Q for Shades about 911 conspiracy

[_Gadianton]

Well Seth, your heated discussion of airplane architecture has been one of the most entertaining and informative series of posts I've seen in a while on this board. So I'm kind of sad you're done with the topic and, for my own personal enjoyment, I hope others are able to provoke you back into the thread.

What I think is fascinating is that at least 3 people who post at MDB were personally acquainted with someone who died in the plane crash. 258 people out of 290 million in the US at the time.

[_Scottie]

50% OF THE "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE, DESPITE CLAIMS THAT THEY DIED IN THE DAMN ATTACK.

When you say "hijackers", are you talking about the ones that actually hijacked the planes? How many were there? Is it possible they just didn't know who they were and made assumptions that turned out to be wrong?

What I think is fascinating is that at least 3 people who post at MDB were personally acquainted with someone who died in the plane crash. 258 people out of 290 million in the US at the time.

I was thinking the same thing. How is that for coincidence??

[_Sethbag]

Well Seth, your heated discussion of airplane architecture has been one of the most entertaining and informative series of posts I've seen in a while on this board. So I'm kind of sad you're done with the topic and, for my own personal enjoyment, I hope others are able to provoke you back into the thread.

Ok, I'll do it for you, Gad. ;-)

One thing we need to remember about airplanes is that they are almost always built as light as possible. Pretty much the only exceptions I can think of are planes like the A-10 Warthog, or the Soviet Hind helicopter, which were built tough because they had to be able to survive taking fire from the ground and whatnot. The materials are lightweight, the structure is lightweight, etc. The heavier they are, the more fuel they require, the less payload they can carry, etc. Airliners are the same way. One of the biggest reasons the 787 Dreamliner will get so much better fuel mileage is the use of lightweight composite materials.

Airplanes are built tough enough to handle the stresses and forces they are put under in flight, plus whatever safety margin. Period. They're not built any stronger than they have to be. They're designed to withstand flight through the air within some particular range of speeds, the rigors of landing and taking off, and so forth. They're not built to withstand collisions, and especially not collisions with steel reinforced concrete structures anchored to the Earth, at speeds in excess of 500 knots.

There are very good reasons why there will be a twisted car body left after most auto accidents, but not much left at all after a plane slams into an office tower at 500 knots.

What I think is fascinating is that at least 3 people who post at MDB were personally acquainted with someone who died in the plane crash. 258 people out of 290 million in the US at the time.

Note: I didn't personally know the guy I mentioned. He worked at the same facility in Massachusetts as I did, along with several thousand others, almost all of whom I likewise didn't know. His name was Phil Rosenzweig, or as close to that spelling as I can remember.

You'll recall the Seven Degrees of Kevin Bacon or whatever it's called. I read a long time ago someone's theory that you could take almost any two people on Earth and then find a link through people they knew, of only like seven people. It doesn't surprise me overly much that a lot of people would either know a hijacking victim, or have a friend or relative, or a friend or relative of a friend or relative, who knew one. Enough odd things happen to people in real life, we're bound to eventually know someone involved in something. Tidbit: I have a cousin whose son was killed by a car bomb in Salt Lake City a few years back. Kinda wierd, I know, but someone was bound to be related to the guy, and I happen to be one of those someones by sheer accident.

[_Bryan Inks]

50% OF THE "HIJACKERS" ARE STILL ALIVE, DESPITE CLAIMS THAT THEY DIED IN THE DAMN ATTACK.

When you say "hijackers", are you talking about the ones that actually hijacked the planes?

One could, logically, reach the conclusion that when I said "hijackers" I meant "hijackers", as in people who hijacked the planes.

How many were there?

Nineteen.

Is it possible they just didn't know who they were and made assumptions that turned out to be wrong?

Of course it's possible. Plausible is a completely different story.

12 of the 19 men blamed for hijacking the planes are still alive, including the man who's passport was magically discovered, undamaged, a block away from the towers after the collapse.

Despite this, the FBI has never recanted their involvement in the hijacking, other than to say that their identities may have been stolen.

But the passenger manifests for the hijacked planes show no one with their names on it.

It's a question inside a riddle wrapped in a mystery.

I don't know what to believe, but the official explanation doesn't jive for me.

[_Some Schmo]

I don't know what to believe, but the official explanation doesn't jive for me.

That's my exact take on it as well.

Here's a question for those who dismiss any claim other than the official story: If you're truly honest with yourself, can you claim that you have no motive for believing the official story? In other words, can you honestly say there is nothing preventing you from at least opening your mind to the possibility that there's more to/different about this story than what we've been told?

Whenever I discuss this stuff with people who don't like conspiracy theories, it seems to me that the fact that it's a conspiracy theory itself is one of the biggest things that prevents them from being open minded about it (among other reasons). Few people like to think of themselves as a nut.

And you all need to remember: the official story itself is a conspiracy theory. It's just not an American conspiracy.

[_SatanWasSetUp]

LOL. This conspiracy stuff reminds me of the JFK conspircy theories. Remember how rediculous the "magic bullet" theory seemed? How could a single bullet cause 7 wounds on JFK and Gov. Connelly? However, when they actually set up two forensic dummies in the same position that JFK and Connely were sitting, shot Kennedy in the back of the neck from the same distance and angle, using the same weapon, guess what? The bullet went through JFK and Connelly, through Connelly's wrist, and ended up on Connelly's thigh. It traveled nearly the exact same trajectory as the magic bullet. LOL.

Now we have all these "experts" claiming there is no way jet fuel could bring down a building. Here's an idea. How about we test how rediculous this theory is by building a building and flying a 767 into it and see what happens? I would put my life savings on it burning for a while and then collapsing, just like it did on 9/11.

One more question for the conspiracy theorists. If a plane did not crash into the pentagon, what happened to the passengers. I've been told they were flown to an undisclosed location and then shot. If that is true, and the plan was to kill the passengers, WHY NOT JUST FLY THEM INTO THE PENTAGON. It makes no sense.

I think my favorite conspiracy theory was a guy who said no planes were involved at all on 9/11, the planes were just special effects using holograms.

[_Scottie]

Here's a question for those who dismiss any claim other than the official story: If you're truly honest with yourself, can you claim that you have no motive for believing the official story? In other words, can you honestly say there is nothing preventing you from at least opening your mind to the possibility that there's more to/different about this story than what we've been told?

Yes. If I ask questions, they take me away and lock me up in a cell somewhere and never let me out!! ;)

[_Scottie]

Pertaining to the collapse, I had heard that they used low grade rivits in the beams of the towers. The steel beams didn't melt, but the rivits holding the beams together did.

This is what caused the collapse, and also why the pancake effect was so rapid. The rivits just couldn't hold up to that much heat and stress.

Again, this is just what I heard, and is probably bunk, but I thought I'd throw it out there.

[_Sethbag]

I believe the official account of the hijackings/crashes/collapses because it appears to be the story most consistent with the facts on hand. And for no other reason.

I've not made 9/11 conspiracy theories any kind of pet project or anything like that, so I can't say I've seen every single one out there, but so far, the ones I've seen have been loaded with obviously crackpot ideas.

Here's a prime example. I've never seen or heard anyone explain how it is that films of the WTC collapses clearly show the collapses starting at the very floors the planes had impacted. The collapses occurred 56 and 102 minutes after the collisions. I have yet to hear anyone explain how demolition charges could have come to be planted on the very floors that the planes later hit, and how these charges could have remained intact and functional, and still able to be set off by remote control, 56 and 102 minutes after airliners shred themselves on the very support beams the charges would have had to have been mounted to, and to have survived the burning of 24,000 gallons of jet fuel plus God only knows what other combustibles those office buildings were filled with. The very suggestion that, notwithstanding we actually have the collision of jetliners into the WTC buildings on film, and from many different angles, etc., it was actually carefully placed demolition charges which "really" brought down the buildings, is patently absurd.

And on it goes with the other claims, like that it wasn't really a 757 that crashed into the Pentagon because there's not this charred 757 fuselage lying in the ruins, etc. It's all so absurd. The official explanations make sense because it actually looks, based on the mountains of physical evidence, like several airliners were hijacked and then flown into their respective targets. That's what it looks like really happened. I've yet to see one really good reason to suspect that there's some "real" explanation that's radically different.

And one has to be more cynical than I am actually to believe that the President or Vice-President of the United States would allow thousands of Americans to be killed, the US economy set back by a trillion dollars, and all the rest of what happened on 9/11 just to give them an excuse to attack someone. Hell, Bill Clinton didn't need any more than a freaking blow job to give him reason enough. I don't doubt that the Hawks in the Bush Administration took the 9/11 hand they were dealt and played their hearts out with it, but I don't for one minute believe there's any good reason at all to accept that they actually caused 9/11 to happen so they'd get their chance.

[_Gadianton]

Interesting. I guess once R&D gets off the ground at Groom Lake and reverse engineers Roswell remains we'll be able to make a plane that is light weight and doesn't disintegrate on impact at high speeds. Either that or anti-grav the intensity of the impact.

Yes, I can accept coincidences sometimes. But according to Microsoft calculator, the population of the earth to the -7th power leaves every person to know only at least 25 "unique people" throughout their life. If I'm thinking about that right. First order personal acquaintances are less probable.

Oh, my connection to 911 esoterica, I probably knew building 7 went down before anyone else on the west coast (ok, not exactly anyone). I happened to have been monitoring a T1 line into building 7, I had been logging in once in a while just to check network status out of morbid curiosity, it had been robust throughout the episode, but suddenly it went red, and the thought triggered in my head that the building went down so I refreshed CNN until it was reported.