9/11 Conspiracy

[DB7]

Originally Posted by David Brent Showing an underbelly unlike any other commercial airliner. Dave.

What's different? There's wings with 2 engines? Do you have Thunderbirds down under?B)

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by David Brent The evidence tends to show that a commercial airliner did not hit the Pentagon on 9/11. The Pentagon "attack" happened on the same day that two planes hit the Twin Towers. I think everyone would agree that this is no coicidence. That all three strikes were pre-planned and committed by the same group of people is obvious. The US Government quickly released details to the world that a group of terrorists armed only with boxcutters had hijacked the planes and flown into the three sites. If the US Government can show no evidence that an airliner actually hit the Pentagon then it is more than possible that the world is being told a lie. If they lied about the Pentagon hit then it is more than likely that they have told lies surrounding the attacks on the Twin Towers. Why would the US Government lie if a genuine terrorist attack had occurred? A government lies to its people to hide the real story. A cover-up begins. For whatever the reason is that lies behind the attacks - you have a conspiracy on your hands. Dave.

Dave, I always thought you had a modicum of common sense. What "evidence" do you expect? There's not too much left after any aeroplane crashes into a building.

Steve

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Dave, I always thought you had a modicum of common sense. What "evidence" do you expect? There's not too much left after any aeroplane crashes into a building. Steve

I'm with David on this one... Something doesn't quite add up - but I don't believe the WTC is a conspiracy.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by spinalman Something doesn't quite add up

It's hard to argue against such a carefully considered, detailed position :)

Steve

[spinalman]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook It's hard to argue against such a carefully considered, detailed position :) Steve

Ha! Please, this is a Movie forum. The ambiguity of the evidence demands that you can only make such a conclusion. I don't wish to discect at length their 'evidence' on this board (I need to read the thread on Jossy's Giants). What i can say for certain is that the statements purported as fact by the US Govt. about remote planes is wrong, and that the conspiracists have some evidence that can't be explained. The United93 case has nothing in the evidence that makes a shoot down explanation unviable -indeed I'd want to ask why it wasn't shot down -they have a policy, why was it not implimented? If the answer is "we could never shoot down US citizens" then you might as well send all their fighter inteceptors back to base - which of course they don't.

Steve, I think your "There's not too much left after any aeroplane crashes into a building" is a little rash ;).

[DB7]

Originally Posted by spinalman What i can say for certain is that the statements purported as fact by the US Govt. about remote planes is wrong,

Or maybe they were commenting on the remote controlling of an 80s jet liner not one from the 50's. Boeing have been making jets for years so maybe you need to read the whole document rather than just a sentence.

-indeed I'd want to ask why it wasn't shot down -they have a policy, why was it not implimented? If the answer is "we could never shoot down US citizens" then you might as well send all their fighter inteceptors back to base - which of course they don't..

IIRC the planes turned off their transponders and there was talk of one of the fighters having a 'lock on' the wrong plane. From what I've read even if fired upon an air-to-air missile would take out an engine not blow the plane out of the sky.

If you read of the Russian's downing a Korean Boeing KAL007 it states on wiki:
"After the missile strike, the crew performed an emergency spiral descent due to rapid decompression from 18:26 until the end of the recording at 18:27:46."

Most conspiracy theorists seem under the impression heat-seeking missiles would plough into the fuselage and the whole thing get blown to pieces.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by spinalman What i can say for certain is that the statements purported as fact by the US Govt. about remote planes is wrong, and that the conspiracists have some evidence that can't be explained.

As we seem to be discussing it, what statements and what evidence might that be then? Be careful of the sources because there's a lot of misinformation circulating.

The United93 case has nothing in the evidence that makes a shoot down explanation unviable -indeed I'd want to ask why it wasn't shot down -they have a policy, why was it not implimented? If the answer is "we could never shoot down US citizens" then you might as well send all their fighter inteceptors back to base - which of course they don't.

AIUI, the fighters were on their way - but didn't get there in time.

Steve, I think your "There's not too much left after any aeroplane crashes into a building" is a little rash ;).

I just have to scratch that rash. So what's left then?

Steve

[penfold]

To repeat, as none of our conspiracy theorists have answered the question, if the planes crashing into the Twin Towers are transport planes and not the planes from Boston, where are the passengers from the Boston planes?? In a gigantic witness protection programme, or in a giant hole in, say, Nevada...and if so, why swap the planes at all?

[David Brent]

Originally Posted by DB7 What's different? There's wings with 2 engines? Do you have Thunderbirds down under?B)

DB,
Look closely. There is a very large piece of equipment attached to the planes fuselage. It is off centred on the right side of the fuselage, just forward of the gear well doors. The planes wheels are not down.
The equipment is casting a shadow across the left part of the fuselage. As I stated earlier, I have taken the time to view media footage of this plane flying into the tower. Believe me, there is extra equipment attached to this planes fuselage.
The attached equipment is not standard for a Boeing 767 200ER or any other passenger plane - in Australia or the rest of the world.B)

Dave.

[David Brent]

Originally Posted by Steve Crook Dave, I always thought you had a modicum of common sense. What "evidence" do you expect? There's not too much left after any aeroplane crashes into a building. Steve

With due respect Steve, you havn't read my first posting on this thread.
It is a very rare plane crash that hits a building and doesn't leave remnants of a tail, wings, fuselage or engines.
My main point though is that the impact site at the Pentagon, where the plane supposedly hit, is smaller in size than the actual width of a Boeing 767 200ER passenger jet. Meaning that a full impact from a Boeing 767 would have caused a greater and wider amount of damage.
I mentioned that the top level of the Pentagon was still standing after the initial impact. Firemen were filmed standing up there. This could not be possible if the tail of a 767 had impacted through the building.
This is not speculation. Take the time to refer back to the origional media coverage of the impact scene and judge for yourself.

I'll also repeat the question. Where is all the Pentagon security camera footage of the attack? One of the most heavily guarded buildings in the USA and yet no security footage that clearly shows a plane strike. Surely at least one camera (inside or outside the building) should have clearly picked up the plane flying into the building.

I am not trying to force my opinion on others or spark disagreement between forum members. I am only trying to share my thoughts, not entirely deduced from conspiracy websites but by studying documentary news footage taken on 9/11. Footage that is in the public domain.
The official US Government story surrounding the events on 9/11 due not match the film footage. I believe the true story has not been told.

The US Government telling its people and the world a lie? Surely that just isn't possible!?!

Dave.

[spinalman]

This one is still running then?

I agree with David re: pentagon. Many years ago I was involved with the editing and interpretation of video imagery, working for the Police and with military and the air investigation branch, including the Lockerbie aircrash. I have seen a lot of aircrash sites in detail. The Pentagon evidence looks unusual - I am not saying it is a conspiracy.

The WTC has unanswered questions. Steve, the US Govt. statement (in the linked State dept. site) "Boeings can not be controlled remotely." is a deliberately literal statement (but incorrect) that was released to fob off the questions.

United93 - you tell us the inteceptors could not get there in time -that's not evidence. I think "fire missiles to force it to land" is not a viable policy - that is the realm of Thunderbirds. If you have a policy to fire missiles at friendly aircraft then they must be prepared to kill the passengers - a policy we know both the US and UK have.

As for the real passengers of the WTC planes if it was a clone or drone plane, I can't explain it all -I'm not proposing the conspiracy theory - as i said before the questions are really why would any government use 2 planes instead of 1, why do it remotely and laser guided. If the US Govt. really wanted to do it, then it would be easier to train and pay a madman/fundamentailst/patriot to hijack the plane rather than swap it with a clone/drone.

[DB7]

Originally Posted by David Brent The equipment is casting a shadow across the left part of the fuselage. Dave.

Fraid people will inform you it is "specular highlights" of an unpainted part of the underside - most likely the fairing in the centre picture. As others have pointed out, have you ever considered how many people would be involved to complete such an operation and how many innocent civilians would have to 'disappear.' Frankly you're making the Die Hard films sound plausible in comparison.



As for your assertion there are no visable windows, if you blurred the picture below to the same extent as the WTC footage you can't see the windows.

[Steve Crook]

Originally Posted by David Brent It is a very rare plane crash that hits a building and doesn't leave remnants of a tail, wings, fuselage or engines.

Errm, it was a very rare crash. How many other cases have their been of an aircraft of that size ploughing into a building? The conspiracy theorists assume that there was no deformation of the wings or tail before they hit the building. How far is it from the nose to the tail, or from the nose to the wings? When the nose hit there would have been a rapid deceleration of the rest of the plane which could easily have torn off those parts. Wings and tails have fallen off under lesser stresses.

As for the security cameras, how much would you expect them to catch of a plane still flying at several hundred miles per hour as it flys past that close to them when the camera isn't panning? The footage released during the trial of Zacarias Moussaoui shows the nose of the plane in one frame which is more than was shown in the initially released footage?

Steve

[highlander716]

Hi Everyone,
The way the plane was flown into the pentagon was fantastic given how it is said to have turned so tightly at such a fast speed and come in so low.
Indeed, there have been suggestions that it was not the 757 at all,but a smaller plane or winged missile and ,of course,these have been dismissed as crazy and bizarre by the media and the authorities .
It has been widely noted that there is remarkably little "aircraft" wreckage at the Pentagon given that it was supposed to have been hit by a boeing 757.
It struck me how many major pieces of wrekage were still visible after a russian airliner and a DHL cargo plane collided at around 36,000 feet and crashed to the ground in Germany in July 2002.
Advocates of the "no plane theory" say that the hole in the Pentagon made by the impact is nothing like big enough for a 757 to have gonethrough without the wings smashing into the sidesof the hole and against the recently reinforced and still standing walls of the Pentagon. A larger section of wall only collapsed some half an hour after the initial explosion and the actual impact hole was far smaller than the one we saw after that wall came down.
But the no plane advocates point to pictures of a less than 10 foot wide hole made when the object , whatever it was ,exited on the other side of three rings of buildings within the pentagon.
And the Penagon had just undergone serious reinforcement to protect againt terrorist attack.

[spinalman]

[quote=DB7]Fraid people will inform you it is "specular highlights" of an unpainted part of the underside - most likely the fairing in the centre picture.....

As for your assertion there are no visable windows, if you blurred the picture below to the same extent as the WTC footage you can't see the windows.

[quote]


The specualr highlights is a nice try, but not in this case where the same bulk has been seen from a variety of angles. Specular highlights might be viable in one photo, but not all of them, and certainly no explanation for corresponding "specular shadows"!

I would not trust eyewitness accounts that "they couldn't see windows".... many eyewitness accounts prove to be unreliable. (If I were a government "spook" department spending millions on a clone plane, I think I'd get the windows right, and make it convincing without pods and bulges)