[Em135eye]

Not one congratulation for it being our wedding anniversary on 9/11 (our 11th this year).

Off to sulk.

[vikzE92]

Congratulations! Sorry didnt see that bit!

[Shoegazer]

Originally Posted by nasser

It goes without saying that one man’s courage will be another’s cowardice.
The Japanese honored their kamikaze pilots, and Islamists honor the suicide attackers on Israel and America.

If it doesn’t take courage to immolate one self along with a crowd of strangers by flying an airplane into the side of a building, then what does it take? Surely it must be something that resembles courage, as we ordinarily understand the term, so closely as to be indistinguishable from it. With it, there’s no mystery at all. In a particular honor culture, including that of any military organization that is not a mere mob or rabble, courage is the chief requirement for membership. Therefore, those whose membership in that culture is bound up with their identity would suffer a loss of some or all of the sense of who they are without it. For them, courage is not a really a choice but rather a necessary condition of their chosen identity. This kind of courage is also possessed by Islamic terrorists. They value their membership in what they see as the Islamic faithful and, to its jihadist faction in particular, as the defining, self-identifying fact of their lives. They also see that honor group as demanding of them some such act of courage and sacrifice as they displayed on September 11 if their membership is to be confirmed. In this sense, and making allowances for cultural differences, to deny them their claim to courage might almost seem ungentlemanly.

To kill thousands of people, due to some missguided self righteous belief, does not take courage or cowardice, purely mental illness in it's most severe form. (and that applies to any side of the argument!)

[Tippo]

Not one for conspiracies but also not naive enough to think that the US would never get a terrorist attack at some point in it's history.

With the sheer volume of internal air traffic then I guess that goes to explain how they could have got away with it at the time. Took an internal flight once back in 1998, remember my mate boasting that it is just like taking a train, no holds ups, security etc, just straight to the gate. Very true.

Don't forget those Jets hadn't flown far (Boston and Newark) so they would have had nearly full tanks, the explosions that would have occurred inside the impact zone must have been super massive.

Just been to NYC and enjoyed it immensly, which made watching the 102 mins. doc on the History Channel, all the more moving.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by Steve A

http://www.veoh.com/search/videos/q/...063307S5TkEaSs

you might have to download the player

The first review on the 'in plane site' website is from David Icke:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/reviews.html

http://www.davidicke.com/



I'm not sure any serious documentary would wish to be associated with a well known fantasist.

Now .. if you had been talking about the Pentagon attack I would have to agree that the evidence is a little 'odd'. I have no doubt that the WTC towers were hit by planes and collapsed as a direct result. I am less sure about whatever happened at the Pentagon.

[SpmnE9zero]

I hope you have time on your hands if you are going to watch this, but this tells all.

There have never been any bodies found from the flight that went into the Pentagon nor have there been any found at the Shanksville Flight 93 scene. Matter of fact they have never even recovered an air craft from either incidents.

Yes structural integrity is compromised when heat is added, however the buildings were designed to have a high rate of steel for this reason specifically, Jet fuel only gets to about 1300 deg but only as it is continuously fed the fuel (after the fuel burned off from the jet, it would have cooled down considerably), where the building can withstand I think close to 2000 deg. Watch the movie you will see the bombs go off in the buildings bringing them to their fate.

The Twin Towers were the only building to ever fall in this manner, well them, and the one standing next to them.

[Express]

there is no airplane at the pentagon.

and in shanksville, it looks like they just took some excavators, dug a hole, and had some garbage trucks fill it in with trash.

[SpmnE9zero]

Originally Posted by express705

there is no airplane at the pentagon.

and in shanksville, it looks like they just took some excavators, dug a hole, and had some garbage trucks fill it in with trash.

The hole in the side of the pentagon doesnt even allow for the wings or the 6 ton engines that would have gone thru them! Just the 16' diameter hole, not to mention there is no damage to the grass or anything else nearby from any sort of explosion that would have been the result of an air craft crash.

[NFS]

Originally Posted by SpmnE9zero

Yes structural integrity is compromised when heat is added, however the buildings were designed to have a high rate of steel for this reason specifically,

This is wrong. You don't put more steel in to maintain structural integrity in a fire. You use non-combustible materials like intumescent paints and plasterboards (dry wall) to stop the fire from damaging the steel.

Jet fuel only gets to about 1300 deg but only as it is continuously fed the fuel (after the fuel burned off from the jet, it would have cooled down considerably), where the building can withstand I think close to 2000 deg. Watch the movie you will see the bombs go off in the buildings bringing them to their fate.

Unprotected steel begins to lose its structural properties at 300 deg.

The Twin Towers were the only building to ever fall in this manner, well them, and the one standing next to them.

Wrong. Several other towers have collapsed. I have mentioned two already in this thread (Roman Point and Madrid).

The structural design of the WTC buildings was unusual (2 concentric steel tubes). Most towers have a concrete core, with columns spread evenly throughout the lettable areas. The WTC building columns were all on the facade.

[SpmnE9zero]

Originally Posted by NFS

This is wrong. You don't put more steel in to maintain structural integrity in a fire. You use non-combustible materials like intumescent paints and plasterboards (dry wall) to stop the fire from damaging the steel.



Unprotected steel begins to lose its structural properties at 300 deg.



Wrong. Several other towers have collapsed. I have mentioned two already in this thread (Roman Point and Madrid).

The structural design of the WTC buildings was unusual (2 concentric steel tubes). Most towers have a concrete core, with columns spread evenly throughout the lettable areas. The WTC building columns were all on the facade.

I do not debate what you are saying here, but I am not saying to include more steel, just that they supposedly used a better material to hold up against high heat such as that from the explosion / burn of Kerosene or Jet fuel.

I am no pro on this matter, learning as I go really. But I have to admit after watching the "Loose Change" video I am intrigued to opening my eyes and not thinking it was all about terrorism.

You seem pretty knowledgeable on this matter, do you have any input on where the bodies and the aircrafts themselves are after the wreckage of flight 93 or the one that landed in the Pentagon?

Until recently I thought for sure flight 93 was shot down, but things dont just disappear into thin air after being blown up.

[dxb335d]

Why don't the US govt build to identical towers and throw two planes at em to see if they get the same result.

Expensive but will shut up the non engineers who believe it was a set-up.

[SpmnE9zero]

Originally Posted by dxb335d

Why don't the US govt build to identical towers and throw two planes at em to see if they get the same result.

Expensive but will shut up the non engineers who believe it was a set-up.

yeah that would be a lil pricey I think.
dont get me wrong guys I am not saying I believe any of that stuff, but they do bring a few good points to the table.

[willhollin]

Smells a bit fishy to me.

[Steve A]

Originally Posted by NFS

The first review on the 'in plane site' website is from David Icke:

http://www.911inplanesite.com/reviews.html

http://www.davidicke.com/



I'm not sure any serious documentary would wish to be associated with a well known fantasist.

Now .. if you had been talking about the Pentagon attack I would have to agree that the evidence is a little 'odd'. I have no doubt that the WTC towers were hit by planes and collapsed as a direct result. I am less sure about whatever happened at the Pentagon.

I feel all events on 911 were connected. If that is so then a cover up has definitely happened. Looking at the photos that are on 911 in plane flight its cleary impossible for a 757 to make a 13-15 ft diamater hole. It was cleary not a plane as the US government say it was. If they had a hand in the pentagon cover up then why not all the events that day.

Simon have you watched 911 in plane sight??? What do you make of the close up shots of the second plane???? its grey, it has no windows, it has a very large item attached to the bottom of the undercarriage. IT WAS NOT FLIGHT
175 American airlines. Why are they saying it is??

It all stinks to high heaven imo. too many loose ends, nothing adds up.

There are papers that have been released covering stuff that occured over the cuban missile crisis. In this paper plans were drawn up by the US government to destroy some of it own warships (including american military) in an attempt to win favour with the american people so they ccould enter the cold war.

If they planned to do it then why not in 2001????

and no need to mock me using david our saviour icke.

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by SpmnE9zero

The hole in the side of the pentagon doesnt even allow for the wings or the 6 ton engines that would have gone thru them! Just the 16' diameter hole, not to mention there is no damage to the grass or anything else nearby from any sort of explosion that would have been the result of an air craft crash.

There have never been any bodies found from the flight that went into the Pentagon nor have there been any found at the Shanksville Flight 93 scene. Matter of fact they have never even recovered an air craft from either incidents.

"Facts" .... as quoted on the conspiracy theory documentaries ? Re-counted 2nd hand rumours without any credible source, internet whispers. Quoted often enough not many think of questioning their source or actual validity.

The remains of the bodies of the crew and passengers of American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site, and positively identified by DNA. A team of more than 100 forensic specialists and others identified 184 of the 189 people who died in the Pentagon attack (125 from the Pentagon and 64 onboard American Airlines flight 77).

People who went to the Pentagon crash site reported seeing parts of an airplane, including the nose cone, landing gear, an airplane tire, the fuselage, an intact cockpit seat, and the tail number of the airplane, as reported in an e-mail to a conspiracy theory Web site that debunks the conspiracy theory claims. The e-mail also contains photographs of airplane landing gear, tires, and fuselage fragments, which were taken at the Pentagon crash site. Moreover, the “black boxes” — the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder — for American Airlines flight 77 were found at the Pentagon crash site. For more photographs of debris from the airliner, including the crumpled "C" from "American Airlines," see portions 4:57 to 6:00 of the "911 Case Study: Pentagon Flight 77" video.

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-en...0.1261103.html

Have a look here for some counterpoints to the normal theories trotted out.

http://www.america.gov/st/webchat-en...0.2676355.html

It is pity that reality is just too boring to be accepted as quickly as the fanciful sensationlistic conspiracy theories.

D.

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by Steve A

Simon have you watched 911 in plane sight??? What do you make of the close up shots of the second plane???? its grey, it has no windows, it has a very large item attached to the bottom of the undercarriage. IT WAS NOT FLIGHT
175 American airlines. Why are they saying it is??

This addresses those points. 1:29

[NFS]

Originally Posted by SpmnE9zero

I do not debate what you are saying here, but I am not saying to include more steel, just that they supposedly used a better material to hold up against high heat such as that from the explosion / burn of Kerosene or Jet fuel.

The steel frame was not designed to withstand an explosion on this scale. The engineer responsible for the design has said that he did some calculations to predict performance in a plane strike, but there was no code to compare these too. If this happened it was a theoretical exercise only.

I am no pro on this matter, learning as I go really. But I have to admit after watching the "Loose Change" video I am intrigued to opening my eyes and not thinking it was all about terrorism. You seem pretty knowledgeable on this matter, do you have any input on where the bodies and the aircrafts themselves are after the wreckage of flight 93 or the one that landed in the Pentagon?

I don't know much about conspiracy theory, but I do understand basic engineering. I don't need a conspiracy to explain the collapse of the WTC as, in engineering terms, this was inevitable given the design and the scale of the damage. Any kid who has played Jenga should understand this.

Originally Posted by Steve A

I feel all events on 911 were connected. If that is so then a cover up has definitely happened. Looking at the photos that are on 911 in plane flight its cleary impossible for a 757 to make a 13-15 ft diamater hole. It was cleary not a plane as the US government say it was. If they had a hand in the pentagon cover up then why not all the events that day.

I do agree that there are some odd aspects of the Pentagon attack. The terrorists were incredibly lucky to hit the building since the plane apparently hit the ground first and sheered off one or both wings.

Simon have you watched 911 in plane sight??? What do you make of the close up shots of the second plane???? its grey, it has no windows, it has a very large item attached to the bottom of the undercarriage. IT WAS NOT FLIGHT
175 American airlines. Why are they saying it is??

It all stinks to high heaven imo. too many loose ends, nothing adds up.

There are papers that have been released covering stuff that occured over the cuban missile crisis. In this paper plans were drawn up by the US government to destroy some of it own warships (including american military) in an attempt to win favour with the american people so they ccould enter the cold war.

If they planned to do it then why not in 2001????

and no need to mock me using david our saviour icke.

No I haven't watched it. Just read the synopsis though and too be honest I refuse to commit an hour of my life to a film whose makers think David Ickes support is a ringing endorsement. I am not mocking you with this, they quote him on their review page and for me that removes 100% of their credibility.

I don't believe that the American Govt has the intelligence to orchestrate things on this scale. I am sure that the WTC was destroyed by terrorists.

Could the Govt have stopped the terrorists? Did they want too? Did 9/11 serve a purpose for the Bush Administration, Dick Cheney and Haliburton?

These are better questions.

[NFS]

I just have to add this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_co...s#The_Pentagon

David Icke (proud reviewer of In Plane Site) believes that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by reptillian shape shifting aliens.

Hmmmmn

[dxb335d]

Nutcase!!!

[Dave_3]

Originally Posted by NFS

I just have to add this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9/11_co...s#The_Pentagon

David Icke (proud reviewer of In Plane Site) believes that the 9/11 attacks were carried out by reptillian shape shifting aliens.

Hmmmmn

I was waiting for the earthquake off Arran that would herald the end of the world in 1991 ...

D.

[Krozi]

This is fucking ridiculous. How about you all stop disrespecting the victims of 9/11? Keep the political bullshit out of this. This thread was most likely intended to remember the victims, regardless of what happened. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Steve A]

Originally Posted by Krozi

This is fucking ridiculous. How about you all stop disrespecting the victims of 9/11? Keep the political bullshit out of this. This thread was most likely intended to remember the victims, regardless of what happened. You should be ashamed of yourselves.

Discussing how it happened is not disrespecting the victims. All the deaths were terrible that's for sure. I went to Ground Zero and its a very quiet unsettling place, to pay my respects. Friends of mine live in New York and they say the city was depressed for a long time. Its a tragedy.

I just don't believe the official story, even if some of the Conspiracy is hard to believe/comprehend.