types of radical liberal branches that cast doubt on the psychological integrity of the movement as a whole. Too bad too because the democratic party needs just as much support as the republican party, and yet many view Republicans by and large as ?calm,? ?calculating,? and ?collected.?

When crap like this is released, those preconceptions only grow stronger.

[quote name='Lord Rannos'] A bit to assume, maybe, but if they are, it paints a good case for a government cover up. I wonder, personally, why the FBI would never release footage of the plane hitting the pentagon. Also, the question as to where the wreckage of the plane went, and how it punched that neat little hole.[/quote]*Thinks* Mmmm? DOES make a good case for a government cover up! Lemme throw another one at ya, see how it fits ? completely hypothetical mind you just like yours.

I went to Stop & Shop the other day (a supermarket), bought some meat? mmm, good beef too, at least it looked that way! Now I know this area I live in is terribly racist? and one of my friends is very Jewish, together we live in a very anti-Semitic area (they literally burn down Menorahs and other Hebraic/Jewish artifacts at every given chance). On top of which I happen to know the guy who works in the Deli is very racist ? he?s said a few nasty comments to me off and on and to my friends.

But he?s there? and I happen to walk in there with my friend who is ultra-orthodox and who is most apparently Jewish (there is no doubting it, for he wears all black, curls and a kippah). Entering some people gave him an evil eye? we walked up to the deli, ordered our food and they eyed him harshly and snickered? went in the back, prepared our meat and gave it to us with what I thought was an overeager show of doing ones job [i]all too well[/i], when we got home we noticed the meat had an odd smell to it.

Was this an indication that the individual working at the Deli department was being racist and or planned this? No, it might have been but the sun might fall from the sky tomorrow. ***** happens, meat goes bad from time to time, supermarkets do a horrible job of tiding things up if their in the suburbs? truth be told we?ve shopped there thousands of times. Was the kid I went with insulted? Nope. Didn?t even cross his mind. Maybe in this case there is even LESS evidence to actually believe it is a conspiracy, all the more reason why this is bogus.

Not everything points to a grassy knoll. I don?t buy this crap, and no I don?t think there is too much strange about the matter either. If people want to dwell about what could have beens and what might be "really" happening, fine but life is full of bad news left and right as it is, do you really need to start worrying about conpiracy theories so early in the game?

[quote name='Kenshinsbabe']But back on topic, there are alot of things the government keeps from us. You don't actually think that they'd tell us everything, do you?[/quote]Name something the government keeps from us or has kept from us. I can name several such as biological weapons tested in Vietnam that have only now become free via certain legislation concerning the freedom to read such documentation. Can you accurately name them? Then please do not make mention of ghosts in the closet you have not seen or heard from.

My point is not so much that you are ignorant (which I[b][u] do not mean to imply [/b][/u]so don?t think I am, you might have meant something entirely different from what you wrote), but rather that you are not thinking logically. Sure I think there are things that [b]can[/b] be kept from me, am I aware of any at the moment? If I was aware of such things, ?they? wouldn?t be kept from me now would they? :)

That means little to nothing when arguing conspiracy theories, for while they [i]can exist[/i] it doesn?t mean they do, should, or might possibly exist and if they DO exist, our facts concerning them can still be wrong. As for the false sense of security bit, your opinion is noted and respected... and yet I fail to see any evidence in support of it, perhaps you meant to put it in your next post. Regardless, I've given this more time than it deserves, and that is one thing I'm beginning to regret.

There are always things in the unknown; more often than not such theories are there just there to define that which cannot be defined (example, to understand what death is like while alive). Scared puppies want a reassuring stroke, so to speak.

[TheShinje]

[color=crimson] Peopkle go on and on about this "find the boeing" conspiracy like they expect to just find an intact Boeing just sitting there in amongs the ruins. Quite obviously, the plane, being a mere aluminium tube, was incinerated. You don't see people asking "where are the planes that hit the towers?" That's not just because there is such clear footage of them taking their fated flight, no, it is because they were clearly incinerated. So, a similar aircraft in Arlington can't be incinerated? Gimme a break!

As for the hole in the building not being plane-shaped enough? Well, you just don't expect the wings to make as much impact as the body of the aircraft, simple as that.

This is perhaps secodn only to the "chemtrails" in the scope of it's ridiculousness. [/color]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f]I just want it made clear that I don't neccesarilly support the conspiracy theory, because I haven't taken the time to read their arguments thoroughly, and actually determine whether their arguments are valid or not.

It is far more likely that the attack was indeed carried out by arab terrorists than the american government purposely killing it's citizens.
[QUOTE]Just so I get this straight...because I looked at what happened, saw the footage of the WTC towers collapsing LIVE, saw Bin Laden and his group almost frigging take responsibility for 9/11, saw the evidence over the past 8 years that something was boiling in terrorist cells regarding the WTC (anyone remember the first bombing back in the 90s?)...I'm the gullible one?[/QUOTE]Of course you're not gullible. One thing I would like to point out is whether or not Osama was responsible for this is still debatable. Al-Qaida denied the attacks at first, and then later they took responsibility. Why would they do that? Why not take responsibility right away? Were they not proud of what they did?

I think it's fairly possible that the attacks were done by someone else, and that Al-Qaida simmply took responsibility for it because they thought it was so great and it would add to their reputation.

In palestine for instance, there are so many resistance groups, and sometimes several groups claim they did an attack even though they didn't.[/COLOR]

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]I'm going to respond to the 'why did the towers collapse?' question that popped up, because I actually have some knowledge, albeit knowledge I gleaned from TV.

There was a very long, involving documentary about a year after the attacks which detailed why the towers fell the way they did. Basically each floor of each tower was held up via trusses, meaning the floors were only actually supported where they met the walls. Architects usually try and give this method a wide berth, because it leads to structural instability. Once a few floors were destroyed and there were fires breaking out (i.e. once the planes hit), it didn't take much for the truss supports to start buckling/melting/burning through, bringing down more floors. Once the buildings were essentially hollow (because every floor had fallen right down to the bottom), there was nothing to stop them crashing straight down under their own weight.

As for the various conspiracy theories about the Pentagon plane: there just isn't any way we can know for sure. I wasn't at the Pentagon at the time, so I don't know whether a plane hit it or not. But I've seen the footage you've all seen, of two aeroplanes hitting the WTC. If it's all an Operation Northwoods-esque conspiracy, why crash two real planes and fake the other? All the theories sound like people making excuses to me.
[/font][/color]

[Saya]

[quote name='Raiyuu'] meaning the floors were only actually supported where they met the walls. Architects usually try and give this method a wide berth, because it leads to structural instability. Once a few floors were destroyed and there were fires breaking out (i.e. once the planes hit), it didn't take much for the truss supports to start buckling/melting/burning through, bringing down more floors.[/quote]That?s actually very interesting! I was under the impression (as was I think a lot of people by default without knowing the technical or rather architectural design of the twin towers) that the towers were quite formidable in design and construction. Not quite sure how often such a strange construction method is utilized when making sky scrappers, but frightening food for thought.

Bet no one counted on this. And yet even if they did, they would have done so too late. After all there was a previous bomb scare in the trade centers a while back. Thankfully what I have noticed is the increase in security procedures when drafting new design plans for buildings in major metropolitan areas, seemingly they?re taking a lot more steps to insure structural stability: I suppose it?s necessary in this day and age.

I don?t necessarily think like some people that the United States is entirely at fault for not having this sort of secure infrastructure established before hand. It goes without saying that terrorism has existed in countries which have been clustered together by geographical reasons for quite sometime, and sure as a major super power and target of some attacks we should know how to handle ourselves incase of an emergency.

Truth be told though, we don?t? and it?s not so strange to see why. As a nation the United States doesn?t need to deal with the possible security risk on a day or day basis (or didn?t need to). I hardly think it a fault in our actions or way of thinking that such things transpired? though it is nice to know we?re becoming more aware of them.

[quote name='Raiyuu']As for the various conspiracy theories about the Pentagon plane: there just isn't any way we can know for sure. I wasn't at the Pentagon at the time, so I don't know whether a plane hit it or not. But I've seen the footage you've all seen, of two aeroplanes hitting the WTC. If it's all an Operation Northwoods-esque conspiracy, why crash two real planes and fake the other? All the theories sound like people making excuses to me.[/quote]Seconding that 100%, I agree? people are seemingly making excuses, a popular trend a few years after any given incident. I think people like having something to be afraid or as I mentioned earlier, they like being able to name the unnamable fear lurking beyond themselves, which they do not know about.

Or in the end perhaps it is simple, perhaps people in their ignorance would sooner believe in a conspiracy theory than the frightening truth that reality can be a lot less dramatic, and a hell of a lot more frightening than we like to believe (I don't mean anyone specific on this forum of course, I mean this directed at individuals who produce such videos and spread similar "conspiracy theories").

[Brasil]

[quote name='Chabichou']I just want it made clear that I don't neccesarilly support the conspiracy theory, because I haven't taken the time to read their arguments thoroughly, and actually determine whether their arguments are valid or not.[/quote]
If you didn't read through that site you linked to, that you claimed held "reputable information," why in the hell did you link us to that site and claim it held "reputable information"? You don't "necessarily support" the conspiracy theory, yet everything in your previous post points in the direction that you have bought into some lame radical conspiracy theory...without even reading what the conspiracy theory is saying in the first place. And if you hadn't read through the site, what were you quoting? What was your source for the following:

[quote=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]But a couple years back though, I went to a conference held by a professor at my university, A. K. Dewdney explaining some conspiricy theories concerning 9/11. He discussed how the two towers could not have collapsed from the planes crashing into due to the fact that the building were constructed from metal that melts at a higher temperature than the temperature at which the plane's fuel combusts, something like that. He also mentioned how it was absolutely impossible for cell phones to work at the altitude the planes were at when they were first hijacked (the scientists tested this out themselves), though there were reports of cell phone calls made from the planes....

He also mentioned how suspiciously conveinient it was that one of the hijackers left a quran with a flight manual behind.... and the hijacker needs to read up in his flight manual at the last minute, why?

It was also interesting how rescue workers found a passport for one of the hijackers. This passport somehow survived the crash although it was in the pocket of the hijacker who was in the plane, which crashed into the tower. Funny how it would survive while its owner was completely destroyed.[/color][/quote]
Oh, Dewdney? The same guy who was a primary contributor to the Operation Pearl conspiracy theory, the site of which you linked us to, claiming there was "reputable information" there?

I think I know what happened here. This guy spoke at your school, and you just bought into the entire thing without actually doing any research about it, and when a discussion comes up regarding it, you figured that you might as well link to the guy's site (because essentially, it's his site, let's be completely frank), because his argument was so convincing years ago that you couldn't possibly need to actually [i]read[/i] the site's content before recommending it to others looking for "reputable information."

[quote]It is far more likely that the attack was indeed carried out by arab terrorists than the american government purposely killing it's citizens.[/quote]
So if you know this, why in the hell would you even link to Operation Pearl in the first place? One of the major points of Operation Pearl is that the government purposely and deliberately killed its own citizens. Remote control planes? I mean, honestly. Use some common sense here. lol

Either you actually do believe in the conspiracy theory and that's why you linked to the site, or you never believed in it, which leads me to wonder why you would even point to Operation Pearl as "reputable information," and why you would be so amazed by Dewdney's presentation years ago.......especially if you don't buy into the conspiracy theory to begin with.

And no offense, but I'm leaning toward the former possibility there. No sensible individual would ever believe crap like Operation Pearl, just like no sensible individual would link to it if said individual didn't actually believe it.

[quote]Of course you're not gullible. One thing I would like to point out is whether or not Osama was responsible for this is still debatable. Al-Qaida denied the attacks at first, and then later they took responsibility. Why would they do that? Why not take responsibility right away? Were they not proud of what they did?

I think it's fairly possible that the attacks were done by someone else, and that Al-Qaida simmply took responsibility for it because they thought it was so great and it would add to their reputation.

In palestine for instance, there are so many resistance groups, and sometimes several groups claim they did an attack even though they didn't.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, it's called Terrorists rely on--guess what--spreading doubt, fear, and deceit (kind of like the Sith in Star Wars). How does that somehow cast doubt on Bin Laden both claiming responsibility for 9/11 and also being the "mastermind" behind it? Keep in mind that Bin Laden's hands were theorized to be all over the WTC bombing in the 90s, and there has been documentation that he was interested in attacking the U.S. in a manner similar to the destruction seen at the WTC.

And yes, I'm not gullible. But according to the site [i]you[/i] linked us to...I [i]am[/i] gullible because I see, understand, and accept the explanation that [i]actually makes sense[/i].

[Corey]

[quote name='kenshinsbabe][SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]Sure we may have deserved what we got, but do you really think it's right for other countries to take out their anger on our government by killing thousands of innocents? Do you think anyone did anything so horrible to deserve to be killed in an act of terrorism?[/FONT'][/SIZE][/quote]
[size=1]Define innocent please.[/size]
[quote name='kenshinsbabe][SIZE=2][FONT=Georgia]In my opinion, this isn't true. If we don't keep the past in mind, we'll keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and this will happen in the future. The only thing different will be that there are different thousands of people.[/font'][/size][/quote]
[size=1]No one's perfect. Mistakes will always happen wether you try to stop them or don't. It's one of the defining characteristics of life. Coincidentally, death is also a part of life. Now answer me this...
What's worse?
A terrorist faction driving a few planes into a couple of buildings, killing a few thousand people?
Or a nation sanctioning the drop of a bomb that not only wipes out near 75,000, also causes radiation poisoning in the careful guise of leukemia?[/size]

[DBZgirl88]

[COLOR=#004a6f][quote name='Brasil']If you didn't read through that site you linked to, that you claimed held "reputable information," why in the hell did you link us to that site and claim it held "reputable information"?[/quote]I called the site "reputable" because it's based on research done by scientists. I may not neccesarily agree with it because some of the conclusions they have made from their data might be wrong. As you have argued in your first post.

I just assume that others probably have made their own conspiracy theories, and since you can't really trust all resouces on the internet, it's best to turn to those made by scientists and more notably, a university professor. Of course, it is up to the reader to determine whether or not these scientists have a valid point.

As I have already said, I have not really read any of the aritcles on the website, just skimmed over them, so I don't really know what they contain. So I never knew that the term "gullible" was used.[/COLOR]

[Brasil]

[QUOTE=Chabichou][color=#004a6f]I called the site "reputable" because it's based on research done by scientists. I may not neccesarily agree with it because some of the conclusions they have made from their data might be wrong. As you have argued in your first post.

I just assume that others probably have made their own conspiracy theories, and since you can't really trust all resouces on the internet, it's best to turn to those made by scientists and more notably, a university professor. Of course, it is up to the reader to determine whether or not these scientists have a valid point.

As I have already said, I have not really read any of the aritcles on the website, just skimmed over them, so I don't really know what they contain. So I never knew that the term "gullible" was used.[/color][/QUOTE] Chabi, that's really, really lame. If you didn't agree with the site's conclusion from the start, then why did you link to it in the first place? You clearly read the site enough (or were familiar with the site's content enough) to be able to paraphrase particular "I find it odd" types of "evidence," and yet you say you didn't really read the site, and you don't really agree with the site's conclusion?

I'm sorry, but I'm going to call bull on that one, because the only reason why someone would link to a site like that is if they agreed with what was being said at that site.

Anyone who disagreed with such an absurd and lame conspiracy theory would never, ever link to it and claim it holds "reputable information," [i]because it doesn't hold reputable information[/i]. All it has is a bunch of lame conspiracy theorists letting their imaginations overpower common sense. If you didn't agree with the conclusion, why in the hell were you [b]parroting[/b] information from that site, and why in the hell were you referring to that site?

Come on. Either you actually believe Operation Pearl, and believe that the American government killed its own civilians in a massive Shadow-Ops, or you mindlessly provided us with a completely irrelevant and useless link that borders on spam within the context of this discussion, simply because you heard one of the "scientists" behind the site speak at your school (and thus just wasted everyone's time instead of actually contributing to the discussion).

[Raiyuu]

[color=DarkGreen][font=Trebuchet MS]Calm down, Brasil. Debating whether Chabi should or should not have posted the links she did is kind of off-topic. You've already pointed out the flaws in the information presented in said links. That was on-topic for the thread. Attacking Chabi is not.
[quote name='Brasil][/font][/color]If you didn't agree with the site's conclusion from the start, then why did you link to it in the first place?[color=DarkGreen'][font=Trebuchet MS][/quote] Perhaps to spark off discussion. Which it did.
[/font][/color]

[Starwind]

I don't know what to think or say on this subject. Many people want to point to some nefarious government plot, but in a realistic stand point there's no reason for such a thing. In the end all we have is what were given, you can argue it all want but it's just empty speculation. All we have are the facts, that being, anyone familiar with aircraft could tell off the bat it was not a Boeing 757 that hit the pentagon. There's just no way given the circumstances. In the end, we may never know what really happend, and maybe that's for the best. No matter who did it or the circumstances, it did happend, and seeing what hit it will not change the fact that it did happen. Everyone seeks the truth when really sometimes it's better never knowing and simply believeing.

[Corey]

[size=1]Speaking of offtopic discussion, where did the post/s I made go?
This thread seems to have undergone a censor.

EDIT- I apologize everyone.
There must be something wrong with my browser.
Brasil talked with me, and apparently, I'm the only on that can't see some posts.
Again, I'm sorry.[/size]