Give me your 9/11 conspiracy theories! And/or their debunking

[XT]

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Yes, but we are talking about one of the most important buildings in the US here.
[/QUOTE]

Yes it was and is. We aren’t talking about a comic book style super secret fortress here with layers of mine fields, barbed wire, robot attack dogs and camera coverage with state of the art camera systems on every square inch. Where the plane hit would have been covered by fixed mount or possibly PTZ analogue cameras. They wouldn’t have been tracking the skies for enemy air planes or hang gliding special forces infiltration teams…the cameras were simply for standard crowd control. The entrances would have probably had a higher level of camera security…though even there, the main entrances weren’t exactly highly restricted. When you get into the Pentagon (something that isn’t all that hard to do btw…I STILL have access, at least to the less classified areas), there are restricted areas further in (where the guys with all the brass on their uniform hang out).

Remember…the Pentagon is really just a big office building for the military and military contractors. 10’s of thousands of people work there every day. There is a freaking food court in there for gods sake! We aren’t exactly talking about locked down here (I’ve BEEN to some fairly restricted government facilities as well btw, and they don’t exactly have every square meter of the grounds covered by video either…especially not in 2001).

You seriously need to stop watching so many movies…or, at least, you need to take those movies with a very healthy grain of salt. I know this is going to be hard to believe but, those movies that show the Pentagon as a highly classified and secure military facility on par with some kind of fortress? They, um, exaggerate…greatly.

Are you telling me that a helicopter landing pad situated more or less along the line of the plane’s approach, would not have had 24/7 monitoring by a human being, able to zoom onto said heli-pad and determine that whoever was about to land was who they said they were?

Yes…that is exactly what I’m telling you. If you use your brain for a changes you’ll see why. What would be the point of a constant recording of the helicopter pad (this is different than constant MONITORING, btw)? Video, even low res and low frame rate analogue video, takes a LOT of space when recorded. Especially in 2001. So…you’d have, say, 23 hours of an empty helicopter pad, perhaps with the odd squirrel or security guard wandering about in the picture, some nice shots of the grass blowing or trees rustling, maybe a bit of litter blowing across the frame, just for variety. Then there would be, perhaps, an hour of actual use…something that someone MAY want to actually record in case of an accident or something.

It’s not like there are going to be commandos assaulting the Pentagon helicopter pad, after all. Even if this were likely (or, more likely, some kook who wants to do some mischief), there are live video feeds (not recorded) and guards. Also, I presume that the air traffic in the area is monitored, at least in a cursory manner (probably simply the FAA) for the odd Russian commando team on final approach.

I know this is going to be yet another of those blows to you, but that’s really it. No sooper sekrit video system diligently watching the skies 24/7/365.4. No embedded air defenses on a hair trigger notice, ready to launch missiles, rail gun rounds or death rays to repel invaders. All of that stuff is for movies. The Pentagon is just a really big office building in Arlington…and you, a civilian, could go on a tour if you simply presented yourself at one of the public entrances. You could probably eat at the food court and could see at least the unrestricted areas. Next time you are in DC, hop on the Metro and you can take it right there.

I know, none of this is getting through, and you are convinced that the building is really a big military transformer, with all kinds of hidden defenses and such…but the reality, at least in 2001, was pretty underwhelming.

-XT

[tomndebb]

@Mr.Miskatonic

They made the ultimate sacrifice,only to have internet wastrels complain about their efforts.

“internet wastrels” might have been intended to describe the many troothers out on the intrernet, but in this context it looks very much like a shot at posters on this thread.

You will refrain from hurling insults at other posters in Great Debates.

@EasyPhil

To me this is tantamount to name calling, saying someone is a CT’er or other thing is a personal attack…Why is this allowed?

OTOH, “Conspiracy Theorist” is pretty much an accurate term that some folks embrace and others scorn. I don’t see the insult. I am not sure tht I am ready to even consider “troother” to be a personal insult, although I will consider that issue separately.

[ /Moderating ]

[tomndebb]

@ivan_astikov

I’m very well-read, not easily blagged at all, have bags of common sense, have a healthy distrust of ‘authority figures’ and am extremely open to convincing persuasion, as opposed to being bludgeoned by ‘facts’. Oh, I also have a very devious mind, but reckon there are those much more devious than myself, who also have the resources and the power to do something more than think about things.

Alternative wordings:

I have a phobic paranoia regarding authority that just might cause me to give more weight to any challenge to authority than to any support for authority.

I really like a good story and I find reality to be too dull to entertain me.

[GIGObuster]

@Cisco

Why do you get to keep asking questions but you continue to refuse to answer them? This is Great Debates, not Great ivanball games.

@ivan_astikov

Because my questions apparently have factual answers, which you’ve all been very kind to provide, but the question you have asked me, ie “What do I think happened?”, can only be answered with suppositions. Some of you have been bouncing this subject about since day one; I only got online in late '06, and there’s still a lot to take in.

Well…

@GIGObuster

Well, here is a simple test, do you agree now that Griffin does not have a “laser sharp mind” and that he lied left and right in his book?

I don’t think you have to make any suppositions in answering my questions, have you learned why we should dismiss Griffin? Or should I go back into thinking you will **never **learn to distrust guys like Griffin?

Not even a little? Even after it was shown how badly they handled the evidence regarding the controllers’ radar and misleading people with the melted aluminum?

[tomndebb]

@ivan_astikov

Because my questions apparently have factual answers, which you’ve all been very kind to provide, but the question you have asked me, ie “What do I think happened?”, can only be answered with suppositions. Some of you have been bouncing this subject about since day one; I only got online in late '06, and there’s still a lot to take in.

Then it would probably be a good idea to look through the numerous threads posted on the subject on the SDMB, (and elsewhere on the internet), rather than simply flitting from one point of your ignorance to the next, demanding pages of evidence, (pages that have already been provided on several occasions over the last eight years), from posters whose efforts you generally ignore when they do provide them, now.

[tomndebb]

@ivan_astikov

Regardless, they both stayed up for over a hour, and ‘weakened by heat’ steel is meant to have lost it’s integrity simultaneously, but it couldn’t possibly have been assisted by an extra heat source? Where’s the best place to hide arson(ie. thermite or similar sabotage)? In a fire!

The worst place to hide an incendiary device, (as well as the worst waste of time, effort, and material), is to place redundant incendiaries at the location of a fire where the impact of an aircraft might either destroy their fusing mechanisms or might trigger their mechanisms too early, causing them to light up places where no fire was supposed to occur–something that did not happen in the cases of WTC 1 and 2. Such devices, of course, would leave significant residue that would have been reported, by now.

@ivan_astikov

Btw, has there been an explanation for that molten metal pouring from one of the tower’s corners, yet?

Since no molten metal “poured” from any tower, there has been no need for an explanation. (The pictures that purport to show such “molten metal” show nothing of the kind and even most troothers gave up trying to use those photos three or four years ago. You need to find some more up-to-date troothers.)

[cmyk]

I think some people here have been watching way too much 24.

Honestly. :rolleyes:

[CurtC]

@ivan_astikov

Are you telling me that a helicopter landing pad situated more or less along the line of the plane’s approach, would not have had 24/7 monitoring by a human being, able to zoom onto said heli-pad and determine that whoever was about to land was who they said they were?

Here, I found a quote for you. From Firefight - Inside the Battle to Save the Pentagon on 9/11:

In the small tower on the Pentagon helipad, air traffic controller Sean Boger saw the image of an airplane began to materialize through the window, on the near horizon: first a nose, then a wing, then no doubt about it, a whole goddamn airplane. Boger froze.

At the adjacent fire station, Mark Skipper was standing in front of Foam 161, the helipad’s firetruck, smoking a cigarette and talking with Alan Wallace about the news from New York. Wallace noticed some movement out of the corner of his eye. Both men jerked their heads around in sudden disbelief. The plane was flying straight at them from the west, rapidly filling the sky like some kind of surreal 3-D video game. They couldn’t hear it, but by the time they saw the plane it was only 150 yards away, a few feet off the ground—and about to fly right through them.

“Run!” Wallace screamed. He bolted to the right, sure that the plane was about to take his head off. Skipper took off in another direction.

Seriously, Ivan, you really don’t want to be arguing the position that Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

[ivan_astikov]

@GIGObuster

Well…

I don’t think you have to make any suppositions in answering my questions, have you learned why we should dismiss Griffin? Or should I go back into thinking you will **never **learn to distrust guys like Griffin?

Not even a little? Even after it was shown how badly they handled the evidence regarding the controllers’ radar and misleading people with the melted aluminum?

If a couple of questionable factoids are all it needs to discredit an idea, the official theory seems to have enough of its own to merit the continued doubts.

@CurtC

Seriously, Ivan, you really don’t want to be arguing the position that Flight 77 didn’t hit the Pentagon.

I wasn’t. I was just surprised to see how unprotected The Pentagon really was from this and seemingly any other threat. The fact that individuals could have landed in a helicopter, launched hand-held projectiles, and possibly go unnoticed, seems to be a waste of a lot of tax-payers money.

[Mr.Miskatonic]

@ivan_astikov

I wasn’t. I was just surprised to see how unprotected The Pentagon really was from this and seemingly any other threat. The fact that individuals could have landed in a helicopter, launched hand-held projectiles, and possibly go unnoticed, seems to be a waste of a lot of tax-payers money.

A group could also drive a Van into the visitor’s parking lot and launched hand-held projectiles. I doubt either event would have gone ‘unnoticed’. I have no idea what security you expect, but the Pentagon has long preferred human beings to cameras. This is not unique.

[ivan_astikov]

Okay, if anyone wants to give me a link to an impartial timeline and account of the days events*, I’ll review my opinions and try and come back with something less ephemeral.

• Or a recommended reading list.

[Skywatcher]

@tomndebb

The worst place to hide an incendiary device, (as well as the worst waste of time, effort, and material), is to place redundant incendiaries at the location of a fire where the impact of an aircraft might either destroy their fusing mechanisms or might trigger their mechanisms too early, causing them to light up places where no fire was supposed to occur–something that did not happen in the cases of WTC 1 and 2.

See also: Danny Jowenko.

[spifflog]

@ivan_astikov

Yes, but we are talking about one of the most important buildings in the US here.

Are you telling me that a helicopter landing pad situated more or less along the line of the plane’s approach, would not have had 24/7 monitoring by a human being, able to zoom onto said heli-pad and determine that whoever was about to land was who they said they were?

Ivan astikov, so what do you really think happened to the Pentagon?

Since you don’t think a plane crashed we are left with three scenarios:

A) Nothing happened. The whole thing was made up.
B) A missile hit the Pentagon.
C) A bomb went off.

I worked at the Navy Annex, slightly up the hill from the Pentagon, and was in the Annex parking lot when the plane screamed overhead. I’ve never heard anything that loud in my life. I subconsciously dropped to my stomach as I watch the plane hit. I’m in the military so I suppose that I was “in on it” so you don’t have to believe me.

But there at least 35,000 people, plus or minus, working in the Pentagon every day. And some significant amount, I’d guess about 100, are walking to/from their cars on a continuous basis throughout the day. How to you handle those people telling everyone that will listen, including the news media, that they were there and it was b) actually a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, or c) nothing hit the Pentagon, it just exploded?

You don’t actually think security just rounded them up, gave them a memo, told them all to lie and that was the end of it do you?

Please answer. I’d really like to know what you think.

[Skywatcher]

@ivan_astikov

Okay, if anyone wants to give me a link to an impartial timeline and account of the days events

http://www.historycommons.org/project.jsp?project=911_project

[GIGObuster]

@ivan_astikov

If a couple of questionable factoids are all it needs to discredit an idea, the official theory seems to have enough of its own to merit the continued doubts.

:rolleyes:

That is not what I asked, what I’m asking is evidence that we should bother answering you. The current reply shows that you are only ignoring the evidence.

By telling me if you understand **why **Griffin’s idea of how radar “should” work on 9/11 was bollocks you will show me and all that you are learning the reasons why also serious researchers dismiss people like Griffin.

It is not just “factoids” that are discrediting people like Griffin, **all **what you posted on him and others has been discredited with evidence. I’m concentrating on the recent items mentioned because you are not telling us what are the reasons **why **you are dismissing the evidence. Saying only that “it merits continuous doubts” is only ignoring evidence and you are only avoiding a proper explanation.

I wasn’t. I was just surprised to see how unprotected The Pentagon really was from this and seemingly any other threat. The fact that individuals could have landed in a helicopter, launched hand-held projectiles, and possibly go unnoticed, seems to be a waste of a lot of tax-payers money.

You are missing the fact that the pentagon was being reinforced to deal with threats like that one, in fact the terrorists that flew the plane crashed into the section of the Pentagon that was already upgraded, if that had not been the case even more people at the Pentagon would have died.

A helicopter containing terrorists with hand-held projectiles would have done less damage IMO and the guards on location would had time to respond.

[ivan_astikov]

@spifflog

Ivan astikov, so what do you really think happened to the Pentagon?

Since you don’t think a plane crashed we are left with three scenarios:

A) Nothing happened. The whole thing was made up.
B) A missile hit the Pentagon.
C) A bomb went off.

I worked at the Navy Annex, slightly up the hill from the Pentagon, and was in the Annex parking lot when the plane screamed overhead. I’ve never heard anything that loud in my life. I subconsciously dropped to my stomach as I watch the plane hit. I’m in the military so I suppose that I was “in on it” so you don’t have to believe me.

But there at least 35,000 people, plus or minus, working in the Pentagon every day. And some significant amount, I’d guess about 100, are walking to/from their cars on a continuous basis throughout the day. How to you handle those people telling everyone that will listen, including the news media, that they were there and it was b) actually a cruise missile that hit the Pentagon, or c) nothing hit the Pentagon, it just exploded?

You don’t actually think security just rounded them up, gave them a memo, told them all to lie and that was the end of it do you?

Please answer. I’d really like to know what you think.

I think a plane hit it.

Anyone want to comment on the 5 lamp posts it knocked down, and how they didn’t affect its flightpath in the slightest? Is it just the case that the plane was going so fast, and the lamp posts were too insubstantial to affect it?

[Cisco]

Are you going to ignore GIGOBuster again, ivan? Do you do this in real life? Someone is talking to you, they finish with a question, you stare at them for a few seconds, and then silently walk away. Seriously, do you do that? I’ve met people who do that and it’s just unbelievably rude.

[XT]

[QUOTE=ivan astikov]
Anyone want to comment on the 5 lamp posts it knocked down, and how they didn’t affect its flightpath in the slightest? Is it just the case that the plane was going so fast, and the lamp posts were too insubstantial to affect it?
[/QUOTE]

In short mass and inertia. The plane weighed a lot, was going pretty fast, hit the lamp posts near it’s terminal destination…and lamp posts aren’t exactly made out of titanium reinforced concrete. A CAR can knock over a lamp post…in fact, they are designed to bend and break on impact, so that if you hit them with a car you won’t wrap yourself around them.

I wasn’t. I was just surprised to see how unprotected The Pentagon really was from this and seemingly any other threat. The fact that individuals could have landed in a helicopter, launched hand-held projectiles, and possibly go unnoticed, seems to be a waste of a lot of tax-payers money.

The Pentagon IS protected…by guards. Who watch real time video feeds. And who patrol the grounds and man the entrances. As another poster pointed out, why would terrorists fly onto the helicopter pad exactly, when if they REALLY wanted to attack the Pentagon with rockets it would be much easier to simply drive up and park in the visitors parking lot. It might have changed since the last time I was there, but the only defenses near the entrances were to stop car bombs and the like (those concrete barrier things)…if you wanted to drive up and start blowing the crap out of the Pentagon you probably could. Of course, the guards would probably shoot you, eventually…no way you’d be able to get away considering the traffic situation.

You seem to be lost on some of my own explanation however. The cameras on the exterior of the Pentagon are there to record people, triggered by motion. They aren’t (or weren’t, in 2001…maybe they are now) geared to be able to record incoming air planes (you’d need cameras that could record at very high frame rates to follow a plane…and either continuous video or some kind of radar type trigger). I say maybe, but I doubt it…I’m puzzled why anyone thinks that capturing the video of the plane hitting the Pentagon is all that important, considering we have, you know, the wreckage.

At any rate, the camera recorders would have been on either a 3 or 5 second delay triggered on motion. Even assuming the air plane would trigger the cameras on motion (or other cues), you’d have a delay before it would start RECORDING (and this leaves out the exclusion zones which were almost certainly set so that wind and clouds and the movement of trees wouldn’t trigger the recordings)…and only those recordings would be available after the fact. Ok, so it starts recording after, say, 3 seconds once it detects the plane. Do the math…how much video would you expect it to capture before impact (after the impact the video infrastructure would most likely have been totally fucked on that side of the building) given the speed of the plane? Then there is another factor…frame rate. One of the things that you do to save space is lower the frame rate of the video you capture. As an example, we used to set the frame rate to 2-5 frames per second. It makes for a jerky video, but for what it’s intended (capturing video of humans doing something they aren’t supposed to be doing so that it can be played back at a later date), it works well enough…and you don’t have to have huge amounts of expensive storage.

Ok…do you understand why there wasn’t a lot of video captured on the plane now? Do you understand why what was captured was fleeting images instead of Hollywood type shots? Do you understand that the Pentagon is (and most importantly was) ‘defended’, but against known or probable threats…and that these defenses were never meant to be against high level threats? The Pentagon isn’t and wasn’t a fortress. It’s not like the White House either. It’s just a really big office building.

-XT

[Skywatcher]

@GIGObuster

You are missing the fact that the pentagon was being reinforced to deal with threats like that one, in fact the terrorists that flew the plane crashed into the section of the Pentagon that was already upgraded

Well, mostly. They kinda hit a seam between Wedge One (which had been upgraded) and Wedge Two.

[CurtC]

@ivan_astikov

Anyone want to comment on the 5 lamp posts it knocked down, and how they didn’t affect its flightpath in the slightest? Is it just the case that the plane was going so fast, and the lamp posts were too insubstantial to affect it?

I don’t know what it might have done if it needed to keep flying for very long, but there was only about one second between hitting the light poles and hitting the side of the Pentagon. Even if it lost 100% of its lift, there was only enough time to freefall about 16 feet.