911: What makes you suspicious - now with added extra poll option!

[editor]

My research involved seeing standard photos of the pentegon after having been purportedly hit by an airliner. There is little or no debris on the lawn.

Strange then, that only a few hours ago you were categorically stating that there was "No debris on the lawn." You want to make your mind up!

And seeing as you're claiming that it was "purportedly hit by an airliner" (despite a huge amount of independent eye witness testimony saying that they saw a plane) perhaps you might say what else it might have been - along with your supporting evidence for any credible alternative theory, of course?

 

[max_freakout]

Strange then, that only a few hours ago you were categorically stating that there was "No debris on the lawn." You want to make your mind up!

It's not so much the lack of debris on the lawn, as the lack of scorch marks, the plane was flying very close to the ground as it approached the door of the pentagon, yet the grass in front of the building does not show any evidence of the massive vapour trails that a jumbo jet produces, and there are street lamps standing right in front of the door that should have been knocked over

 

[editor]

It's not so much the lack of debris on the lawn, as the lack of scorch marks, the plane was flying very close to the ground as it approached the door of the pentagon, yet the grass in front of the building does not show any evidence of the massive vapour trails that a jumbo jet produces, and there are street lamps standing right in front of the door that should have been knocked over

I didn't realise you were an expert in this field.

So how come all the crash investigators who saw this site much closer than you don't agree with your findings?

And how about all those experts infinitely more qualified than you who have access to the same information as you?

They're not saying anythiing either. Are they all in on it too, then?

And seeing as you're telling me what 'should' have happened at the scene, perhaps you could offer a credible alternative - and then explain why so many eye witnesses were all somehow mistaken?

Oh, and please check before trying to embed images from other sites.

 

[WouldBe]

yet the grass in front of the building does not show any evidence of the massive vapour trails that a jumbo jet produces,

You very rarely get 'vapour trails' at ground level. If you did airports would be permanently shrouded in fog.

 

[editor]

You very rarely get 'vapour trails' at ground level. If you did airports would be permanently shrouded in fog.

Aw. Don't go spoiling an exciting conspiracy yarn with something as mundane as a fact!

 

[WouldBe]

Aw. Don't go spoiling an exciting conspiracy yarn with something as mundane as a fact!

Maybe they injected green dye into the exhaust so the 'vapour trails' were camouflaged against the grass.

 

[Kid_Eternity]

Maybe they injected green dye into the exhaust so the 'vapour trails' were camouflaged against the grass.

Gasp! The truth revealed!

 

[snadge]

Are you any good at scrabble BK? My team of urban75 conspiracy theorists has been available to take on a challenge, but no-one has taken it up! A shame I think it would make an entertaining spectacle.

that's cos' you use made up words.

 

[max_freakout]

I didn't realise you were an expert in this field.

So how come all the crash investigators who saw this site much closer than you don't agree with your findings?

And how about all those experts infinitely more qualified than you who have access to the same information as you?

They're not saying anythiing either. Are they all in on it too, then?

And seeing as you're telling me what 'should' have happened at the scene, perhaps you could offer a credible alternative - and then explain why so many eye witnesses were all somehow mistaken?

Oh, and please check before trying to embed images from other sites.

I am no 'expert' in any field but it seems absurd that all the hot exhaust that shoots out the back of a big jumbojet would have left an unscathed lawn, and that's not a 'conspiracy' of any kind just a simple observation (which supports the 'conspiracy' theory that a missile hit the pentagon and not a plane). And there is not one single 'expert' who is 'infinitely more qualified' than me who has explained this, unless you know of one?
'So many eyewitnesses all mistaken' ??? Many of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a 'light aircraft' not a jumbo jet
And the 'crash experts who saw the site' DID NOT account for the fact that there was no wreckage at all, and that over 100 tonnes of metal therefore 'vapourised' unless you care to show otherwise??

And 'my findings' amount to a simple observation that a lawn was left intact after a close encounter with a jumbo jet, any moron can make that observation just by looking at the pics. I am NOT any kind of conspiracy theorist, so why do you insist on implying that i am just because i made some obvious observations about some photos?

 

[max_freakout]

Aw. Don't go spoiling an exciting conspiracy yarn with something as mundane as a fact!

There is a big difference between a conspiracy theory, and an observation of evidence (such as those about the pentagon pics) it seems you are always undermining people using that exact method, accuse everyone of being a 'conspiraloon' except those who agree with the official version of events, end of story....

 

[WouldBe]

There is a big difference between a conspiracy theory, and an observation of evidence (such as those about the pentagon pics) it seems you are always undermining people using that exact method, accuse everyone of being a 'conspiraloon' except those who agree with the official version of events, end of story....

Perhaps you could explain to us when was the last time you saw the airport authorities hosing down a runway to cool down the tarmac to stop it melting from the heat of the aircrafts exhausts?

Tarmac has been known to melt in around 30C summer temperatures. Grass will withstand a much higher temp than this.

 

[editor]

'So many eyewitnesses all mistaken' ??? Many of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a 'light aircraft' not a jumbo jet

Really? How many, exactly? Sources please.

The fact is that the vast majority identified a jet airliner.

Why are you ignoring all their testimonies?
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/evidence/witnesses/bart.html
(I'm not recommending this site btw - but it has a handy list of documented testimonies)

What's your alternative theory? What's your point?

 

[editor]

There is a big difference between a conspiracy theory, and an observation of evidence (such as those about the pentagon pics)

I simply pointed out that it was inaccurate, just like your rubbish about 'jet trails' and the equally ill-informed nonsense that there was "no wreckage at all."

Why do you keep on repeating a lie? What's your agenda here?

 

[DrRingDing]

Yep.

As much as I despise unthinking loons who are happy to quote anti-Semitic cunts like David Icke... there is something really fishy about the collapse of WTC 7.

The Atta passport I'm prepared to accept - though far fetched - anyone who saw decent video of the plane hitting would see clearly the cockpit emerge from the other side of the tower before the fuel tanks erupted, and this was a considerable amount of time before the buildings collapsed, so not as much debris around.

I think the Saudi businessmen were in it with Bush up to their necks, and this way all evidence and legal personnel surrounding a scandal much bigger than Enron were destroyed forever.

And why they flew out members of the Bin Laden family to Saudi within hours of the attack, well, that's just pure bollocks, no Republicunt has ever explained this.

Time will tell, but that's my hunch.

Bush is more than capable of this kind of atrocity, as he's since demonstrated.

Fuck me

A change of tack or a piss take?

*strokes fake beard*

 

[Kid_Eternity]

*strokes fake beard*

You're Father Christmas and I claim my fiver!

 

[MikeMcc]

I am no 'expert' in any field but it seems absurd that all the hot exhaust that shoots out the back of a big jumbojet would have left an unscathed lawn, and that's not a 'conspiracy' of any kind just a simple observation (which supports the 'conspiracy' theory that a missile hit the pentagon and not a plane). And there is not one single 'expert' who is 'infinitely more qualified' than me who has explained this, unless you know of one?
'So many eyewitnesses all mistaken' ??? Many of the eyewitnesses reported seeing a 'light aircraft' not a jumbo jet
And the 'crash experts who saw the site' DID NOT account for the fact that there was no wreckage at all, and that over 100 tonnes of metal therefore 'vapourised' unless you care to show otherwise??

And 'my findings' amount to a simple observation that a lawn was left intact after a close encounter with a jumbo jet, any moron can make that observation just by looking at the pics. I am NOT any kind of conspiracy theorist, so why do you insist on implying that i am just because i made some obvious observations about some photos?

Try watching the grass beside thge runway when you're sat in a seat near the back of a 747, it just 'waves' in the exhaust. Similarly when you board a Chinook helicopter on the tail hatch, you're buffeted by the exhausts from two jet turbine engines, you can still board without bursting into flames!

It turns out the Pentagon is extremely well constructed to withstand this sort of impact (more bty luck than judgement though. In particular the columns have an unusual method of steel reinforcement, using spirals.

http://www.architectureweek.com/2003/0212/news_1-1.html

 

[max_freakout]

I simply pointed out that it was inaccurate, just like your rubbish about 'jet trails' and the equally ill-informed nonsense that there was "no wreckage at all."

Why do you keep on repeating a lie? What's your agenda here?

A lie? I havent even made a direct statement of fact that we all cant agree on.
If there was any plane parts salvaged they certainly werent photographed officially from what i can see. There WAS an immaculate lawn and several intact lampposts, you can see this in the photos, and the official version of the story puts the trajectory of the jet straight through the lampposts. I have no agenda other than i believe that 9/11 was more likely to originate from wealthy business men who were desperate for an excuse to bomb the Middle East and get some oil, than some poor bearded men in a cave with no motives other than ideological ones.

As far as the eyewitness testimony, ok i was wrong about that given the link that you posted, i just read what i said in Thierry Meyssin's (sp?) book.

 

[editor]

There was also that video that showed the results of a military test involving crashing a jet into a concrete block at high speed. Far from leaving a castoon-like outline in the structure, the jet was instanteously smashed into tiny smithereens.

Mind you, I'll look forward to max_freakout's analysis of the well researched article in Architecture Week and why he thinks the experts concerned don't appear to have any doubts about what happened.

 

[Wilson]

All these stupid conspiracies are just shitmisting the issue, I know what i think happened, and to me thats good enough, it would be nice to have a thread which explored the events of 11/9 but it really needs to be grounded in reality rather than some fucking stupid discussion about lizard overlords with telepathically controlled missiles disguised as passanger planes topped with death rays from the martian moonbase
the most sensible poll would read
a i believe the account of the us government as to what happened
b i do not believe the account of the us gov but what i believe happened is still based in reality according to the laws of physics
c i am a fruitloop
sadly everyone who should vote c would vote b and all the discussions here and all that ive seen elsewhere have been stumbling due to this factor, effectively often it appears as though the people who would be in the b camp are spending their energy debunking what the people who should be in the c camp are saying, the people in the a camp are meanwhile laughing their arses off or more likely pretending to be the people who should be in the c camp and thus shitmisting the issue.

 

[editor]

A lie? I havent even made a direct statement of fact that we all cant agree on.

Err, you claimed that there was "was no wreckage at all" on the Pentagon. That is wrong. If you keep on repeating this inaccurate information (why?) you are lying.

 

[TeeJay]

This is a cut and paste from a 911 truth site. The option wasnt given on that. I accept some people may not be suspicious at all.

I don't like any of the options you have listed either so I haven't voted. How hard would it have been to include an option for people who think that it was done by terrorists?

 

[mtbskalover]

"terrorist" is a vert strong and miss-used so very much! are america's "freedom" fighter soldiers not terrorists in the eyes of some iraqi familes? we are as much terrorists as the people who are called terrorists by the media.

wat makes me suspicious is the simple fact that it happened to america, they could be hiding anything from us! look at the history of america in the last century, scandal here, scandal there, helping osama here, hunting him there, giving saddam guns for what, putting saddam on trial where.

i still believe, like i did on the day it happened, america caused it them selves by offending another culture, and deserved the attacks, its sucks innocent NYers died. Its a pity people cant open there eyes and see why it happened why they were targeted. Like da london bombs, why did it happen? cos we have killed innocent peole in iraq, afghan, backed israel or watever.

its all like little kids, you hit me, so i'll hit you back, and it just goes nowhere and both sides are to blame.

 

[flimsier]

Fuck me

A change of tack or a piss take?

*strokes fake beard*

Must be someone else. He said he flounced a few days ago - under his other log-in.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

I don't like any of the options you have listed either so I haven't voted. How hard would it have been to include an option for people who think that it was done by terrorists?

I think terrorists were responsible personally.

Broadly, there are 2 schools of conspirasist thought: LIHOP (let it happen on purpose) whereby there was some knowledge of an upcomming attack (perhaps not the scale) and MIHOP (make it happen on purpose).

I veer more towards the former.

I know some people are dissing this thread and conversations like it becuase "conspirloons" are blaming "lizards" etc.

Again, I am not advancing any theory. We need solid evidence for that. Solid evidence that is missing from many accounts of the official story.

Put another way: When examining the historical evidence of Sept 11th 2001, there are 2 very separate questions:

a) Do you believe the official story?

b) If not, then what do you believe?

We do not need to know b to answer a.

To me, it is impossible to answer b with much confidence. It relies so much on conjecture.
Too many people are pretending to have a possible answer to (b) which allows those who would say "yes" to (a) to ridicule them.

In truth, answering yes to (a) in all confidence is as ridiculous as some of the people who claim to know an answer to (b)

 

[TeeJay]

In deference to a previous poster I will rephrase my last post:

How hard would it have been to include an option for people who think that it was done by "middle eastern freedom fighters"?

 

[q_w_e_r_t_y]

Outwith the "professional 911 researchers" who generally have a book on the go...the only people who claim to know what happened on 911 are those who believe the US g'ment account.

Most others simply dont have enough information to know what to think, but see the holes in the above.

Strange thing is that those who believe the US g'ment call us conspiracy theorists, because we ...err... don't believe their conspiracy theory.

 

[editor]

Strange thing is that those who believe the US g'ment call us conspiracy theorists, because we ...err... don't believe their conspiracy theory.

Yeah, thanks, whatever.

 

[taffboy gwyrdd]

Outwith the "professional 911 researchers" who generally have a book on the go...the only people who claim to know what happened on 911 are those who believe the US g'ment account.

Most others simply dont have enough information to know what to think, but see the holes in the above.

Strange thing is that those who believe the US g'ment call us conspiracy theorists, because we ...err... don't believe their conspiracy theory.

Actually Editor, this is pretty much true.

The official story will remain a conspiracy theory itself till plenty of questions are answered. That doesnt mean questioning wether a bunch of (so called) islamic fundiloons hijacked some planes. But theres plenty thats fishy beyond that.

 

[editor]

The official story will remain a conspiracy theory itself till plenty of questions are answered. That doesnt mean questioning wether a bunch of (so called) islamic fundiloons hijacked some planes. But theres plenty thats fishy beyond that.

I find it even fishier why people like you keep on ignoring obvious evidence, repeating obvious untruths, refuse to accept all expert analysis and dismiss eye witness testimony in your quest for an exciting conspiracy theory.

I don't think for one second that the US government is in the business of telling the truth, but compared to the fact-free fruitloop shite I've seen endlessly regurgitated here, I'm more inclined to believe that it was a passenger plane that hit the Pentagon and not invisible missiles/fake planes/remote control bombs/UFOs or whatever.

But the level of 'research' you've displayed so far shows that you haven't any real interest in finding the truth: you're just looking to reinforce your predetermined conspiracy-tastic conclusion.

 

[TeeJay]

The US government case consists of evidence that points towards Islamist terrorists hijacking and deliberately crashing the planes. The "truth movement" case consists of nit-picking tiny official details that they claim are inconsistent then making the massive leap to US government involvement and cover up.

To me the proposition that the crashes were caused deliberately by Islamist hijackers is the most credible theory that is on the table. To dissuade me you have to do more than quibble and nit-pick over minor details - you'd have to provide me with some credible evidence that someone else carried out the attack. I haven't seen a single piece of evidence that implicates the US government or any of its agencies.

Noone has provided any such evidence and so the best - and only coherent - theory on the table is that it was Islamist hijackers.