lame-o
Newbie
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2007
- Messages
- 1,003
- Reaction score
- 0
I know a lot of you guys have talked about this before and stated your opinions on this matter, but I'd just like to get a general idea of how many people disagree with the official story.
Everybody knows the official story well enough, so I'll list some basic problems with it:
- The Bush administration had a lot to gain from it.
Without 9/11 the U.S. wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The war has been highly profitable for oil companies and military corporations.
- It was impossible for cell phones to have reception at cruising altitude in 2001.
However there is this quote: "Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground..."
- The airplanes weren't intercepted by the FAA or NORAD.
Here's what Popular Mechanics had to say on this matter:
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html
Not everyone buys this story however, and common sense suggests that there should be some kind of defense or emergency system put in place for commercial airliners. There is alleged evidence of an active airway defense system. Besides what about Washington D.C.? Did they really leave airways completely defenseless over the White House?
- A jet plane shouldn't have been able to level the Twin Towers.
The people who designed the WTC claim this.
- The Twin Towers both dropped at near free-fall speed, in a pancake fashion.
Historically, this has only happened during demolitions. Furthermore, the theory that they collapsed due to the intense heat of the jet fuel melting the steel is supposedly impossible. Here's a quote: "...people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."
The official experts however, completely disagree.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0917_disasterbuildings.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html
- There was evidence of thermite pyrotechnics being used (which is the kind of substance used to cut steel during demolitions).
There's a famous picture of a steel column amidst the WTC rubble that was cut diagonally in such a fashion that the steel melted along the edges of the cut.
- Many survivors have said that they witnessed explosions in the lower levels of the Twin Towers, suggesting demolition explosives.
Others say that the downward implosion of the buildings just pushed smoke and plume downwards, and the explosions were simply the sounds of the structural failure.
- The attack on the WTC was completely successful. The attack on the pentagon was only partially successful (managed to hit, but didn't do any kind of damage that would disrupt the pentagon's efficiency). Finally, the attack on the White House didn't come close to being successful (no official explanation why).
The result of the attacks coincidentally didn't hurt the government very much at all. This has been officially attributed to the intervention of passengers on the other planes, and luck in regard to the pentagon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are way more in-depth and researched accusations at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm for those who want to take a look.
Everybody knows the official story well enough, so I'll list some basic problems with it:
- The Bush administration had a lot to gain from it.
Without 9/11 the U.S. wouldn't have invaded Afghanistan and Iraq. The war has been highly profitable for oil companies and military corporations.
- It was impossible for cell phones to have reception at cruising altitude in 2001.
However there is this quote: "Wireless communications networks weren't designed for ground-to-air communication. Cellular experts privately admit that they're surprised the calls were able to be placed from the hijacked planes, and that they lasted as long as they did. They speculate that the only reason that the calls went through in the first place is that the aircraft were flying so close to the ground..."
- The airplanes weren't intercepted by the FAA or NORAD.
Here's what Popular Mechanics had to say on this matter:
"In the decade before 9/11, NORAD intercepted only one civilian plane over North America: golfer Payne Stewart's Learjet, in October 1999. With passengers and crew unconscious from cabin decompression, the plane lost radio contact but remained in transponder contact until it crashed. Even so, it took an F-16 1 hour and 22 minutes to reach the stricken jet. Rules in effect back then, and on 9/11, prohibited supersonic flight on intercepts. Prior to 9/11, all other NORAD interceptions were limited to offshore Air Defense Identification Zones (ADIZ). "Until 9/11 there was no domestic ADIZ," FAA spokesman Bill Schumann tells PM. After 9/11, NORAD and the FAA increased cooperation, setting up hotlines between ATCs and NORAD command centers, according to officials from both agencies. NORAD has also increased its fighter coverage and has installed radar to monitor airspace over the continent."
http://www.911myths.com/html/67_intercepts.html
Not everyone buys this story however, and common sense suggests that there should be some kind of defense or emergency system put in place for commercial airliners. There is alleged evidence of an active airway defense system. Besides what about Washington D.C.? Did they really leave airways completely defenseless over the White House?
- A jet plane shouldn't have been able to level the Twin Towers.
The people who designed the WTC claim this.
- The Twin Towers both dropped at near free-fall speed, in a pancake fashion.
Historically, this has only happened during demolitions. Furthermore, the theory that they collapsed due to the intense heat of the jet fuel melting the steel is supposedly impossible. Here's a quote: "...people (including engineers) often confuse temperature and heat. While they are related, they are not the same. Thermodynamically, the heat contained in a material is related to the temperature through the heat capacity and the density (or mass). Temperature is defined as an intensive property, meaning that it does not vary with the quantity of material, while the heat is an extensive property, which does vary with the amount of material. One way to distinguish the two is to note that if a second log is added to the fireplace, the temperature does not double; it stays roughly the same, but the size of the fire or the length of time the fire burns, or a combination of the two, doubles. Thus, the fact that there were 90,000 L of jet fuel on a few floors of the WTC does not mean that this was an unusually hot fire. The temperature of the fire at the WTC was not unusual, and it was most definitely not capable of melting steel."
The official experts however, completely disagree.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/09/0917_disasterbuildings.html
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/eagar-0112.html
- There was evidence of thermite pyrotechnics being used (which is the kind of substance used to cut steel during demolitions).
There's a famous picture of a steel column amidst the WTC rubble that was cut diagonally in such a fashion that the steel melted along the edges of the cut.
- Many survivors have said that they witnessed explosions in the lower levels of the Twin Towers, suggesting demolition explosives.
Others say that the downward implosion of the buildings just pushed smoke and plume downwards, and the explosions were simply the sounds of the structural failure.
- The attack on the WTC was completely successful. The attack on the pentagon was only partially successful (managed to hit, but didn't do any kind of damage that would disrupt the pentagon's efficiency). Finally, the attack on the White House didn't come close to being successful (no official explanation why).
The result of the attacks coincidentally didn't hurt the government very much at all. This has been officially attributed to the intervention of passengers on the other planes, and luck in regard to the pentagon.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are way more in-depth and researched accusations at http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article4582.htm for those who want to take a look.
