9/11 conspiracy theorists

[HisHoliness]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinions, no matter how wrong they are. I think the bashing was covered earlier in this thread. With reason too.

 

[dt3]

Care to provide reason, or just blindly bashing someone who has the right to voice their personal opinion?

Here's the reason:

Yeah but various professionals have destroyed all the conspiracy theories with actual evidence. I'm not against the opinion that you have, its the idea of keeping it in the face of all of these theories being debunked for years.

Are you talking about their face to face with the Popular Mechanics guys? That was complete ownage by the PM guys.

Did you watch the original Loose Change or the newest updated version? They actually let a few things go because their theories were being shot down so badly.

I think its pretty obvious that they're just doing it for money. I saw a show where the creators of loose change went up against professionals and the loose change guys got utterly embarrassed, it was really hard to watch.

 

[Tim]

I still have one question that I have yet to see a good explanation for...

What happened to WTC7 and why did it collapse?

From everything that I have seen or heard so far, there is no good explanation as to why it did collapse. Does anyone know of a good credible link to any information as to the physics behind it? I really would love to know what happened.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Here's the reason:

Not all of the theories have been debunked though. And even the ones that have been debunked, most of them sound like some half-assed answer. I've already seen pictures on here before, but why did we see NO debris from Flight 93, other than a few scraps of metal, yet we found tons of bodies? And don't give me that "The explosion destroyed all the parts", because if the fire was hot enough to incinerate and destroy all pieces of the plain, the bodies would be gone. There have been plane crashes in which people found debris from the plane over 5 miles from the crash site, yet this was not the case. Also, here's a good picture of a digital add-in of a plane to the crater left by Flight 93-



We should have found wings, a tail section, any of that. And that leads to the common question about the plane hitting the pentagon. Where exactly IS the debri? The plane would have sheared off the wings on impact if it really DID continue going through the building, so why do we not have the wings or tail section laying on the ground?


That doesn't look like a plane's nose to me.

And what about this photo of a frame of the "plane" hitting the pentagon?

Many things have yet to be debunked properly, and I don't think it's right to call 9/11 conspiracy theorists crazy, stupid, a waste, or whatever. It's your opinion to think we're wrong, just like it's our opinion to question things.

I still have one question that I have yet to see a good explanation for...

What happened to WTC7 and why did it collapse?

From everything that I have seen or heard so far, there is no good explanation as to why it did collapse. Does anyone know of a good credible link to any information as to the physics behind it? I really would love to know what happened.

The general answer I've heard is that since it is close to the Twin Towers, they caused it's collapse. WTC7 has a few tanks of...I think it was diesel fuel(I don't entirely remember), and when the Twin Towers came down, hot pieces of metal and debris fell through the roof of WTC7, and ignited those tanks. Then from there, it was just explosions that caused it to collapse.

 

[All Else Failed]

Dodge sniper, look at this:
9/11: A Boeing 757 Struck the Pentagon, page 1


The Pod People And The Plane That Crashed Into the Pentagon

 

[dt3]

We should have found wings, a tail section, any of that. And that leads to the common question about the plane hitting the pentagon. Where exactly IS the debri? The plane would have sheared off the wings on impact if it really DID continue going through the building, so why do we not have the wings or tail section laying on the ground?

Wings (and tails) ARE NOT solid. They're hollow shells with supports in it. I've lifted a helicopter rotor (which are built the same way) by myself. They weigh almost nothing. A wing at high speed versus a solid object will lose everytime. They wouldn't be intact, they'd either be disinigrated or in tiny little pieces that you probably can't even see.

 

[Boomer]

What kind of metal are the wings and tail made of Donnie?

 

[All Else Failed]

If you guys want actual pictures of debris then just look at my links.

 

[HisHoliness]

It's pretty clear to me that there is aircraft material lying all over the place in those pictures. Unless the pentagon walls are made up of thin aluminum.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Ok, but again, where are the wings? Sure, they hit the pentagon at high speeds, but they wouldn't simply be destroyed beyond recognition. It is well-known that the hole in the west wing of the Pentagon, less than 18-foot diameter, was too small to accommodate a Boeing 757, but the North Tower’s hole wasn’t big enough for a Boeing 767 either, the alleged widebody airliner used on AA Flight 11 (officially tail number N334AA, FAA-listed as "destroyed"). A Boeing 767 has a wingspan of 155’ 1" (47.6 m) yet the maximum distance across the hole in the North Tower was about 115 feet (35 m), a hole undersized by some 40 feet or 26 percent. But 20 feet on each wing? I’d call that a substantial difference, not "the last few feet," especially since aircraft impact holes tend to be three times the size of the aircraft, reflecting the fact that fuel-laden airliners flying into buildings send things smashing about in a big way.

 

[skyblue]

Ive been in conversations like this with people and its ended with my hands on their neck. Real talk. It gets me heated reeeeeeeeeeeally quick.

i dis-agree strongly with everything boomers said.......but then i'm safe here in england:unsure:.....i hope

 

[dt3]

What kind of metal are the wings and tail made of Donnie?

Really depends on the aircraft, I would guess some type of aluminum, but I don't know for sure.

Ok, but again, where are the wings? Sure, they hit the pentagon at high speeds, but they wouldn't simply be destroyed beyond recognition.

Why not? They're essentially hollow shells of light-weight metal hitting a reinforced concrete wall. They wouldn't have enough mass to do anything. You're expecting a Wile-E-Coyote-through-the-rock hole, and that's just not reality.

 

[Boomer]

i dis-agree strongly with everything boomers said.......but then i'm safe here in england:unsure:.....i hope

LOL ever see the movie idiocracy?

Really depends on the aircraft, I would guess some type of aluminum, but I don't know for sure.


Why not? They're essentially hollow shells of light-weight metal hitting a reinforced concrete wall. They wouldn't have enough mass to do anything. You're expecting a Wile-E-Coyote-through-the-rock hole, and that's just not reality.

I would think it would be made out of some kind of titanium.

 

[dt3]

I would think it would be made out of some kind of titanium.

I highly doubt it, but let me do some research and get back to ya


And a side note, here's a bad ass video:

YouTube - Phantom F4 Jet Nuclear Power Plant Crash Test

 

[COOL_BREEZE2]

Originally Posted by Boomer
Ive been in conversations like this with people and its ended with my hands on their neck. Real talk. It gets me heated reeeeeeeeeeeally quick.

Religion and politics will do that everytime.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

Really depends on the aircraft, I would guess some type of aluminum, but I don't know for sure.


Why not? They're essentially hollow shells of light-weight metal hitting a reinforced concrete wall. They wouldn't have enough mass to do anything. You're expecting a Wile-E-Coyote-through-the-rock hole, and that's just not reality.

I'm not expecting that, so don't assume that. I just want some credible proof that a plane, did in fact, hit the pentagon. Hollow or not, we should see some decent size debris from the wings. If I through a light bulb at concrete, it may not penetrate it, but it sure as hell can still be notced as a light bulb. Why don't we see ANYTHING that even LOOKS like a wing?

 

[Boomer]

Religion and politics will do that everytime.

That and if someone is being brutally disrespectful to the other side of the argument. I dont mind if you dont believe in God, but if you disrespect the fact that I do, then I have to slam dance on your collar bone.

 

[Dodge_Sniper]

I highly doubt it, but let me do some research and get back to ya


And a side note, here's a bad ass video:

YouTube - Phantom F4 Jet Nuclear Power Plant Crash Test

That video just proved my point. Did you not see the wings shear off? Besides, that wall was designed to absorb the impact, not be destroyed by the plane.

 

[dt3]

Here ya go Boomz:

"The wing is also made from increased gauge aluminium"

Airliners.net: Boeing 767-400

 

[dt3]

That video just proved my point. Did you not see the wings shear off? Besides, that wall was designed to absorb the impact, not be destroyed by the plane.

The only part of the wing left intact was the part on the outside of the wall, that kept travelling forward. Everything that hit the wall was destroyed.

And do you think the outer ring of the Pentagon is "designed to be destroyed"? I doubt it.