# 9/11 Conspiracy Theories! **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 26, 2006, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948 "2006-03-26T10:02:54Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 9
**Author:** ![griffin1977](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/977dab/32.png) [@griffin1977](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/griffin1977)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 11:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/161 "2006-04-04T23:20:51Z")
> [@](#): > > David Shayler- Former MI5 agent He also claimed MI5 fixed the 1997 Coca-cola cup (a UK soccer tornament) to lure him back to the UK and arrest him… ---
**Author:** ![PBear42](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ecccb3/32.png) [@PBear42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PBear42)\ **Post date:** [April 4, 2006, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/162 "2006-04-04T23:36:59Z")
Sent, does the expression “pot calling the kettle black” ring any bells? > [@](#): > > You all appear to be having a very difficult time coming to terms with some very basic realities. … For all your intelligence and training, you have missed even the simplest of things. … Perhaps you actually believe in the official account, but I am sorry to inform you that your critical thinking ability has been bypassed, as was my own. … I would say shame on all of you, particularly those of you who are scientists, for your intellectual dishonesty…were it not for the fact that you are the subjects of the most sophisticated PSYOP (psychological operations) in history. … 2+2 will never equal 5, no matter how eloquently you may argue in favor of such a conclusion. > > The only reason people have confusion is because of the psychological operations that have been brought upon them, and the experts who either deliberately or by significant omission have muddied the waters with nonsense. What a convenient premise. ---
**Author:** ![Sent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 12:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/163 "2006-04-05T00:25:29Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > At top speed? With a full tank of fuel? I think not. > > [http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument](http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/weblinks/CGOZ-58NLCB?OpenDocument) > > That’s from the lead structural engineer of the WTC. Was the tank even “full of fuel”? How long had it flown again to downtown Manhattan? “The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone.” Oh, I would beg to differ, Mr. Lead Structural Engineer. The only reason “no one can understand” and no one can come up with a workable theory is that you are still buying this ludicrous pancake theory that pretends the central beams do not exist…open your eyes…watch the videos of your own buildings being blown up and the “mystery” disappears. Those columns were massive, 47 of them. They simply do not pancake into 30 foots sections without some assistance, period. [http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg](http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg) Did you all even watch the videos of the collapse I linked you to? Where in those videos do you observe “pancaking”? How can you ignore video evidence which shows the mechanism of collapse? Why is even considering the theory of explosives off-limits? Which really makes more sense here in light of the manner and speed of collapse? “The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; none of us will ever forget the sight of those who took destiny into their own hands by leaping into space.” Wait a minute…did he even WATCH the other video footage, or view the photographs after impact? His implication of enormous continually raging fires, while sounding nice as a congruent fictional tale, is totally inconsisent with the evidence we all have available to us of the events of that day. Smoke continues to come out of the building, but the fire has clearly died down, the jet fuel has quickly burned up. [In the photo on this page,](http://www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1419) you can clearly see the in-tact woman standing at the impact area not being burned alive by the imaginary raging fires. The building is still solid and in tact except for the impact zone. Then not long thereafter, the building essentially explode into dust! What gives folks? > [@](#): > > So you are denying the existance of desiel tank, with pumps and thousands of gallons of fuel in the basement of WTC7? There was a deisel tank, but you can clearly see from photographs that the bottom floors had no fires. The piping for the deisel was specially insulated, and fire never reached the basement. Even if it had, we would not have seen a symmetrical, freefall collapse from random explosions or fire. Think! You have provided no explantion for the manner of collapse, and neither did FEMA or anyone else. > [@](#): > > Also, are you a fireman? Because several firemen in NYC, including the Fire Chief of NYC have gone on record as saying the building was too likely to collapse to safely fight the fire within. The building was not likely to collapse! The fire chief was told by someone else higher up that the building was going to collapse, while the firemen themselves were wondering why they could not go in to fight the small building fires that could easily have been put out. They were essentially told to stand down and not put them out, the reason being that someone else already knew the building was coming down. > [@](#): > > Fire causing collapse is a critical danger for hi-rise fires. Fire resulted in the metal structure portion of the Madrid Windsor. Fear of fire induced collapse led the Philadelphia firefighters to cease fighting the fire at the Meridian Plaza building Again, do you so easily dismiss the photographic evidence, and all precedent? The Windsor and Meridian fires were large, intense infernos…look at the pictures I linked you to in a previous post. Why didn’t the Windsor building “pancake” when the upper floors collapse onto the lower floors? The entire building was engulfed in flames, still there was no complete collapse. You are ignoring the photographic and video evidence, thus your theories are based in some other reality, not this one. > [@](#): > > No, I don’t see. How could the planes have been flown into the towers so precicely so as not to affect the planned demolition? I don’t think it is beyond the range of possibility to plan for this. You could have radio-activated charges, there are various ways you could do it. Many helicopters are seen flying over the buildings after impact apparently not doing anything, for example. ---
**Author:** ![Sent](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/c37758/32.png) [@Sent](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sent)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 12:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/164 "2006-04-05T00:42:09Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > Claims there were no jets flown into the towers.[Apparently believes the “Pentagon hit by a missle” theory](http://www.rmbowman.com/ssn/Secrecy.htm)Apparently a believer in the “Operation Northwoods” theory and is calling for Duhbya’s impeachment.“Former” because he passed official documents to the Daily Mail, claiming that MI5 was being paranoid about socialists.Endorsed Kerry and is also calling for Duhbya’s impeachment. Feels the 9/11 Commision’s report inadequate.[Lessee…doesn’t believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon…brings up the Patriot Act, the Afghani pipeline theory, Iraq, geopolitical dominiance…wrote a book…](http://web.archive.org/web/20050322095300/http://independent.com/news/news906.htm) Not everyone agrees on every aspect of what happened or what didn’t, but there is general consensus that the official story is not what happened, therefore a new and independent investigation, a real investigation, is what is needed hear. Operation Northwoods was not a “theory”. “Feels” the 9/11 Commission report is indadequate? How could you not feel that if you are aware of the facts of what was omitted? No building 7? No eyewitness testimonies taken behind closed doors including numerous accounts of explosions and bombs in the basements (which are evidenced by smoke around the base before collapse)? It was a whitewash, it was a joke, open your eyes. Who do you work for, the White House? ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/165 "2006-04-05T01:14:22Z")
Okay, please clear up something for me. WTC 2 collapses at 9:59 a.m., 56 minutes after it’s hit. WTC 1 collapses at 10:28 a.m., 102 minutes after it’s hit. WTC 7, which was not hit by a plane, collapses at 5:20 p.m. If I’m the lead conspirator, why do I wait almost **seven hours** to set off the charges to destroy WTC 7? Why didn’t I set off the charges while one of the other towers was falling, for maximum chaos? And as long as I’ve set explosives in three of the buildings in the complex, why didn’t I wire WTC 6, which sat between Tower 1 and Building 7? That way the buildings would have collapsed in a straight row, convincing the masses that all the collapses were a chain reaction? For that matter, why didn’t I just fly another plane into WTC 7 to hide the evidence? ---
**Author:** ![Mr.Miskatonic](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mr.miskatonic/32/310_2.png) [@Mr.Miskatonic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr.Miskatonic)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/166 "2006-04-05T01:17:29Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Was the tank even “full of fuel”? How long had it flown again to downtown Manhattan? Not long enough. The plane was scheduled to go cross country. Boston to NYC is hardly even much of a start to burn the stuff. Eitehr way, the assumption was low-speed. Little fuel. > [@](#): > > “The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone.” > > Oh, I would beg to differ, Mr. Lead Structural Engineer. The only reason “no one can understand” and no one can come up with a workable theory is that you are still buying this ludicrous pancake theory that pretends the central beams do not exist…open your eyes…watch the videos of your own buildings being blown up and the “mystery” disappears. Those columns were massive, 47 of them. They simply do not pancake into 30 foots sections without some assistance, period. And yet, no demolition expert, no structural engineer, no one with a relevant field of study agrees with your asessment of the theory. Tell us, Sent, what is your training in? > [@](#): > > [http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg](http://www.terrorize.dk/911/images/wtc-1.construction.1.jpg) > > Did you all even watch the videos of the collapse I linked you to? Where in those videos do you observe “pancaking”? How can you ignore video evidence which shows the mechanism of collapse? Why is even considering the theory of explosives off-limits? Which really makes more sense here in light of the manner and speed of collapse? I’ve looked at tons of videos of building implosions. There are characteristics they show that there is no sign of in the WTC collapse. There is no evidence of any peice of metal showing effects of explosives. There is no valid explanation for how explosives were brought in and placed, TONS OF THEM, without notice. > [@](#): > > “The damage created by the impact of the aircraft was followed by raging fires, which were enormously enhanced by the fuel aboard the aircraft. The temperatures above the impact zones must have been unimaginable; none of us will ever forget the sight of those who took destiny into their own hands by leaping into space.” > > Wait a minute…did he even WATCH the other video footage, or view the photographs after impact? His implication of enormous continually raging fires, while sounding nice as a congruent fictional tale, is totally inconsisent with the evidence we all have available to us of the events of that day. Smoke continues to come out of the building, but the fire has clearly died down, Oh really? Your also a fire evaluation expert now? You’ve got a lot of hats on. > [@](#): > > the jet fuel has quickly burned up. [In the photo on this page,](http://www.underreported.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&thold=-1&mode=flat&order=0&sid=1419) > you can clearly see the in-tact woman standing at the impact area not being burned alive by the imaginary raging fires. The building is still solid and in tact except for the impact zone. Then not long thereafter, the building essentially explode into dust! What gives folks? What gives? Well, its funny how every time I see this photo, it starts to look more and more like a woman all the time and the shot gets closer and closer. Even though the [original photo](http://911review.com/errors/wtc/imgs/woman_wtc.jpg) is not that large, and the legs resemble chunks of the outer shell, the fires can be seen burning inside. Yet somehow this picture is blown up and gains in clarity. Just a wee tad of hanky panky in Photoshop? hmmm? > [@](#): > > There was a deisel tank, but you can clearly see from photographs that the bottom floors had no fires. The piping for the deisel was specially insulated, and fire never reached the basement. But the fuel did reach the fire. The pumps did not stop working. > [@](#): > > Even if it had, we would not have seen a symmetrical, freefall collapse from random explosions or fire. What did you expect to see? Please back up your statements with more than incredulouness > [@](#): > > Think! You have provided no explantion for the manner of collapse, and neither did FEMA or anyone else. Still under study for the exact cause, but fires are a threat for building collapse. > [@](#): > > The building was not likely to collapse! The fire chief was told by someone else higher up that the building was going to collapse, while the firemen themselves were wondering why they could not go in to fight the small building fires that could easily have been put out. They were essentially told to stand down and not put them out, the reason being that someone else already knew the building was coming down. This is not what the firemen say. [http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html](http://www.firehouse.com/terrorist/911/magazine/gz/hayden.html) > [@](#): > > Again, do you so easily dismiss the photographic evidence, and all precedent? The Windsor and Meridian fires were large, intense infernos…look at the pictures I linked you to in a previous post. Why didn’t the Windsor building “pancake” when the upper floors collapse onto the lower floors? The steel portion of the Meridian did collpase. But the main structure was concrete. Does this difference mean nothing to you? As for the Meridian, read the report: [http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html](http://www.iklimnet.com/hotelfires/meridienplaza.html) > [@](#): > > All interior firefighting efforts were halted after almost 11 hours of uninterrupted fire in the building. Consultation with a structural engineer and structural damage observed by units operating in the building led to the belief that there was a possibility of a **pancake structural collapse** of the fire damaged floors. Oh, but that never happens, right? > [@](#): > > The entire building was engulfed in flames, still there was no complete collapse. You are ignoring the photographic and video evidence, thus your theories are based in some other reality, not this one. You are clearly ignoring different structural designs. Unless you can point to a concrete structure base of WTC7 then your comparison is invalid. As it is, the Meridian Windsor’s metal strucrure did collapse: [http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095](http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095) “The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor” ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/167 "2006-04-05T01:48:46Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > Operation Northwoods was not a “theory”. I was referring to the theory that 9/11 was Operation Northwoods being carried out. ---
**Author:** ![Skywatcher](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/skywatcher/32/254_2.png) [@Skywatcher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Skywatcher)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/168 "2006-04-05T01:58:17Z")
> [@Mr. Miskatonic](#): > > You are clearly ignoring different structural designs. Unless you can point to a concrete structure base of WTC7 then your comparison is invalid. As it is, the Meridian Windsor’s metal strucrure did collapse: > > [http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095](http://www.concretecentre.com/main.asp?page=1095) > > “The steel columns above the 17th floor suffered complete collapse, partially coming to rest on the upper technical floor” Originally posted by me on another message board: > [@](#): > > Why didn’t [the Windsor] undergo a complete collapse? > > The building was of steel-reinforced concrete design behind a steel façade. Pound for pound, the WTC contained less concrete and much more steel. Furthermore, the Windsor was built with two massive reinforced concrete slabs, one between the second and third floors; the second between the 16th and 17th. There was a partial collapse of floors 17 to 32 when the steel perimeter columns buckled and collapsed but the collapse stopped at the top slab. Coincidence? I think not. > > But the fire had spread down to the third floor and the lower slab! Shouldn’t the steel perimeter columns have collapsed down there, too? > > At the time of the fire, the Windsor was being refurbished to bring it up to fire code. This required the installation of fire protection to the perimeter steel columns & the internal steel beams, a sprinkler system, and a new aluminum cladding system. Except for parts of the 9th and 15th floors, all steel from 17 down had been brought up to code. ---
**Author:** ![JohnT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnt/32/15048_2.png) [@JohnT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JohnT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/169 "2006-04-05T02:13:55Z")
> [@Lute Skywatcher](#): > > How could the planes have been flown into the towers so precicely so as not to affect the planned demolition? More importantly, it’s a good thing the pilots hit the _precise areas_ where the demolition was scheduled to start! "Pilot one! The demolitions are going to start on floors 92-98 in Tower 1 so you must impact there to keep the deception alive! Now don’t hit the charges, just impact where the charges are going to start blowing up! “Pilot two! The demolitions are going to start on floors 78-84 in Tower 2 so you must impact there to keep the deception alive! Now don’t hit the charges, just impact where the charges are going to start blowing up!” What a beautifully choreographed thing 9/11 was… imagine the precise timing, the ability to fly planes so accurately as to destroy entire floors and offices while still missing plastic timers and wire, the ability to hide massive amounts of damning evidence. I’m convinced. ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 2:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/170 "2006-04-05T02:21:10Z")
> [@Sent](#): > > What, you want intelligence people to explain to you how you’ve been subjected to such an operation? All right, here’s a couple who are willing to lay it out for you. > > [http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2004/0726failures911.htm](http://www.globalpolicy.org/wtc/analysis/2004/0726failures911.htm) I see many opinions in this cite, but no actual objective evidence. Please show me evidence. > [@](#): > > What, you want to see the how widespread the fires were? In this short video there are enough stills and videos to get a good idea. Pause it at the photos. No, there aren’t. What I see in your links are fuzzy photos and a VERY fuzzy video, all taken from the same side, where a few fires are visible. I see no evidence that there are not fires on the other side of the building where the camera is not pointed. > [@](#): > > Would you honestly expect such small fires to cause the collapse of such a structure? Honestly, if you were not intentionally trying to come to any given conclusion? Fires appear on only a few floors, and no fires appear on the bottom-most floors, yet the entire building collapses at the same freefall speed you would expect had the steel beams been severed completely. Where is your cite that the “Small fires” are the only possible cause of the collapse aside from phantom demolitions? Please provide this evidence. Note that when I say “Evidence,” I do not mean opinions. I mean real evidence. Bombs or demolitions would leave evidence, or perhaps a witness who saw them planted. > [@](#): > > I see no “pancaking” in the various clips of the collapse, the entire building collapses at nearly the same instant. I would expect to see a slowing down of the collapse due to the mass and resistance of each subsequent floor were your claims true I have made no claims. I am asking for specific, objective evidence your claims are true. > [@](#): > > so the video and photographic evidence clearly supports the use of explosives, fire will not cause such uniform failure to facilitate this manner of collapse. How many experts will it take before you can see it for yourself? In the video you provided, I saw no demolitions. I saw no images of demolition charges being planted or used. What I saw was a fuzzy picture of a building collapsing. Do you in fact have a video of actual demolition activities, or perhaps evidence of their remnants? Please provide it. > [@](#): > > No, you cite me an example of a tall building that has ever fallen straight down into its own footprint from any cause other than controlled demolition. The World Trade Center. > [@](#): > > What, you want a video of the collapse so you can observe it for yourself? > > Look at the highest level debris is falling from versus where explosions are happening lower down. I see no explosions in these, again, very fuzzy videos. I see a building collapsing exactly the way I would expect it to given that a plane had exploded inside it. Dp you have any evidence of demolitions being planted in the WTC? All upper floors were quite busy; wouldn’t someone have seen such large charges being brought up and planted? Are there any eyewitnesses to the planting of the charges? Do you have any evidence of parts of the demolitions being retrieved? > [@](#): > > Here’s a good article on the basics of pyroclastic flow as it applies to this situation. This article is quite devoid of objective evidence. The author is stating opinions based on a viewing of a tape of the WTC collapsing, hardly an authoritative review. > [@](#): > > No, I am saying they do not produce very, very fine dust particles of this kind that flow out in clouds at high speeds. Exactly how “fine” was the dust from the WTC collapse, and how “fine” is the dust you would expect from a building collapse? Do you have a sample of WTC dust and a sample of dust from a very large building collapse that involved an airplane strike but no demolitions? > [@](#): > > Again, just look at the the concrete being pulverzied in the video and tell me it isn’t explosives. It’s quite obviously not. But I would be willing to change my mind if you have evidence of such explosives, or you have an example of a 1400-foot-tall building hit by an airplane that collapsed in a very different fashion. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 3:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/171 "2006-04-05T03:29:43Z")
The thread has moved on quite a bit since I was here this morning I see. Let me try and catch back up…hopefully I won’t be too redundant. > [@Sent](#): > > Clear evidence is here being provided you of explosives. The official story is also a theory…which has yet to be shown to be consistent with the facts. The explosives theory is consistent with every line of evidence. So you do have a responsibility to prove it. ‘Clear evidence’ would be things like the residue from the explosives used (you of course realize that whenever such explosives are used they ALWAYS leave residue), part of the explosive devices used (again, in any explosion there is ALWAYS evidence of the explosive device used) and other physical remains…THIS would constitute ‘Clear evidence’ on your part. I see no evidence that this has, as yet, been provided. Just to be clear, what DOESN’T constitute ‘Clear evidence’ would be things like the video tape, reguardless of the angle or what can or can’t be seen. Why? Because viewing such evidence is entirely subjective and open to interperetation. While this may be good supporting evidence, given other more solid proofs, it certainly doesn’t constitute anything remotely ‘Clear’. Opinions are also not ‘Clear evidence’ unless supported by either actual physical evidence or backed up by expertese in the area under investigation…i.e. if you are going to provide a cite that in fact explosives were used you would need to provide one by someone who is verifiably an expert in either explosives used to bring down buildings…or at a minimum someone who is an expert in structural engineering. Perhaps I missed your link showing real physical evidence (I haven’t had time to go through everything yet)…but to this point ever link I’ve clicked on that you’ve provided is simply photos or short video clips…which, again, don’t constitute ‘Clear evidence’ as they are subjective and open to interperetation. > [@Sent](#): > > If you can prove the official conspiracy theory, billionaire Jimmy Walter will even give you $1 million. He at leasts puts his money where his mouth is. What has this got to do with anything? Leaving aside the ridiculousness of proving the ‘offical conspiracy theory’ (whatever the hell that is), we are talking about YOUR theory here…and the lack of physical proof thus far provided. > [@Sent](#): > > It’s interesting how stories change. Are you familiar with the video of the chief architect stating that he desiged it to take a jet liner impact? In fact, he expected it could sustain multiple impacts without collapse. Ironically, he died in the collapse. Yes, in fact I saw that interview. [Here](http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/12/wtc.architect.cnna/) is part of what I saw. Note what the architect actually said: > [@](#): > > SWIRSKY: No, as a matter of fact, one of the rationales of the structure of the building was that it would be built as a pipe. And that proved itself to work during the explosion of 1993, when a hole was brought into the building, and it survived. But somehow, nobody could foresee anything like (Tuesday’s incident). > > Also, at that time, the planes were not like these types of planes that we have now. I think the biggest plane was a 100-passenger plane, something like that, and the fuel capacity of those planes was not like they are today. > > The criterion was that if a plane hits, it would go right through it. And nobody could foresee something like that. The tower was protected in such a way that the damage would be limited to one story, but it wouldn’t travel to the other stories. Note the caviots he is using. In addition, as you are probably aware, engineers and architects are sometimes wrong in their calculations. Ever heard of the Tacoma Narrows Bridge? Architects and engineers TRY and figure in for disaster, and to a certain degree they attempt to over engineer their structures in case a disaster happens, but, you know, sometimes they don’t get it right. Or, like in this case, sometimes an event happens so far outside of what their planning is that, well, shit happens. Seriously, this is kind of a lame arguement on your part as we are all aware of engineering and architectual failures in the past…as we are all aware that THIS event was certainly outside of what could reasonably be planned for. > [@Sent](#): > > Me too. Just because you’re paranoid, doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you. 😛 True, true. Of course, its not evidence they ARE out to get you either. I’ll read through some of the other replies after this one and see if there is anything more to comment on that hasn’t been covered here. If I’ve missed an important cite by you showing real, solid PHYSICAL evidence, I apologize. Just give me your post number and I’ll look it over and see if it changes any of my opinions on this event. -XT ---
**Author:** ![global\_community](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/2bfe46/32.png) [@global\_community](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/global_community)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 7:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/172 "2006-04-05T07:01:58Z")
The problem I have with all the conspiracy theorists, and the debunkers is that they all seem to assume that it the event must be either black or white… I am not going to comment on the specifics of how the “explosions” happened, or whether jet fuel could do the necessary damage to bring down the towers, but a few thoughts… 1. Whoever said that someone willing to kill their own innocent citizens to further political gains needs to be “rational”? (we don’t know what they are, and are not willing to risk in terms combining planes with explosives, or “why do both” arguements). They may be brillant planners etc, but that does not mean their “logic” is understood by us mere mortals. 2. If I was going to plan something like this, I would be basing my “lies” on the truth, or building on and assisting an already planned event to give it greater impact…as in, why not include a few tonnes (or tons if you prefer) of incendiary explosives on the plane to “help along” the collapse? Would this really be that difficult and require a lot of people? (give me access to the explosives, the machinery to book airfreight, and the authority to influence security checks and I could do it quite easily as an individual, no large scale planning, team of hundreds or anything else required, merely some Tom Clancy-esque misdirection) 3. Why not “help” the terrorists - perhaps by providing some of the money, planning, doumentation etc? Again this would not require a lot of people, and even all those involved would not need to know what they were working on. 4. Also, a few people in the correct position don’t neccessarily have to do a lot to protect the terrorists, a bit of misdirection or “genuine mistakes” are enough to deflect interest or provide time…(I have used this tactic myself to provide time - as in deliberatley mailing corrupted files to clients, or files that I know cannot be opened on recipient computers when I am past deadline) 5. This having been said…do I believe there is a conspiracy in 9/11? …NO, but would it surprise me if a conspiracy came to light?..also no, particulalry in the way that the current administration was / is willing to “lie to the World” in the war on Iraq One final thought… If there is a conspiracy, I think that Stephen King is behind it!! He did after all write about a passenger jet being crashed into an office tower many years ago (check out “The Running Man”) under a pseudonym to boot…this was all part of his diabolical and manical plan to warn us about the polar ice-caps melting and a misguided attempt to bring a halt to all inter-continental travel as he was short selling American Airlines stock :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![bigpappadiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a698b9/32.png) [@bigpappadiaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bigpappadiaz)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 1:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/173 "2006-04-05T13:57:13Z")
Yeah, all the damn evidence is there. Watch one of those videos that we’re always posting links to. Is it really that hard to see why us “_crazy_” conspiracy theorists believe something is amiss? It shouldn’t be, as there are many, many, many questions going unanswered and all the official explanations are extremely unlikely to have happened or are incomplete and “need more research”. I mean, flight 93 completely vaporized into a small 15-20 foot hole which would be the first time in aviation history. A round hole was all that was left, and all the debris scattered around could be picked up by hand. The eyewitnesses were and their stories about another white, unmarked plane were dismissed. The plane that hit the Pentagon disappeared into that really small hole on the outside, and the damage inside was pretty bad. The people who say they saw a smaller jet, or a helicopter were also dismissed. I know some people smelled cordite, too, but they were also dismissed. It just seems like too many firsts for me. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/174 "2006-04-05T15:50:54Z")
> [@bigpappadiaz](#): > > I mean, flight 93 completely vaporized into a small 15-20 foot hole which would be the first time in aviation history. A round hole was all that was left, and all the debris scattered around could be picked up by hand. The eyewitnesses were and their stories about another white, unmarked plane were dismissed. The plane that hit the Pentagon disappeared into that really small hole on the outside, and the damage inside was pretty bad. The people who say they saw a smaller jet, or a helicopter were also dismissed. I know some people smelled cordite, too, but they were also dismissed. It WOULD be a first…if in fact you had managed to prove that flight 93 ‘vaporized’. Unfortunately for you, you have yet to prove this claim. Leaving aside all the other stuff you should probably start there…because, if you can prove that the plane ‘vaporized’ (by which I take it to mean it left no trace) then you WILL have some solide physical evidence to build on. -XT ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/175 "2006-04-05T15:55:09Z")
> [@bigpappadiaz](#): > > I mean, flight 93 completely vaporized into a small 15-20 foot hole which would be the first time in aviation history. Flight 93 hit the ground at high speed and broke into small pieces, which is typical of high-speed airliner crashes. > [@](#): > > A round hole was all that was left, and all the debris scattered around could be picked up by hand. Also typical. Most everything gets shattered. There were, however, larger pieces, so it’s wrong to say “all the debris.” > [@](#): > > The eyewitnesses were and their stories about another white, unmarked plane were dismissed. Those of us who have actually read real accounts know exactly what this small white plane was. > [@](#): > > The plane that hit the Pentagon disappeared into that really small hole on the outside, and the damage inside was pretty bad. The people who say they saw a smaller jet, or a helicopter were also dismissed. If you have hundreds of people who see any major event, you’ll get a range of recollections of what they saw. Some people are not good at judging distances, and most people have a flaky memory. If a commercial airliner crashes into a building, I would expect that almost everyone would recognize it as such, but a few outliers would recall a small plane or even helicopter. That’s exactly what we have in this case - lots and lots of people who describe in detail the airliner, a few who get it wrong. ---
**Author:** ![bigpappadiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a698b9/32.png) [@bigpappadiaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bigpappadiaz)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/176 "2006-04-05T16:19:09Z")
[http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333) OOOOkay, 17 minutes and 25 seconds into the video you see the crash site. Does this not look strange to you? Is this a typical crash site? Please don’t make me throw out the largest guffaw in history. Reporters saying things like “geez, there’s nothing there. A few burnt trees. Nothing you can distinguish that a plane was there.” ---
**Author:** ![bigpappadiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a698b9/32.png) [@bigpappadiaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bigpappadiaz)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/177 "2006-04-05T16:20:58Z")
> [@bigpappadiaz](#): > > [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7721485671999456333) > > OOOOkay, 17 minutes and 25 seconds into the video you see the crash site. Does this not look strange to you? Is this a typical crash site? Please don’t make me throw out the largest guffaw in history. > > Reporters saying things like “geez, there’s nothing there. A few burnt trees. Nothing you can distinguish that a plane was there.” Oh yeah, that’s on the scene helicopter coverage, good stuff. I encourage all members to check it out. Don’t just read, glance, and go. Weigh the evidence. ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/179 "2006-04-05T16:27:15Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > If you have hundreds of people who see any major event, you’ll get a range of recollections of what they saw. Some people are not good at judging distances, and most people have a flaky memory. If a commercial airliner crashes into a building, I would expect that almost everyone would recognize it as such, but a few outliers would recall a small plane or even helicopter. That’s exactly what we have in this case - lots and lots of people who describe in detail the airliner, a few who get it wrong. Exactly. Thats why I would rather focus on physical evidence instead of eye witness accounts or blurry photos or video footage that is open to (mis)interperetation. Is there any physical evidence that either a small plane or helicopter crashed into the Pentagon? Any wreckage from either? Planes and helicopters (like large jet airliners) don’t ‘vaporize’ after all…when they crash they leave evidence behind. So…where is the evidence that what crashed into the Pentagon was either a small plane or helicopter…the PHYSICAL evidence I should say? Where is the evidence a missile crashed into the Pentagon (those leave wreckage and other traces as well)? I’ve SEEN evidence that a large air liner crashed into it…so how do you explain things like large (and small) pieces of the air craft found at the site? If the CT guys have some physical evidence that either a helicopter or small jet crashed into the Pentagon then trot it out. Again, blury photos and video tape does not constitute hard evidence…it would only back up real physical evidence (if you have any). -XT ---
**Author:** ![XT](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/xt/32/456_2.png) [@XT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/XT)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/180 "2006-04-05T16:29:23Z")
> [@drmabusa](#): > > Nostradamus Prophecies - USA Nostradamus? :rolleyes: Please… -XT ---
**Author:** ![bigpappadiaz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a698b9/32.png) [@bigpappadiaz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bigpappadiaz)\ **Post date:** [April 5, 2006, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948/181 "2006-04-05T16:29:23Z")
Wow. Thanks for posting a load of crap and garbage so that people can see it, associate crap like that with this topic, and thus take this very important issue a lot less seriously. Can a moderator please delete both of these messages? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948.md?page=8) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/9-11-conspiracy-theories/349948.md?page=10)