Stormbringer:
“You may have seen the Truther websites that ask ‘If it’s true that a Boeing airliner hit the Pentagon, what happened to all the parts of it? Why did we not find more pieces of it? Where did all that mass GO?'”
The answer, in a fraction of a second:
I’d still like to know how in the hell Hani Hanjour managed to pull of a radical 270 degree descending turn, level off AT ground level without pancaking into said ground and find the one side of the building that was previously reinforced. If it were me I’d have done a “lawn dart” into the middle of the rings. Just sayin…
(Actually no I would never do anything so foolish as intentionally fly a perfectly good airplane into a perfectly good building)
I’m sure there is a whole lot more to the story, though not necessarily what the “Loose Change” brigade thinks it is.
Forget the F-4 in the demonstration just look at the Air-France jet liner that crash at the end of the runway in Toronto a few years back. It slid off the runway and started to burn, the Pearson Airport fire crews arrived on site and still couldn’t prevent most of the plane from disappearing. Ask a truther about that and they claim it was a salvage crew from nearby Molson’s brewery that came to get the aluminium to keep making beer cans.
While I would not call myself a “truther”, I do think there are some puzzling aspects to the whole Sept. 11th thing. Anyone have a good explanation for the collapse of Building 7? Some background here: http://www.wtc7.net/collapsecause.html .
Erik Larsen @3:36 – “Black Mamba – where are you đ “
Dude, Halifax. I’m not proud of it, but there you go.
EBD @2:39 – I wouldn’t even consider dating a woman who was a truther, or a leftist, or who chews gum…
Now look, I’m as beligerant as the next high-heel wearing, make-up sporting neo-con, but: Not all of life is politics. I mean, do you think Mark Steyn only talks to conservatives?
Linda, when that noted engineering specialist Rosie O’Donnell spouts her idiocy to the assembled blathering simpletons on the View (their combined talents does not add up to the ability to lead a cow to grass), turn to some people who do get engineering. Very accessible lay teminology is used in e.g.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805?click=main_sr
For me, the two most puzzling aspects of 9-11 would be the apparent dysfunction of air defense in the DC region, combined with scheduled war game scenarios, and as per the above, the collapse of WTC-7. I have also felt since the day itself that Flight 93 was probably shot down.
I don’t consider myself a “truther” but these are plausible points for speculation and discussion, whereas I think it goes without saying that hijackers crashed airplanes into three buildings as per the generally accepted version of events, and for reasons consistent with Al Qaeda objectives rather than to assist in any nefarious plot.
The late collapse of WTC-7 and the fact that it housed sensitive documents related to the Enron scandal seem very suspicious to me. I’ve read the discussions from various perspectives about this building collapse, but the question remains in any case, who stands to gain from it?
As to the general unreadiness of air defense around DC on the morning of Sept 11, 2001, that should be open to further inquiry. One could speculate that elements of the U.S. government knew the attacks were coming, considered the results to be acceptable for long-term goals and objectives, and planned to intercept the two planes heading for DC but somehow messed up on the Pentagon hit.
If this were the case, of course, it would amount to high-level treason in the U.S. government at that time and I think anyone with half a brain would know where to look for that (who looked surprised, who didn’t?) … so to some extent, the truth may indeed be a blend of conventional and “truther” theories.
I mean, why not? The world has always been a complicated stage. And you really have to wonder, how has Osama bin Laden evaded capture or even precise location by the world’s most sophisticated intelligence operations for nine years and especially in Nov-Dec 2001? Does it not really look like he is being played as a straw man figure? Does that not bring into possibility a scenario where he is either a dupe or a paid agent? Once again, who stands to gain?
In this, I would assess the Madrid and London bombings as separate actions by militants inspired by what they thought happened on 9-11 and not deliberate black ops.
I would really like to know how many conservatives really believe the whole 9-11 scenario and how many have at least partial reservations about it. And since I don’t have access to all the hidden facts, I am in no position to judge whether a deception in this case would be justifiable or not. For all we know, the CIA had information in early 2001 that Saddam Hussein had a network of agents busily assembling suitcase nukes with help from Uzbeks or the like — we don’t know. Somebody does.
At the time, I was working in Alexandria, VA and commuted down the George Washington parkway. I was late to work on 9/11 but know at least half a dozen co-workers who saw the plane slam into the Pentagon.
You could see them stacking up plane parts after the incident from the streets around the pentagon. Again, many friends and co-workers commented on this. There weren’t many but there was enough to fill a roll-off dumpster.
As for air defenses? Who the hell thought they were needed. There have NEVER been air defenses (anti aircraft artillery) around DC. There was a Nike site in Waldorf but that was a different animal. AFTER the attack, I know there was at least one triple A battery right of Channel Drive.
Now, as a materials scientist, I can tell you that once aluminum starts to burn, it is virtually impossible to put out. The Al-O bond is stronger than the H-O bond, so water won’t do it and it is stronger than the Si-O bond, so pouring sand on the fire won’t work either. The hot aluminum will pull oxygen off of most anything around and continue burning. The only thing left would be parts that some how bounced away from the fire.
“For those with a physics background: can you describe what’s actually happening to the F4 when it hits the wall? Are the aircraft components shattering? Melting? Sublimating directly from a solid into a gas? Just wondering.”
It has to do with instantaneous de-acceleration of mass tearing a hole in the space-time continuum; a worm hole in other words;-) /joke
This site, http://www.implosionworld.com/ ,is run by those who do controlled demolitions. They have looked into the 9/11 attacks and have written their opinion. I highly reccommend it for anyone who is interested in the possibility of those three buildings being brought down by explosives. It should also be sent to any truthers that you may encounter.
As for the late collapse of WTC-7, pretty hard to stop a fire from burning without the equipment to fight it and with all the hydrants in the area out of commission the fire department had no other option but to evacuate personnel and let the building go. And to all the truthers out there I don’t think the NYFD knew about the Enron files that were in the building.
My comments about air defense are based on the slow response time in the DC airspace following events in NYC which I would agree would probably have come as a complete surprise — available jets were out of position and slow to respond, or were they?
There are many non-complimentary responses possible to the above (another O’Donnell 2:08PM)delusions, but when reading the opening sentence it occurred to me why these people just dont get it.
They start from the false premise that government is an efficient power of limitless positive ability, and wander off into the tulies from there.
Air defences?! Oh yeah, it was like September ’44 over Berlin, waiting for the next wave of bombers…
Government can’t do anything right, get over it. It is at best an inefficient, counterproductive brake on society, and usually produces unintended consequences requiring more stifling layers of the same solution to fix the next problem it helped create or perpetuate.
And it ultimately leads to what we have now; a government of the elite, by the elite, for the elite.
And you simple troofers, are to tehm just future pothole filler, whether you realise it or not.
Troofers! *eye roll*
Here’s a real jen-U-ine marvy experiment brought to you from the Dhimmi Underground.
“Can A Jet Fuel/Hydrocarbon Fire Collapse a Steel Structure? Hysterical!
The pics say it ALL. đ
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=56836&mesg_id=56836
*snicker* snort*
HAHA! HAHAHA!
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!
Oh my sides! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Nice place ya got here, BTW! đ
Since glacierman apparently can’t use the internet to look on snopes I’ll do it for him. And we see this…..
“The claim that the ‘defence secretary’ ordered the lawn sanded over is false. A base of sand an gravel was laid on the Petagon lawn because the trucks and other heavy equipment used to haul away the debris (as shown in the photograph below) would have been slipping and sliding on the grass and become mired in the Pentagon lawn otherwise.”
So they graveled it to provide a solid surface to drive those huge massive trucks in and out to remove the damage.
Some questions, maybe simple to some, but nevertheless my question.
1. Where was the Air Force in all this?
2. After the initial plane hit, at 8:45am, was there an alert scramble? Especially around Washington, DC? All those personnel manning anti-aircraft batteries around DC and the planes on standby are doing what?
Like, after hearing about the first WTC hit did they think: “oh, darn”, and went back to their coffee?
Ok, so maybe it was good java. So when the second plane hit at 9:03am – a good 20 minutes later – they were they still drinking?
Must be really good coffee. Then at 9:43, almost an hour after the first crash, was everyone still doing coffee?
I mean they (the powers that be) did practice this a scenario like this, right?
From all the coffee drinkers and union workers in the atc towers, there must be a lot of people standing around with their fingers up their bums.
3. Where ARE the jet engine parts? I mean there is at least 2 of them to look for at the Pentagon and the ones in the field.
4. Ok, the black boxes, videos around DC, why not publish them? Sure the WTC ones were pulverized, but the Pentagon and Pensiveness? The tail would be the first thing severed off beside the wings of course so it should be recoverable.
5. Pennsylvania field crash. Confirmed plane hijacked at 9:27, where’s the Air Force again?
So basically all those expensive F-15 and F-16 fighters were useless?
An airplane in the vicinity disappears, there is video of an airplane crashing against the pentagon and a wing of the pentagon is destroyed. Is it really necessary to analyze the mechanics of whether any part of the airplane would survive the impact?
People who want to believe will believe ALMOST anything, but you´d have to be insane to believe that it was not hit by the airplane. These guys are muckrackers, they just want to seed suspicion to idiots who can´t be bothered to put 2 + 2 together. They are beyond contempt.
EBD
That Utube video has been on the web for at least 4 years. It was done in 1988 by U.S. Sandia National Laboratories for Muto Institute of Structural Mechanics, Inc., of Tokyo.
Their disclaimer: The purpose of the test was to determine the impact force, versus time, due to the impact, of a complete F-4 Phantom â including both engines â onto a massive, essentially rigid reinforced concrete target (3.66 meters thick). The test was not intended to demonstrate the performance (survivability) of any particular type of concrete structure to aircraft impact. The impact occurred at the nominal velocity of 215 meters per second (about 480 mph). The mass of the jet fuel was simulated by water; the effects of fire following such a collision was not a part of the test.
http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/pentagon/official/sandia_VideoGallery.html#rocketsled
If you watch their F4 test videostream you can see many parts coming off the plane. That Stormbringer is wrong because it was not an Air Force engineering test of a concrete barrier designed to surround a nuclear reactor dome and the F4 did not evaporate.
See also:
Page 138 â http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/nuregs/contract/cr6906/cr6906.pdf
And http://www.nci.org/02NCI/01/back-27.htm
@ Black Mamba:
“First time in history concrete has melted aluminum” is a play on what that idiot Rosie said…
All these truthers are is amusing at best… at worse they are a sick joke.
Peter O’Donnell: It’s clear from your comments that you don’t know anything about air defense. I suggest that you google the subject and then ask any current/retired military people you may know.
Just one very fast point: Look at the timing of the attacks: WTC impacts at 8:46 and 9:03 AM, Pentagon at 9:37. Not much time for the military to recognize that an attack is underway, analyze its nature, identify attackers/threats, and take countermeasures.
“You could see them stacking up plane parts after the incident from the streets around the pentagon.”
John Brooks, Peter O’Donnell, et al, please note.
“There have NEVER been air defenses (anti aircraft artillery) around DC”
Right. The United States has for some time relied on defense-in-depth: We have a navy and air force deployed to intercept attacks before they reach United States territory.
There were Nike anti-aircraft missiles in numerous cities, back in the 50’s and 60’s (I remember them well) but they were a last-line-of-defense. The primary defense was air force interceptor jets which were supposed to begin attacking Russian bombers hundreds of miles before they reached us.
“An F4, that at most weighs 40,000 lbs hitting a reinforced concrete wall that is at least 5 feet thick at 500 mph is not the same as a Boeing 757 (which weighs around 250,000 lbs) hitting a building at a much slower speed.”
A combat plane like the F4 is built more ruggedly than a commercial jetliner like the 757. The 757 weighs more, but its lighter construction means that it will shred more readily than a fighter.
And neither is built any more ruggedly than necessary because every extra pound of weight decreases speed, range, maneuverability, etc. As aircraft engineers like to joke, a plane is designed by taking each of the parts and reducing their weight until they stick when you throw them at the ceiling.
“All the truthers have to do is take a Physics 101 (Force) course and the blinders will drop off.”
Not even that, maybe. I knew a Moon Landing truther who was a skilled software engineer.
john brooks at 6:08 PM
you are joking rite?????
Thank Jeebuz, langmann, I was worried you were one of them.
(EBD – if you really want to have fun you could do a birther thread.)
“If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn’t be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it.” Mark Steyn, Oct 27, 2007
“Truthers” still have to explain away the disappearance of the Airliner and the passengers. On the other hand, if the Government truly is as effective as to be able to do all that “Truthers” claim, the only conclusion I am left with, is that the “truthers” themselves are really agents of the conspiracy, and the cover story for what really happened.
“if the Government truly is as effective as to be able to do all that “Truthers” claim”
if they had the power and immorality to make hundreds of innocent airline passengers disappear, they wouldn´t let some lefties make a documentary to expose them
In re “Air Defense over DC?” – on Sept 11, 2001, there were 14 aircraft tasked with interception of unidentified aircraft into the North American Defense Zone; 0 aircraft tasked with intercepting lost or hijacked airliners inside American Territorial limits. Secondly, hijacked aircraft were not a “threat” except in the most wild eyed “this is completely nuts” plots for pulp action novels.
Air Defense over DC is a “joke”. There are no batteries of SAM, AAA or dudes with Stingers, ready to fire at a moments notice. That was not the threat post ICBM/SLBM. SO why bother? (Can you imagine the screaming from the lefties if the any Administration, post Eisenhower had attempted such a thing?)
That WTC7 held “sensitive Enron documents” – so what? Every cloud has a silver lining, sometimes “feces occur”. There were all manner of “sensitive documents” in the North and South Tower, too. The expectation that WTC7 was allowed to burn out in order to protect Enron is as silly as the claim that Iraq was invaded “for the oil”.
“If 9/11 was really an inside job, you wouldn’t be driving around with a bumper sticker bragging that you were on to it.” Mark Steyn, Oct 27, 2007
If they wanted oil they’d just invade Alberta.
Much like AGW, 9/11 has become one of those issues where people are attacked for not supporting “consensus”. Especially conservatives, because of the whole Bush did it meme that the leftists were pushing. It doesn’t help that, much like AGW, there are the scientists and engineers on one side that contradict the scientists and engineers on the other side. Try as I might, I just don’t support the official story. That doesn’t mean that I think Bush did it, or that it was the joooos.(In other words, I don’t think that the government was behind 9/11, though infiltration is a possibility.) If anything, I think it’s a socialist driven agenda, and that the attacks were allowed to be carried out.
That doesn’t mean that I think that bush was plotting the destruction of the United States.(That’s above his pay grade.) I think that there are more than enough people in government jobs and agencies who have been indoctrined in universities, and have joined the right clubs, charities, and globalist think tanks to get into the jobs they have. I just wonder if they are compromised willingly or even unwillingly. As some bloggers have seen, just with the HRC’s the mindsets can be quite different than the average person on the street. (Cuz we all know that people with radical views could never be mainstreamed….like obama’s ghost writer.) Or that they’d have islamist sympathies.
Where money, power, and ideologies are concerned, nothing much suprises me anymore. I don’t doubt that there are people in positions of power that would like to see the States weakened, bankrupt, and the people stripped of their freedoms. And call me a conspiracy theorist,(you will anyways) but I can see how that would work very nicely into the plans of a globalist movement.
“If they wanted oil they’d just invade Alberta.”
Alberta oil and Middle East oil are not comparable…oil sands are the worst source of petroleum…it takes a huge amount of energy and resources to extract it, leaving the EROI at around 2:1-3:1. Middle East oil is easy to extract, easy to process…it’s EROI is 35:1 and higher.
Oil sands also have a relatively low maximum daily production rate.
The US want to secure middle east oil so that US companies can sell it…not just so the US can use it. And also so that Asia and the ME itself cannot get a hold of it either.