Split - 9/11 alternative theories thread

[iaafan]

Scary, but I'm not surprised. Next we'll hear some BS reason for it.

Here's another they'll take down soon. It explains what really happened on 9/11. When will America demand some answers?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

[Ponycat]

... It explains what really happened on 9/11. ...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

Are you serious or did you forget some emoticons???

Oh wait.. this must be the reason the government killed Hunter S. Thompson but made it look like a suicide.

[grizzh8r]

Scary, but I'm not surprised. Next we'll hear some BS reason for it.

Here's another they'll take down soon. It explains what really happened on 9/11. When will America demand some answers?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

I suppose you are one of those people who believes the lunar landings were all a hoax/conspiracy as well.....

[SonomaCat]

Since I can't watch videos at work, and as I'll forget about this by the time I get home, can somebody give me an executive summary of the alternative theory about 9/11 that the link refers to?

[iaafan]

Scary, but I'm not surprised. Next we'll hear some BS reason for it.

Here's another they'll take down soon. It explains what really happened on 9/11. When will America demand some answers?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

I suppose you are one of those people who believes the lunar landings were all a hoax/conspiracy as well.....

Good one grizzh8r.

"Hey, everyone! We've landed on the moon!" Lloyd (Dumb and Dumber) Christmas. Actually I would be WONDERING about it if the astronauts that our gov't told us were in flight began denying it happened.

Anyway, if you watched the show and if you think it’s an obvious sham, then please fill me in on the answers to the questions the show raises. For instance, I’m "wondering" why all the firefighters and many eyewitnesses heard numerous secondary blasts just before the buildings came down (were they just hearing things?). And why there were puffs of smoke shooting out of the towers to coincide with what they were saying. And why won’t the government release the videos it has from the plane that crashes into the Pentagon (we all saw the planes crash into the WTC, so why not show us the Pentagon crash). Why several of the alledged hijackers turned out to be alive and well in other parts of the world. There are quite a few other items the show brings up and if you can refute them, please explain.

Remember a lot of people thought the JFK assassination was an act of a single person, but the government later said it was a conspiracy.

[Ponycat]

Remember a lot of people thought the JFK assassination was an act of a single person, but the government later said it was a conspiracy.

Right, wasn't it LBJ on the grassy knoll with Castro spotting for him..oh and Nixon hired Sirhan Sirhan.

Head up to Brusett, MT I think there still some people up there you could converse with. Just remember Timothy McVeigh was set up.

[iaafan]

OK, here are some of the movie's mistakes, but they don't address any of my questions.

Factual inaccuracies
The film states that New York's Empire State Building was hit by a B-52 in 1945. It was actually a B-25 Mitchell, an aircraft less than one-third the size of a B-52. The authors have since apologized and acknowledged this error.

Dylan Avery claims that the motors belonging to the plane that crashed into the Pentagon, made of steel and titanium alloys, could not have melted, because the burning temperature of kerosene in even a pure oxyen environment is below the melting point of titanium. Critics contend the melting point of titanium is irrelevant since the motors involve steel-titanium alloy rather than pure titanium, although Ti alloys melt at temperatures (1668 C)[1] significantly closer to titanium (1725 C) than to steel (1500 C).

The movie cites a study in which cell phone calls could not be made at 32,000 ft, it is assumed flight 93 was flying that high. In fact it was much lower on radar.

The movie cites Loizeaux, a demolition expert, and suggests he thinks the building was blown up with bombs and not from jet fuel, the movie does not continue to quote Loizeaux from the same article on the screen and mention he thinks it was from "jet fuel." The jet fuel would have caused molten steel to fall to the bottom of the elevator shafts from the heat of burning fuel by melting the steel building, the movie suggests that it is somehow a factor in blowing up the building.

The movie focuses on the Pentagon not being significantly damaged, but earlier mentions in the film itself that the building was protected specifically and structurally from this kind of attack. It makes sense then that the building would act like a bunker, not like a typical building when hit by a plane.

The film suggests that a plane hitting just a light pole would crash. It suggests a Gulfstream II headed to Houston crashed because it hit a light pole, in fact the Gulfstream II jet crashed and a TV reporter noted it had clipped a light pole before crashing, the film suggests the pole ripped the wing off. The film states 5 light posts were knocked over Flight 77, in fact light poles are designed to detach from few simple bolts, on impact from car crashes to save lives. The effect of hitting a light post by a plane's wing would not cause it to crash.

The official website contains a statement saying not to take anything the documentary says at face value and encourages viewers to personally research information on 9/11 and to form their own opinions.

[edit]
Criticisms
Loose Change has been criticized as disinformation even by some within the 9/11 Truth Movement, which disagrees with many aspects of the official version of events on 9/11/01 [2]. A primary concern of many in the movement is the promotion by documentaries such as Loose Change and In Plane Site, that a commercial jet did not hit the Pentagon [3], [4], [5], [6].

Critics of the documentary's proposal that a cruise missile or a small aircraft may have been the cause of damage to the Pentagon, cite the nearly 100 documented accounts from witnesses on the scene[7] who reported seeing a large airliner. Some witnesses specifically noted seeing a 757, while only two witnesses, located some distance from the scene, reported seeing a small plane. Loose Change, however, implies that an equal number of witnesses reported different aircraft as reported a commercial jet, and does not mention the large body of witness reports in support of a commercial jet. Critics of the missile theory note that not a single witness at the scene has ever reported seeing a missile[8].

Many do not support the suggestion put forth (weasel words) by Loose Change that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland instead of crashing or being shot down in Pennsylvania, and that passengers were subsequently secretly evacuated to an empty NASA research center. Critics in the 9/11 Truth Movement reference needed note that there is virtually no evidence to support this claim weasel words and that many witnesses at the time reported seeing and hearing the plane at the crash site.[9], [10].

Wikipedia was used as a source for some information from the documentary. Critics argue that since Wikipedia can be publicly and anonymously edited, the producers of the documentary could have edited articles to suit their own purposes. None of the Wikipedia-based information has yet been verified as correct or incorrect.

The film carries many of the features of a Conspiracy Theory, most notably, it appeals to common sense, letting the spectator draw some of the conclusions himself to make its claims more convincing. Regarding for example the events at the Pentagon, Dylan Avery shows a piece of the plane's fuselage on the lawn, and says: "And why is not singed, or scratched, after a 530 mph impact, and the subsequent fireball?", without trying to explain why it should be. He also claims that another part found on the site could not have come from a 757: "Let's look a little closer at the defuser case of a 757. Do you see the triangular bezels around the openings ? Those are nowhere to be found on the case found at the Pentagon". Rather than relying on an expert, it puts the spectator in the expert's seat.

[iaafan]

Remember a lot of people thought the JFK assassination was an act of a single person, but the government later said it was a conspiracy.

Right, wasn't it LBJ on the grassy knoll with Castro spotting for him..oh and Nixon hired Sirhan Sirhan.

Head up to Brusett, MT I think there still some people up there you could converse with. Just remember Timothy McVeigh was set up.

OK. Herr Commandant. Whatever you say. If that's me, then this is you.

http://www.montanastandard.com/articles ... te_top.txt

I really enjoyed that this article ran statewide today after reading your post from yesterday. You've come a long way since 1918.

[Ponycat]

Remember a lot of people thought the JFK assassination was an act of a single person, but the government later said it was a conspiracy.

Right, wasn't it LBJ on the grassy knoll with Castro spotting for him..oh and Nixon hired Sirhan Sirhan.

Head up to Brusett, MT I think there still some people up there you could converse with. Just remember Timothy McVeigh was set up.

OK. Herr Commandant. Whatever you say. If that's me, then this is you.

http://www.montanastandard.com/articles ... te_top.txt

I really enjoyed that this article ran statewide today after reading your post from yesterday. You've come a long way since 1918.

You lost me on that one.

Pills are GOOOOD Pills are GOOOD

[HelenaCat95]

Scary, but I'm not surprised. Next we'll hear some BS reason for it.

Here's another they'll take down soon. It explains what really happened on 9/11. When will America demand some answers?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

I suppose you are one of those people who believes the lunar landings were all a hoax/conspiracy as well.....

Good one grizzh8r.

"Hey, everyone! We've landed on the moon!" Lloyd (Dumb and Dumber) Christmas. Actually I would be WONDERING about it if the astronauts that our gov't told us were in flight began denying it happened.

Anyway, if you watched the show and if you think it’s an obvious sham, then please fill me in on the answers to the questions the show raises. For instance, I’m "wondering" why all the firefighters and many eyewitnesses heard numerous secondary blasts just before the buildings came down (were they just hearing things?). And why there were puffs of smoke shooting out of the towers to coincide with what they were saying. And why won’t the government release the videos it has from the plane that crashes into the Pentagon (we all saw the planes crash into the WTC, so why not show us the Pentagon crash). Why several of the alledged hijackers turned out to be alive and well in other parts of the world. There are quite a few other items the show brings up and if you can refute them, please explain.

Remember a lot of people thought the JFK assassination was an act of a single person, but the government later said it was a conspiracy.

You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you are.
Unanswered questions do not prove anything. But I'll take a crack at losing my government security clearance to try to answer.

1) the Pentagon crash video. Who knows. Does the government have every copy of the supposed video? It may not be "hiding something", it may just be out of respect for those who died or lost loved ones. I haven't seen the video of the planes crashing in to the WTC in a long time - that doesnt' mean that the government is suppressing it.
2) alleged hijackers in other parts of the world. not real sure how to answer that one.
3) other explosions in the WTC. This one is too easy. THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE. Things explode in fire, be they cleaning supplies, bottles of alcohol, and even ammunition (yes in buildings that have tens of thousands of people in them, it's safe to assume that some of them have guns.)

Anyway, I respect yours and the makers of the videos rights to question what wen on. I wish we could/would question more things, but I honestly think that this is too far out there.

Just my two cents.

[iaafan]

Scary, but I'm not surprised. Next we'll hear some BS reason for it.

Here's another they'll take down soon. It explains what really happened on 9/11. When will America demand some answers?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 3762628848

I suppose you are one of those people who believes the lunar landings were all a hoax/conspiracy as well.....

Good one grizzh8r.

"Hey, everyone! We've landed on the moon!" Lloyd (Dumb and Dumber) Christmas. Actually I would be WONDERING about it if the astronauts that our gov't told us were in flight began denying it happened.

Anyway, if you watched the show and if you think it’s an obvious sham, then please fill me in on the answers to the questions the show raises. For instance, I’m "wondering" why all the firefighters and many eyewitnesses heard numerous secondary blasts just before the buildings came down (were they just hearing things?). And why there were puffs of smoke shooting out of the towers to coincide with what they were saying. And why won’t the government release the videos it has from the plane that crashes into the Pentagon (we all saw the planes crash into the WTC, so why not show us the Pentagon crash). Why several of the alledged hijackers turned out to be alive and well in other parts of the world. There are quite a few other items the show brings up and if you can refute them, please explain.

Remember a lot of people thought the JFK assassination was an act of a single person, but the government later said it was a conspiracy.

You have got to be kidding me. Please tell me you are.
Unanswered questions do not prove anything. But I'll take a crack at losing my government security clearance to try to answer.

1) the Pentagon crash video. Who knows. Does the government have every copy of the supposed video? It may not be "hiding something", it may just be out of respect for those who died or lost loved ones. I haven't seen the video of the planes crashing in to the WTC in a long time - that doesnt' mean that the government is suppressing it.
2) alleged hijackers in other parts of the world. not real sure how to answer that one.
3) other explosions in the WTC. This one is too easy. THE BUILDING WAS ON FIRE. Things explode in fire, be they cleaning supplies, bottles of alcohol, and even ammunition (yes in buildings that have tens of thousands of people in them, it's safe to assume that some of them have guns.)

Anyway, I respect yours and the makers of the videos rights to question what wen on. I wish we could/would question more things, but I honestly think that this is too far out there.

Just my two cents.

First, Don't start you message with "You've got to be kidding me." and then end it with "I respect yours and ... rights to question what went on." The whole point is to question what went on. Then get answers and move on.

Second, where did I say unanswered questions proved anything? Don't misquote me please. I'm saying Americans deserve answers to some of these basic questions. It's pretty simple really.

Third, Yes, the gov't did confiscate the videos from the gas station and hotel that "supposedly" have footage of the Pentagon crash, according to the owners. Out of respect for those who lost loved ones, I'd say let's have a look see at those videos, so people like me can quit bringing up and people like you and Ponycat can quit getting your undies in a wad when I do.

Fourth, if those are paint cans and cleaning supplies exploding, then why doesn't anyone with knowledge of this just say so. Seems like a pretty simple thing to do. But really, that explanation seems far fetched, but I'll refrain from using your "You've got to be kidding" line. And if you watch the show you see its the firefighter talking about the explosions and saying the sounded like bombs going off to bring the building down. So it's not me and it's not the producers, it the actual people at the scene saying this and some of them still are. So if it's good enough for the firefighters to ask the question, then it's good enough for me to want an answer.

[Ponycat]

So tell me iaafan what's your take on the Vince Foster suicide or the Oklahoma City bombing's or the first World Trade Center bombings, or do you only promote ridiculous conspiracies if they fall in line with your radical political leanings.

[iaafan]

Ponycat: Grow up.

[HelenaCat95]

First, Don't start you message with "You've got to be kidding me." and then end it with "I respect yours and ... rights to question what went on." The whole point is to question what went on. Then get answers and move on.

Second, where did I say unanswered questions proved anything? Don't misquote me please. I'm saying Americans deserve answers to some of these basic questions. It's pretty simple really.

Third, Yes, the gov't did confiscate the videos from the gas station and hotel that "supposedly" have footage of the Pentagon crash, according to the owners. Out of respect for those who lost loved ones, I'd say let's have a look see at those videos, so people like me can quit bringing up and people like you and Ponycat can quit getting your undies in a wad when I do.

Fourth, if those are paint cans and cleaning supplies exploding, then why doesn't anyone with knowledge of this just say so. Seems like a pretty simple thing to do. But really, that explanation seems far fetched, but I'll refrain from using your "You've got to be kidding" line. And if you watch the show you see its the firefighter talking about the explosions and saying the sounded like bombs going off to bring the building down. So it's not me and it's not the producers, it the actual people at the scene saying this and some of them still are. So if it's good enough for the firefighters to ask the question, then it's good enough for me to want an answer.

First point - fair enough. You are correct that I should not have used both those statements together. I hope that you can tell from most of my posts that I lean towards respecting opinions, rather than disrespecting them. Although I did not show it there.

Second point. You are correct. You didn't say that it proved anything. But you did imply that all these unanswered questions added up to a conspiracy.

Third point. Ok...let's release the videos. (frankly I'm surprised that their not already on some website somewhere).

Fourth point. I would guess that in the chaos of the moment, those that were in the building and survived probably cannot tell what sounds make what - cracking I-beams, exploding paint cans. I don't think I could tell what is making what sound. My point is simply that in the middle of a fire, when one hears or sees explosions, one should not think that it is anything more than just that - explosions in a fire. Of course, I was not there. Maybe there was something unique to those sounds. I don't know.

I'll say it again (although not with mixed messages this time ) I do respect your opinion.

[iaafan]

First, Don't start you message with "You've got to be kidding me." and then end it with "I respect yours and ... rights to question what went on." The whole point is to question what went on. Then get answers and move on.

Second, where did I say unanswered questions proved anything? Don't misquote me please. I'm saying Americans deserve answers to some of these basic questions. It's pretty simple really.

Third, Yes, the gov't did confiscate the videos from the gas station and hotel that "supposedly" have footage of the Pentagon crash, according to the owners. Out of respect for those who lost loved ones, I'd say let's have a look see at those videos, so people like me can quit bringing up and people like you and Ponycat can quit getting your undies in a wad when I do.

Fourth, if those are paint cans and cleaning supplies exploding, then why doesn't anyone with knowledge of this just say so. Seems like a pretty simple thing to do. But really, that explanation seems far fetched, but I'll refrain from using your "You've got to be kidding" line. And if you watch the show you see its the firefighter talking about the explosions and saying the sounded like bombs going off to bring the building down. So it's not me and it's not the producers, it the actual people at the scene saying this and some of them still are. So if it's good enough for the firefighters to ask the question, then it's good enough for me to want an answer.

First point - fair enough. You are correct that I should not have used both those statements together. I hope that you can tell from most of my posts that I lean towards respecting opinions, rather than disrespecting them. Although I did not show it there.

Second point. You are correct. You didn't say that it proved anything. But you did imply that all these unanswered questions added up to a conspiracy.

Third point. Ok...let's release the videos. (frankly I'm surprised that their not already on some website somewhere).

Fourth point. I would guess that in the chaos of the moment, those that were in the building and survived probably cannot tell what sounds make what - cracking I-beams, exploding paint cans. I don't think I could tell what is making what sound. My point is simply that in the middle of a fire, when one hears or sees explosions, one should not think that it is anything more than just that - explosions in a fire. Of course, I was not there. Maybe there was something unique to those sounds. I don't know.

I'll say it again (although not with mixed messages this time ) I do respect your opinion.

Thank you. It's nice to be on an even playing field with this. I'm not claiming conspiracy, I'm saying lets answer these question and see if there is one. It's like a null hypothesis, eliminate the things that didn't go on. If a conspiracy didn't go on by virtue of turning over all the stones that lead to one, that's one thing, but just giving it a pass isn't OK, especially in this day and age.

I'm glad to see your third point. Everyone should want to find out what's on those videos. I have no idea why they haven't been released and I'd "expect" it's a commercial airplane, but let's see it.

You "could" be right about the explosions, but like the videos, can't we look into it?

That's what I have a problem with....not looking into it, hiding information. Like the Zapruder film of the Kennedy assassination, which wasn't released for several years. It wasn't until 1975 that a mass TV audience viewed the film. The showing caused public outrage and a gov't investiagion.

[Ponycat]

Sorry to offend you, iaafan, but you seem to be backtracking a bit. Didn't you not say that this movie "explains what really happened on 9/11." And didn't you say you wanted answers. So I'm asking do you want answers on every "conspiracy" or just ones that help you feel better about your political views.

[iaafan]

I did, but in that the show presents itself as such. I believe it's subtitled: What really happened. Or something to that affect. But no, I don't claim that the show is what really happened. I "rarely" make such concrete statements. There I just didn't make a concrete statement again.

Based on what we "know" it could be what happened. Although I do doubt it.

[Hello Kitty]

There was a conspiracy, a conspiracy to kill American citizens. What if there were bombs? It was planned attack.
I don’t feel the videos should be released because I don’t think every man, woman and child needs to see evidence so they can belive it was a commercial airline. I also don’t see what the value was of realesing Kennedys assignation tape. I think if anything it has desensitized Americans to be able to watch a president get shot in the head and die. Not a movie but a real persons life before you. Why do people need to see it over and over again?

[Bleedinbluengold]

It was either Discovery Channel or something similar that did a forensic study on the WTC. If memory serves, the program was a forensic study of how the WTC easily collapsed as they did.

Also - several well-documented studies have concluded that eye-witness accounts are very unreliable...which makes one wonder why eye-witnesses are relied upon so heavily when trying to convict people of crimes.


Edit: here's a link to the transcript of the show I watched. The show was on NOVA, actually, not Discovery.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html

[iaafan]

[quote="Bleedinbluengold"]It was either Discovery Channel or something similar that did a forensic study on the WTC. If memory serves, the program was a forensic study of how the WTC easily collapsed as they did.

Also - several well-documented studies have concluded that eye-witness accounts are very unreliable...which makes one wonder why eye-witnesses are relied upon so heavily when trying to convict people of crimes.


Edit: here's a link to the transcript of the show I watched. The show was on NOVA, actually, not Discovery.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/transcripts/2907_wtc.html[/quote]

I don't know if it was this show, but I did see one similar to it. And I had it in mind as I watched the 9/11 show on the Internet. I don't recall any discussion on this show about the explosions, but I'll read through this transcript and keep an eye out for it.