Mystery of WTC 7 - Conspiracy

[Jace]

I was there and lost two friends. There was no fecking conspiracy!

its really shit to think despite the ammount of people who lost lives in these planes that these idiots still come up with these silly theories about explosives and goverment cover ups

[Rincewind]

Someone was saying on the programme about 9/11 last night they thought it disrespectful to the families of the victims to bring all this rubbish up every year at a time when they are still trying to forget about the horror of it and grieve.

If it was a plot and set up then who plotted it, how many were involved and why has noone come forward to tell the story?

Without these answers the set up story cannot be proved. A video of one side of a building collapse from a distance is not enough. Not for me anyway. Not sure about the rest of the planet population.

[The Doctor]

I think it's you who watches too many cartoons if you think that an object made mostly of soft materials with no explosive power could make that hole. Especially as the hole is in the side of THE PENTAGON! REINFORCED MUCH?!.

Planes are, in shape, essentially massive bullets. The boeing 757 (the plane that "supposedly hit the pentagon) has an empty weight of 84100lbs, which equates to 38,147 tons according to this site.

The maxium take-off weight is 133,000lbs or 60,327 tons.

A massive bullet filled with hundreds of thousands of galleons of highly volatile liquid and weighing between 38 thousand & 60 thousand tons is going to do massive damage, even to a concrete wall as reinforced as those at the pentagon.

Also a quick google search suggests the planes that hit the twin towers were Boeing 767's - the ones that cost in excess of $140M to manufacture just one - you really think the US government are going to turn round and say

"lets take over 280 million dollars worth of plane, pack it with crew and passengers, then crash it into major buildings in the business world doing thousands of millions of dollars damage to our economy so that we can invade Iraq, kill some mad bloke and pocket a couple of hundred million in oil money.

Let's not stop there, we'll also take a million dollar missile, call it a $65M plane and launch it at our main nation defensive quarters, effectively temporarily paralysing national security just to ensure the public think some bearded guy is out to get us".

Edit:

Jet fuel is highly incombustible and is nothing like explosives that are used for destroying buildings.

you're joking right? Jet fuel is either kerosene or naphtha, hydrocarbons between 5 & 16 carbon atoms long.

Kerosene burns at roughly 38°C, while the kerosene/naphtha mix can only be used in cold climates due to it's volatility. The temperatures they'd be exposed to in the crashes would be well above their burning point.

[Rincewind]

It happens in the movies.

[purpleronnie]

The hole was around 16 to 20 foot hole. That is really interesting when you take into account the fact that the 757 body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high. The 757 is basically a cylinder that is 13 feet across. It then should not be surprising that it would create something around a thirteen foot hole in the side of the building.

Look at the nose-on view of a 757 - you can see the body is slightly less than 1/3 the size of the height of the aircraft. The tail certainly isn't going to punch a hole through a reinforced concrete wall; that is why there is no 40 foot hole in the front of the Pentagon in any photos. A 40 foot object didn't hit it, a 13 foot object did. All the wreckae immediately after the plane hit, that was somehow place there without anyone seeing it, its so far beyond ridiculous.

But these theorists wouldn't believe it, they want to believe its a conspiracy.

[AndyElZorro]

These stories must be made up too. Especially the ones where the victims were passengers on the "drones"

:sigh:

http://www.courant.com/news/nation-world/9-11-attacks-ten-years/hc-911-victims-from-connecticut-20110907,0,7716304.photogallery

[Fox92]

I was there and lost two friends. There was no fecking conspiracy!

I am really sorry to hear that. It must have been a massive experience for everyone there, I couldn't imagine it really. I'm very interested in 9/11 (not the conspiracy, but just about how the torrorists boarded and what went on from there etc). Although WTC 7, and even the Pentagon is a mystery, I don't believe it was a conspiracy at all. I see it as it was, and no more.

Can see it being emotional on Sunday, just hope what I've been reading in the media about another attack isn't true.

[OzFox]

Conspiracy theorists deny 9-11 anniversary

September 11th conspiracy theorists have dismissed claims of the terrorist attack's 10th anniversary

The theorists fall into two distinct camps, with one group claiming that 9-11 happened many years ago, possibly as early as 1922, and another group claiming the event happened in 2007.

Conspiracy theorist, Joseph Turner, said: "The media have convinced you that this is the 10th anniversary. You need to think for yourself. And anyway, just look at the footage. Those types of airliners weren't even in use 10 years ago."

But truth-seeker 'blackop182', editor of the 'Nine-e-Lie-Ven' blog, insisted the footage of the planes hitting the towers was taken far earlier.

"My guess would be the summer of 1972. It was organised by G. Gordon Liddy and an anti-Castro Cuban operative known only as 'El Pequeno'.

"Also the dating here relies on the Julian calendar, which didn't come into effect until 2005.

"Also there's no way they could have destroyed the World Trade Centre, because there's no World Trade Centre in New York. If there is then show it to me."

He added: "Basically, saying it happened 10 years ago is a ridiculous anachronism. Like saying Jesus Christ rode around on a Triceratops.

“Actually, not that, because I believe Jesus actually did that. Something else."

[The Doctor]

Conspiracy theorists deny 9-11 anniversary

September 11th conspiracy theorists have dismissed claims of the terrorist attack's 10th anniversary

The theorists fall into two distinct camps, with one group claiming that 9-11 happened many years ago, possibly as early as 1922, and another group claiming the event happened in 2007.

Conspiracy theorist, Joseph Turner, said: "The media have convinced you that this is the 10th anniversary. You need to think for yourself. And anyway, just look at the footage. Those types of airliners weren't even in use 10 years ago."

But truth-seeker 'blackop182', editor of the 'Nine-e-Lie-Ven' blog, insisted the footage of the planes hitting the towers was taken far earlier.

"My guess would be the summer of 1972. It was organised by G. Gordon Liddy and an anti-Castro Cuban operative known only as 'El Pequeno'.

"Also the dating here relies on the Julian calendar, which didn't come into effect until 2005.

"Also there's no way they could have destroyed the World Trade Centre, because there's no World Trade Centre in New York. If there is then show it to me."

He added: "Basically, saying it happened 10 years ago is a ridiculous anachronism. Like saying Jesus Christ rode around on a Triceratops.

"Actually, not that, because I believe Jesus actually did that. Something else."

:laugh: - the media hasn't convinced me it's the 10th anniversary, I know it's the tenth anniversary through being able to read a calender.

Also 2007? They aren't mixing it up with the tube bombings in London are they?

[OzFox]

Can you tell me why you keep posting this video? Is it supposed to be clever?

The video seems to be making the point that "everything is exactly as it appears" which is weird because the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing hinges on everything being NOT as it appears. For instance the repeated ignorance of hundreds of witnesses to the collapse of WTC7, planes smashing into towers/Pentagon, hijackers, wreckage, bodies etc etc etc. So the video itself is a contradiction.

There's also the possibility that the orange in the video is actually a grapefruit, like this one

in which case, everything is definitely not as it appears with WTC7

[Rincewind]

You can't be sure until you peel it. Then there are several segments to it unlike the video of the building which only shows one side.

You cannot see the damage done close up. Were there any gs mains nearby? There was footage where was a partial collapse before the one shown in the above one and there was a penthouse missing at the top of the building.

[l444ry]

This is like p*****g into the wind. These conspiracy theorists are as brainwashed as Jehovah's Witnesses!!

They've always got an answer and nearly always taking things out of context. They are convinced they know something the rest of us don't!!

Very odd.

[Phube]

Hot news from the Daily Mash!

Conspiracy theorists deny 9-11 anniversary

09-09-11

SEPTEMBER 11th conspiracy theorists have dismissed claims of the terrorist attack's 10th anniversary.

The theorists fall into two distinct camps, with one group claiming that 9-11 happened many years ago, possibly as early as 1922, and another group claiming the event happened in 2007.

Conspiracy theorist, Joseph Turner, said: "The media have convinced you that this is the 10th anniversary. You need to think for yourself. And anyway, just look at the footage. Those types of airliners weren't even in use 10 years ago."

But truth-seeker 'blackop182', editor of the 'Nine-e-Lie-Ven' blog, insisted the footage of the planes hitting the towers was taken far earlier.

"My guess would be the summer of 1972. It was organised by G. Gordon Liddy and an anti-Castro Cuban operative known only as 'El Pequeno'.

"Also the dating here relies on the Julian calendar, which didn't come into effect until 2005.

"Also there's no way they could have destroyed the World Trade Centre, because there's no World Trade Centre in New York. If there is then show it to me."

He added: "Basically, saying it happened 10 years ago is a ridiculous anachronism. Like saying Jesus Christ rode around on a Triceratops.

“Actually, not that, because I believe Jesus actually did that. Something else."

Turner has written a 1200-page book about how this photograph was faked

[Rincewind]

Now there are conspiracy theroies about the conspiracy therories. Whatever next?

'I am not an animal I am a human being'

'Prove it you ugly bastard'

[Ashley]

Its probably been explained in this thread however, sorry if I open another can of worms here.

The pentagon, regarded as the most watched and secured building in the world? supposedly the pentagon has thousands of CCTV cameras watching it? Both on the in and outside?

Why is there no footage what so ever of a plane hitting the pentagon? No plane debry?

The whole in the pentagon isn't that big.. A plane would surely do more damage than the whole in all the photos?

I do think terriots attacked America that day yes but some things aren't correct about that day, maybe I'm looking into things to much...

[Webbo]

Its probably been explained in this thread however, sorry if I open another can of worms here.

The pentagon, regarded as the most watched and secured building in the world? supposedly the pentagon has thousands of CCTV cameras watching it? Both on the in and outside?

Why is there no footage what so ever of a plane hitting the pentagon? No plane debry?

The whole in the pentagon isn't that big.. A plane would surely do more damage than the whole in all the photos?

I do think terriots attacked America that day yes but some things aren't correct about that day, maybe I'm looking into things to much...

Don't start that again.Please!

[Ashley]

Don't start that again.Please!

No seriously. There's not, surely there is a logical explanation but why not release footage of it if a plane actually did hit it?

[Rincewind]

have you read all the posts in the thread or just the ones that support the conspiracy? I seem to recall posts saying planes do not make plane shaped holes and other threads explaining the physics of it all. I'm sure theres other stuff but cant be bothered to go through all the posts Read them to get a balanced view.

[The Doctor]

Its probably been explained in this thread however, sorry if I open another can of worms here.

The pentagon, regarded as the most watched and secured building in the world? supposedly the pentagon has thousands of CCTV cameras watching it? Both on the in and outside?

Why is there no footage what so ever of a plane hitting the pentagon? No plane debry?

The whole in the pentagon isn't that big.. A plane would surely do more damage than the whole in all the photos?

I do think terriots attacked America that day yes but some things aren't correct about that day, maybe I'm looking into things to much...

I'm pretty sure answers have been put forward to all of these.

The plane would be travelling at what, 300+ mph, only incredibly sophisticated slow-motion cameras would be likely to catch any glimpse of it. While you might expect the pentagon to be outfitted with these sorts of cameras, the cost would mean they probably wouldn't have them all around the building. Quite plausible that the area hit was covered by ordinary surveillance cameras like in city centres and that they wouldn't have a high enough frame rate to catch the plane.

As for debris, with the sort of collision you'd expect to form the sort of hole formed the plane would be pretty much completely destroyed into small shards of metal, not big chunks of plane like I think you are expecting.

And the hole is about the size of a plane, possibly minus the wings. Contrary to what's show in cartoons & films, the outline of a plane isn't left there, just a big hole formed. Also if it was in fact a missile that hit the pentagon, as has been suggested, I would expect far more damage than a plane would do and more than is shown.

[Ashley]

I'm pretty sure answers have been put forward to all of these.

The plane would be travelling at what, 300+ mph, only incredibly sophisticated slow-motion cameras would be likely to catch any glimpse of it. While you might expect the pentagon to be outfitted with these sorts of cameras, the cost would mean they probably wouldn't have them all around the building. Quite plausible that the area hit was covered by ordinary surveillance cameras like in city centres and that they wouldn't have a high enough frame rate to catch the plane.

As for debris, with the sort of collision you'd expect to form the sort of hole formed the plane would be pretty much completely destroyed into small shards of metal, not big chunks of plane like I think you are expecting.

And the hole is about the size of a plane, possibly minus the wings. Contrary to what's show in cartoons & films, the outline of a plane isn't left there, just a big hole formed. Also if it was in fact a missile that hit the pentagon, as has been suggested, I would expect far more damage than a plane would do and more than is shown.

Good explaination however you say about sophisticated slow-motion cameras catching the plane hitting the pentagon how come the two men filming the NY fire fighters managed to capure this on there camera? I'm sure this was amature footage? That managed to capure the first plane hitting one of the towers?

Surely the pentagon would have CCTV cameras looking at the building from its grounds? I'm sure with the technology around today they'd be able to catch the plane hitting the building?

Also was it ever said what type of plane flew into a building? A boeing 747, 757, etc...

[fleckneymike]

Good explaination however you say about sophisticated slow-motion cameras catching the plane hitting the pentagon how come the two men filming the NY fire fighters managed to capure this on there camera? I'm sure this was amature footage? That managed to capure the first plane hitting one of the towers?

Surely the pentagon would have CCTV cameras looking at the building from its grounds? I'm sure with the technology around today they'd be able to catch the plane hitting the building?

Also was it ever said what type of plane flew into a building? A boeing 747, 757, etc...

Ashley, take the time to read through this thread and all your questions will be answered on the hole, the debris etc. It's up to you whether you chose to ignore all the evidence and cling to a conspiracy theory.

With regards the cameras the two French men filming the NY fire dept were documentary makers and therefor used different cameras to ones used in CCTV.

[Rincewind]

If they had expected a plane to hit the Pentagon then doubt cameras would be focused on the direction they were coming from. And yes they did know what type of plane it was from the records of flight control.

[The Doctor]

Good explaination however you say about sophisticated slow-motion cameras catching the plane hitting the pentagon how come the two men filming the NY fire fighters managed to capure this on there camera? I'm sure this was amature footage? That managed to capure the first plane hitting one of the towers?

Surely the pentagon would have CCTV cameras looking at the building from its grounds? I'm sure with the technology around today they'd be able to catch the plane hitting the building?

Also was it ever said what type of plane flew into a building? A boeing 747, 757, etc...

757 hit the pentagon, 767's hit WTC 1&2.

[MikeyT]

[shen]

No seriously. There's not, surely there is a logical explanation but why not release footage of it if a plane actually did hit it?

To recap

re the videos: My and a few others main gripe about the Pentagon attack. The argument here is that there should be much more concrete video evidence than the Pentagon has shown. The famous five frames are inconclusive. The riposte has been that it is plausible that there was no useful CCTV footage of the incident, other than the ones released. Make up your own mind about that

re the debris: A lot of fuss has been made about the lack of large pieces of debris. It is known that Pentagon personnel picked up debris by hand shortly after the attack. There have been quite a few pieces of debris that most likely come from a 757 plane. Evidence suggests this is the most plausible source anyway. Counter-conspirators argue that it should not come as a surprise that there is no large debris as most of the plane would have burned up and disintegrated on impact and the following minutes. They also point to the large amount of small debris scattered everywhere and visible on the pictures. The 'truthists' are still not convinced it was a 757.

re the hole: I think people are being confused because they haven't seen all the pictures. The hole and impact area was big enough to be created by a 757. The damage also corresponds pretty well with what a 757 could do. The generator being knocked the direction it was, the gouge on the top of it and the lampposts are evidence that would support the crash of a 757. Truthists point to the lack of visible damage from the engines on the outside of the Pentagon, but again there is a reasonably plausible explanation for that. They also doubt the penetration could be made by a 757, but arguments put forward that it wouldn't be possible are not very convincing if I may say so.

Edit: correct me if I'm wrong or unfair