Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 1528/3983
(04-Apr-2006 at 05:34)


Conspiracy theories against governments is nothing new, but there was simply to much to lose with a faction in the US being directly responsible for the WTC attacks. It is for the same reason that we should not consider the actions of other allied nations.
Failure to act on received intelligence is another matter, however.
What is more likely is the complete ignoring of all intelligence relating to the attacks, producing an official deniablity, in the hopes it would spur the American people to accept punitive measures against the perpatrators. As conpiracy websites constantly bring up the NWO manifest, which states (allegedly) the belief that a attack on American soil would be useful in advancing their agenda we can deduce that perhaps there was a concerted effort made to allow the attacks to go ahead, and perhaps even limited help funnelled through friendly countries also desirous of same goals.
The destruction of the WTC was a fluke, not even expected (apparently) by BinLaden.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#21  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Former Global Moderator)
Research Group
Posts: 4814/5374
(04-Apr-2006 at 08:57)


Quote:
The links aren't really fixed for me... but the light poles link works, but that's been taken up in the documentarie(sp?)
D'oh, I don't know why they don't. I thought I fixed 'em
They're pictures of the remenants of jet engines on the lawn.

Anyways, what did the conspiracy theorists have to say about the light poles?

Quote:
But I agree with Gus Mackay, I can't see this as a true conspiracy because that's alot of people to keep quite.
And a lot of people that are in on it, normal people, not top level officials. People SAW that plane hit the Pentagon.

Quote:
This isn't hollywood either, explosions aren't exagerated to sell crowds.
I don't quite get what you're saying here...try again?

Anyone else want to point out some of the major points of this thing?

The Kiowa swooped and banked hard in front of the car, firing three more shots through the front hood, the universal sign for “stop.”
There are two important rules for sucess in life.
1. Never tell anyone everything you know.
#22  
View Public Profile Visit Hawkeyekid's homepage Find more posts by Hawkeyekid Add Hawkeyekid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1561/2397
(04-Apr-2006 at 13:17)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Hawkeyekid:
D'oh, I don't know why they don't. I thought I fixed 'em
They're pictures of the remenants of jet engines on the lawn.

Anyways, what did the conspiracy theorists have to say about the light poles?
Well maybe if did watch the movie you'd know

But well they say it's strange the poles are so whole, if a 747 crashed into them they wouldn't be that whole, and well looking at the images it's kinda strange they do look like someone just "dug" them up and put them there rather then a plane crashing into them.
[/quote]
#23  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Largoi Add Largoi to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1531/3983
(04-Apr-2006 at 15:14)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Hawkeyekid:
D'oh, I don't know why they don't. I thought I fixed 'em
They're pictures of the remenants of jet engines on the lawn.
the links likely don't work due to that site being a banned site by UT. I ran into the same problem before.
The weakest part of the conspiracy theory is the pentagon not being hit by a plane. It was shown on one site that the hole made was roughly the size of the body of the plane, and it was made clear the wings and tail would have been ripped off either before hitting the building, or by hitting the exterior of the building.
It is too bad this is still used as proof of a conspiracy; as these theories are only as strong as the weakest link, which this is.

Quote:
Anyways, what did the conspiracy theorists have to say about the light poles?
I never saw the video, (internet connection to slow) but it is hard to say with positivity exactly how certain things react to stress.

Quote:
And a lot of people that are in on it, normal people, not top level officials. People SAW that plane hit the Pentagon.
and saw it fly towards the Pentagon seconds before.
Dropping the pentagon incident actually stregnthens the case of conspiracy in the attacks, keeping it simply makes it sound like believers are nutjobs.
Personally I believe the WTC attacks should be investigated properly, and independently.

Quote:
I don't quite get what you're saying here...try again?
I think he is saying that what we see in movies has little to do with the actual reality of explosions.

Quote:
Anyone else want to point out some of the major points of this thing?
WhatReallyHappened as a collection of sites links on 911 categorised as a chronological index. It should provide you sufficient material on the conspiracy, as well as a brief explanation of what some links entail.
Have fun.

Quote:
But well they say it's strange the poles are so whole, if a 747 crashed into them they wouldn't be that whole, and well looking at the images it's kinda strange they do look like someone just "dug" them up and put them there rather then a plane crashing into them
There is nothing strange about this. If you look closely it does look like the bottom of the pole is bent, suggesting the plane simply snapped the bolts off.

Quote:
Normally you are very open for science but that the fire on WTC couldnt have melt high quality steel doesnt irritates you at all?
One of the problems with the official investigation, along with the quickness of the collapse itself. It was too bad about selling the steel girders without proper testing. The girders were stored in a facility on Long Island, so it was not a question of cleaning the site at the time, just a question of paying for storage. Specifications called for steel that was capable of withstanding the heat of burning jet fuel. The possibility of substandard materials is subject to criminal charges, and possible law suits, both to inspectors (representatives of government) and to the constructor if they are still in business.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#24  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1562/2397
(04-Apr-2006 at 21:47)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by filcher:
the There is nothing strange about this. If you look closely it does look like the bottom of the pole is bent, suggesting the plane simply snapped the bolts off.
Well even if you just look at the pole it doesn't really make sense to me that just a little bit at the bottom is bent when a bloody plane hit it... to me it would show well... scrapings and stuff but the pole looks brand new.
#25  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Largoi Add Largoi to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Falis4)
Posts: 162/611
(04-Apr-2006 at 22:00)


When you see how much money America has spent after 9/11 i would think a proper investigation would have been way cheaper than some mid term, storage costs. The costs are holding as excuse.

The documentary showed a published letter from the company worker which made the steel saying something like that it was high quality steel and not able to melt at low temperatures. Afterwards this man was sacked! A company which isnt worried about its PR is very suspicious to me. I would await that the company gives a official statement but that wasnt the case. Here is another man with the same story

Quote:
the links likely don't work due to that site being a banned site by UT.
Even if i copy the link and open it in another window it wont connect to the site. The site must be down.

Quote:
and saw it fly towards the Pentagon seconds before.
Surveilance cameras from a gas station and an hotel would have shown the truth but these were consficated and only few frames of the videos were published. People werent allowed to speak about these recordings.

[Holy Qur'an (Surah Al-Furqan; the Criterion]
Blessed is He who sent down the criterion to His servant, that it may be an admonition to all creatures (25:1)
But the misbelievers say: "Naught is this but a lie which he has forged [...] (25:4)
#26  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Armitage Add Armitage to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1536/3983
(05-Apr-2006 at 05:03)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Largoi:
Well even if you just look at the pole it doesn't really make sense to me that just a little bit at the bottom is bent when a bloody plane hit it... to me it would show well... scrapings and stuff but the pole looks brand new.
The top of the pole is hidden in the photo. What does that look like?
I wonder how much force a large plane would have in it's draft, whether that would be sufficient to knock over a light pole?

Quote:
Even if i copy the link and open it in another window it wont connect to the site. The site must be down.
If you copy it from within the body of the post on these forums, the website itself is deleted by Utopia Temple. While I disagree with this censorship, it does allow certain fringe lunatic sites being linked. Unfortunately there are some creditable stories on these sites that are unviewable. Look for a link to another approved site, or do a search for the photos on your favorite search engine.

Quote:
Surveilance cameras from a gas station and an hotel would have shown the truth but these were consficated and only few frames of the videos were published. People werent allowed to speak about these recordings.
The secrecy that has become a trademark of the Bush government supports conspiracy theorioes, and does little to destroy them. This is unfortunate because it does become hard to separate exactly what is truth and what is not. The crazier theories can then be used to defuse the ones that may have some truth to them.
While I am suspicious of the official 911 story I can not see the explicit cooperation of the US government in it. Too many people would have to be involved, and surely some leaks would be heard. I can believe there was official ignoring of the impending attack, simply to advance their agenda. This would seem to be a more realistic theory.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#27  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Former Global Moderator)
Research Group
Posts: 4815/5374
(05-Apr-2006 at 06:53)


Quote:
Well maybe if did watch the movie you'd know
I cited reasons earlier on why I wasn't watching the movie.

Quote:
the links likely don't work due to that site being a banned site by UT. I ran into the same problem before.
I just went to the host site and can kinda see why, it's a conspiracy theorists wet dream. Now it's attached though, no complaints.

Quote:
The weakest part of the conspiracy theory is the pentagon not being hit by a plane. It was shown on one site that the hole made was roughly the size of the body of the plane, and it was made clear the wings and tail would have been ripped off either before hitting the building, or by hitting the exterior of the building.
I agree here. I don't know enough about structural engineering and metals and whatnot to know what happened at the WTC, so I have to go on someone elses word. A claim that something OTHER than a jet liner hit the Pentagon is something that can be easily refuted, unless you think the conspiracy is huge.

Quote:
I think he is saying that what we see in movies has little to do with the actual reality of explosions.
I got that, but I didn't think I was talking about explosions. I also think it's a she

Quote:
Surveilance cameras from a gas station and an hotel would have shown the truth but these were consficated and only few frames of the videos were published. People werent allowed to speak about these recordings.
What gas station? this picture (which had damn well better work) shows that there's only one thing that might be a gas station, and that's a ways away.

Quote:
I wonder how much force a large plane would have in it's draft, whether that would be sufficient to knock over a light pole?
I also believe the official record is that the plane bounced before it struck the Pentagon. Do you know if it bounced before or after the freeway? That could make a difference in what happened to the light pole.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg hullpart.jpg (193.7 KB, 22 views)

The Kiowa swooped and banked hard in front of the car, firing three more shots through the front hood, the universal sign for “stop.”
There are two important rules for sucess in life.
1. Never tell anyone everything you know.
#28  
View Public Profile Visit Hawkeyekid's homepage Find more posts by Hawkeyekid Add Hawkeyekid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1902/7006
(05-Apr-2006 at 15:06)


Quote:
The weakest part of the conspiracy theory is the pentagon not being hit by a plane. It was shown on one site that the hole made was roughly the size of the body of the plane, and it was made clear the wings and tail would have been ripped off either before hitting the building, or by hitting the exterior of the building.
Some view it as the strongest part. If the wings and tail were ripped off, where are they in the video footage and photos?


Quote:
I also believe the official record is that the plane bounced before it struck the Pentagon.
Do 400 ton airliners bounce? I was under the impression that they fell apart and exploded in a ball of fire when they hit the ground.



There are some odd things about 9/11 - I was shocked that the WTC fell down at all, even more shocked that both towers did so in such a tidy manner. Yet there is no doubt at all what caused it; we have all seen the several video shots of the planes hitting the towers. Why does anybody need to drag in all sorts of sinister conspiracies?

Ditto with the Pentagon. Yes, the lack of debris is suprising when you compare it with the Concorde that came down in France for instance, but if the Pentagon wasn't hit by Flight 77 where did that flight go? Over 100 eyewitnesses saw the airliner hit, so once again: why do we need a conspiracy here?

I don't think the public are being given the whole truth here, but that doesn't add up to a huge conspiracy.
#29  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6551/8194
(05-Apr-2006 at 16:00)
Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
Some view it as the strongest part. If the wings and tail were ripped off, where are they in the video footage and photos?
As described on Snopes they most likely were folded in towards the body of the plane rather than ripped all loose. This is the military headquarter of the US miliary, anything that get dragged inside will essentially be gone because they don't want to have too many people with cameras snooping around inside the Pentagon.
Quote:
Do 400 ton airliners bounce? I was under the impression that they fell apart and exploded in a ball of fire when they hit the ground.
Hollywood moives give you the impression that you only need to touch a car or airplane to make it explode At a shallow enough angle and against a flat surface it makes sense that it will bounce. You can probably make a plane bounce off the sea surface too like a small rock if you are crazy enough to do the experiment.
Quote:
Ditto with the Pentagon. Yes, the lack of debris is suprising when you compare it with the Concorde that came down in France for instance, but if the Pentagon wasn't hit by Flight 77 where did that flight go? Over 100 eyewitnesses saw the airliner hit, so once again: why do we need a conspiracy here?
Large events always cause conspiracy theories. It's related to religion, people always want to find deep explanations for stuff that may be just as they seem.
Quote:
I don't think the public are being given the whole truth here, but that doesn't add up to a huge conspiracy.
People are never given the whole truth, because there are too many people trying to cover for their own mistakes. I don't know of any good source in English, but if you find any, read about the assassination of Swedish prime minister Olof Palme and the police investigation that followed. It's a candy store for conspiracy theories with missing tapes and documents, false leads and huge arrests that led nowhere.
#30  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 37/37
(05-Apr-2006 at 20:39)
http://www.st911.org/ (If you want a more credible source, with scientific research)

There are a lot of people speaking out about this, but don't expect to find it in the news. You'll have to do your own thorough research because the News corps work extremely well with the gov't at the end of the day. Anyone recall Operation Mockingbird? That's a good one to google, but here's what former CIA Director William Colby had to say before he died (suspiciously): "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media."

One random link about Mockingbird: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...on_Mockingbird ...It's a shame they don't teach this stuff in school.

Anyone who has read the 9/11 Commission Report probably has one or two hundred questions they want to ask. For example why did WTC building 7 collapse? Most people are unaware of this 47-story building dropping to the floor in less than 7 seconds.WTC7 collapse

As for the Twin Towers, the debate is not whether or not airplanes would cause a lot of damage. The main question is how was it possible for the buildings to fall almost at a speed of freefall in a vaccuum. For a simple graphic demonstration of this debate, see the following link: Graphs
An appropriate secondary question is what caused the enormous billowing pyroclastic flow that accompanied the collapses? It too defies the laws of physics. How was virtually every cubic inch of concrete turned into a fine dust? http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/anal.../concrete.html

Popular Mechanics ran a hit piece on the 9/11 conspiracies. What many people don't know is that this article is largely based on straw-man attacks, misinformation, and even some blatant lies. Oddly enough, the article is authored by Benjamin Chertoff, the cousin of Michael Chertoff, who is the head of Homeland Security. Instead of accepting the article at face value, check out some of the many rebuttals to it:
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/
http://www.serendipity.li/wot/pop_me..._mechanics.htm
Here is some more information about the art and science of disinformation. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...Disinformation
Here is a website that covers many aspects of disinformation surrounding 9/11. http://911review.com/infowars.html

Quote:
Large events always cause conspiracy theories. It's related to religion, people always want to find deep explanations for stuff that may be just as they seem.
I'd have to strongly disagree. Most people questioning 9/11 believe it has nothing to do with religion. On that note, it has nothing to do with Left/Right politics either. The reason people are questioning it is because the 9/11 Commission Report makes no sense whatsoever. They avoided every single topic that didn't fit in with their "19-arab hijackers hate our freedom" theory.

For that matter, what about the hijackers? What proof has ever been presented to prove this? They don't appear on any flight manifests, yet the official story maintains they bought tickets. What gives? There is a lot more to this that cannot be summed up in a single posting.

It is very easy to dismiss and demonize anyone who mentions a conspiracy. After all, the president told us we only had two choices: support the gov't, or support the 'terrorists'. However, anyone who bothers to do proper, balanced research will find that there are too many discrepancies in the official report to ignore. It should be everyone's duty to ask questions and demand answers. The 'conspiracy' could be cleared up if the gov't was willing to answer the appropriate questions. A recent CNN poll showed that 84% of 50,000 respondants thought the government participated in, and covered up 9/11. I won't take that poll for gospel, but it is an indicator that there are a lot of people out there who believe in getting answers and proof to their questions.

There is a ton of research to do on 9/11. If you are willing to allow for the possibility, just the possibility that the government was complicit in this crime, it is well worth your time. Government coverups have a ton of precedence. Operation Northwoods called for an eerily similar plan to spark a war with Cuba, that involved shooting down civilian airplanes and blaming it on the Cubans. This plan was approved by the heads of the U.S. military.

Do research. Ask questions. Demand answers.
#31  
View Public Profile Find more posts by redworks Add redworks to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1541/3983
(06-Apr-2006 at 01:16)


Quote:
I'd have to strongly disagree. Most people questioning 9/11 believe it has nothing to do with religion.
On the off chance you misread, Bernel is simply saying that conspiracy arises like religion does, from the necessity of explaining alarming and terrifying phenomena or occurences.

Quote:
It is very easy to dismiss and demonize anyone who mentions a conspiracy. After all, the president told us we only had two choices: support the gov't, or support the 'terrorists'. However, anyone who bothers to do proper, balanced research will find that there are too many discrepancies in the official report to ignore. It should be everyone's duty to ask questions and demand answers. The 'conspiracy' could be cleared up if the gov't was willing to answer the appropriate questions.
I wonder if the answers are known if it would not just lead to more theories and more questions. I do agree that there are questions that have not been answered, and things that have not happened as they should be expected to. A proper inquiry is needed that does focus on these questions.

Quote:
For that matter, what about the hijackers? What proof has ever been presented to prove this? They don't appear on any flight manifests, yet the official story maintains they bought tickets. What gives? There is a lot more to this that cannot be summed up in a single posting.
This is easy if you read the conspiracy theories.
The hijackers were under observation prior to the attacks, and Mohammad Atta, believed the leader, was apparently a guest on Jack Ambram-off's (did jacks father have a weird sense of humor when he named him?). He also was reported to have received money through a bank in Florida that has since gone bankrupt and the records destroyed, met with at least 7 commercial pilots not from Arabian countries or of arabian descent, and trained in Florida. Several of his fellow hijackers had also apparently been identified and were under surveillance. operation money also came from Israeli and Republican sources.
While all these are claimed as true, and some have been reported in FBI files that have since been classified, there was no investigation into these accusations to verify accuracy. However, in addition, as reported in MSM, various other countries did warn the US of an impending attack, and some even warned of the likely use of planes.
One of the questions that has also never been investigated is the manipulation of the stock market, the dancing Israeli's in the park and the phone call to Jews who worked in WTC not to go to work on 9 11.

Quote:
If you are willing to allow for the possibility, just the possibility that the government was complicit in this crime,
All indications would seem to point to a failure to act, not really complicity in the crime itself. I would also not be surprised however, if there was a conspiracy to allow the terrorists to mount a successful attack on the WTC.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#32  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1904/7006
(06-Apr-2006 at 02:22)


Quote:
As described on Snopes they most likely were folded in towards the body of the plane rather than ripped all loose.
Yes, I have read that and I think it is bollocks. Firstly, the wing span of a 757 is 38.05 metres, the length of the fuselage is 47.32 metres. This means that each individual wing is close to half the length of the fusealge, and as they are mounted about halfway down the body of the plane the folded wings would reach the front of the aircraft.

Secondly, this plane was travelling at between 350 and 500 mph, depending which account you read. How fast do you think an aircraft wing can fold?

The only way the Snopes theory could work is if the wings folded instantly, or the aircraft paused while the wings folded neatly alongside the pilots cockpit so they could go through the same hole as the fuselage.


It is possible for an aircraft to simply vanish if it is travelling fast enough and hits something solid enough. In simple terms, the metal doesn't have enough time to bend so it crystallizes as dust instead. This has been suggested for the Pentagon, but as the plane made a hole in the Pentagon wall I don't believe the Pentagon is solid enough for this to happen.


Quote:
Hollywood moives give you the impression that you only need to touch a car or airplane to make it explode At a shallow enough angle and against a flat surface it makes sense that it will bounce. You can probably make a plane bounce off the sea surface too like a small rock if you are crazy enough to do the experiment.
It is not just Hollywood movies, it is a whole history of plane crashes. The airfrance Concorde was travelling a lot slower than the Pentagons 757, and came down at a very shallow angle, yet it still exploded. Airliners have broken up and exploded trying to land at airports.

An airliner is not a rock, it is far more fragile. The reason they don't bounce is that when they hit the ground the airframe falls to pieces, the bottom rips out of the plane, and the plane breaks up.
#33  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6552/8194
(06-Apr-2006 at 07:04)
Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
Yes, I have read that and I think it is bollocks. Firstly, the wing span of a 757 is 38.05 metres, the length of the fuselage is 47.32 metres. This means that each individual wing is close to half the length of the fusealge, and as they are mounted about halfway down the body of the plane the folded wings would reach the front of the aircraft.
The front of the aircraft? The idea is that the wings get folded backwards, and it seems entirely plausible to me.
Quote:
It is not just Hollywood movies, it is a whole history of plane crashes. The airfrance Concorde was travelling a lot slower than the Pentagons 757, and came down at a very shallow angle, yet it still exploded. Airliners have broken up and exploded trying to land at airports.
Airliners have survived a lot too, but you read less about those accidents that don't become disasters.
#34  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1566/2397
(06-Apr-2006 at 07:22)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Bernel:
The front of the aircraft? The idea is that the wings get folded backwards, and it seems entirely plausible to me.

Airliners have survived a lot too, but you read less about those accidents that don't become disasters.
In the movie they compare the debris of the pentagon crash (or lack of in that case) to the debris caused when the 747 hit the mountain side in Greece last (?) year. In any case it's pretty styrange the whole pentagon crash, I can't imagine it being a big cover up because as have been said to many people have to be silent.
#35  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Largoi Add Largoi to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Former Global Moderator)
Research Group
Posts: 4818/5374
(06-Apr-2006 at 08:25)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Largoi:
In the movie they compare the debris of the pentagon crash (or lack of in that case) to the debris caused when the 747 hit the mountain side in Greece last (?) year. In any case it's pretty styrange the whole pentagon crash, I can't imagine it being a big cover up because as have been said to many people have to be silent.
The mountain side (I assume) was pretty solid though. The Pentagon isn't really comparable to a mountain, as the 747 went pretty far into it. I don't find it that impossible that it took the wreckage with it, and because it's the Pentagon, you're not going to get people inside snapping pictures.

The Kiowa swooped and banked hard in front of the car, firing three more shots through the front hood, the universal sign for “stop.”
There are two important rules for sucess in life.
1. Never tell anyone everything you know.
#36  
View Public Profile Visit Hawkeyekid's homepage Find more posts by Hawkeyekid Add Hawkeyekid to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1905/7006
(06-Apr-2006 at 17:02)


Quote:
The front of the aircraft? The idea is that the wings get folded backwards, and it seems entirely plausible to me.
That seems very implausible to me. Those wings are traveling at 350 - 500mph, being pushed along by a jet engine each. What on earth makes you think that they are suddenly going to start going backwards in relation to the fuselage?

Though all that Snopes says is that the wings folded and went through the same hole as the fuselage with specifying which direction they would fold, I think simple physics says that the front of the aircraft hits the Pentagon and presumably slows down, while the momentum of the wings plus the thrust of the engines means that they keep going at the original speed and fold forwards. Regardless of which way Snopes thinks the wings would fold, the idea is still silly.


Quote:
Airliners have survived a lot too, but you read less about those accidents that don't become disasters.
Can you give any examples of commercial airliners belly flopping onto the ground at 350mph and surviving intact?
#37  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 6554/8194
(06-Apr-2006 at 17:57)
Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
That seems very implausible to me. Those wings are traveling at 350 - 500mph, being pushed along by a jet engine each. What on earth makes you think that they are suddenly going to start going backwards in relation to the fuselage?
Contact with a thick concrete wall tend to make things slow down. The body of the plane was heavy enough to go straight through, but the wings having much larger surface to weight ratio wasn't. Whether or not the engines had already stopped is pretty much irrelevant at this point, their thrust is negligible in comparison to the crash forces. You may be right that the wings were first thrown forward as the nose of the plane hit the building. and before hitting the building themselves.
Quote:
Can you give any examples of commercial airliners belly flopping onto the ground at 350mph and surviving intact?
No. I think I've seen about some fairly violent landings but have no interest in trying to dig up any details. We're not talking about intact in the sense that the plane can be fixed up and reused, only intact in the sense that it stays in one piece for a few seconds.
#38  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Bernel Add Bernel to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1906/7006
(07-Apr-2006 at 04:46)


Quote:
Contact with a thick concrete wall tend to make things slow down. The body of the plane was heavy enough to go straight through, but the wings having much larger surface to weight ratio wasn't. Whether or not the engines had already stopped is pretty much irrelevant at this point, their thrust is negligible in comparison to the crash forces. You may be right that the wings were first thrown forward as the nose of the plane hit the building. and before hitting the building themselves.
In the time it takes for a 350mph airliner to travel its own length - 47metres - the wings and their attached engines first fold forwards, then fold backwards, and do all that without falling off? They are incredible wings!


Quote:
We're not talking about intact in the sense that the plane can be fixed up and reused, only intact in the sense that it stays in one piece for a few seconds.
Exactly. When does an airliner doing 350mph ever hit the ground and stay intact, even for a few seconds? They touch the ground at take-off or landing speed and fall apart - I can give you plenty of examples if you need convincing.
#39  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Voice of Reason Add Voice of Reason to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1547/3983
(07-Apr-2006 at 06:21)


Re: 9/11 Documentary

Originally Posted by Voice of Reason:
In the time it takes for a 350mph airliner to travel its own length - 47metres - the wings and their attached engines first fold forwards, then fold backwards, and do all that without falling off? They are incredible wings!
Exactly. When does an airliner doing 350mph ever hit the ground and stay intact, even for a few seconds? They touch the ground at take-off or landing speed and fall apart - I can give you plenty of examples if you need convincing.
I wonder exactly what is the theory here if not an airplane? That a missile hit the pentagon? Does this not open up more questions? How do you explain the eyewitnesses who reported seeing an airplane, not a missile?
Could the wings have remained attached due to hydraulic hoses and wirings, even after metal struts had broken off, and after folding in against the fuselage, been pulled inside the Pentagon? While I find it unlikely, not being acquainted with aircraft construction I would not know for sure.

“The law, in its majestic equality, forbids the rich as well as the poor to sleep under bridges, to beg in the streets, and to steal bread.”
#40  
View Public Profile Find more posts by filcher Add filcher to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
General Discussion on the 9/11 Incident Majestic Vraak Respectable General Discussions 16 16-Aug-2004 05:05
Iran next? 9/11 Commision finds Iran-Al Qaeda ties SniperWolf Respectable General Discussions 30 13-Aug-2004 03:02
Bush adds are exploiting 9/11 for political ends Jean831112 Respectable General Discussions 115 08-Mar-2004 01:10
Bush Senior Met With Bin Laden's Brother on 9/11 rormc Respectable General Discussions 28 19-Feb-2004 13:52
Terrorism before 9/11.... kdogg7 Respectable General Discussions 40 19-Sep-2003 07:17


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 13:46.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright © Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.