[Old_Dude]

PBS did a special show about how the WTC towers fell . . . I thought it was particularly interesting and an excellent documentary . . . I think it was a one hour presentation . . . computer models were created explaining exactly how the towers were constructed, they interviewed lots of people directly involved with the design and building of the towers and so forth . . . there was one really amazing "real" video clip showing a zoomed-in, slow motion analysis of the building as it failed . . . you could literally see how it sort of ripped apart from one side to another in probably just a few seconds and then the pancake effect set in and then "whoosh", it was gone . . . truly phenomenal video . . . anyone else see that?

 

[Damn True]

Dude, a 757 holds close to 77,000 lbs of JP-5 jet fuel.
That much fuel will burn for a long, long time.
JP-5 has a flash point of 140 deg, an autoignition point of 475 deg, and a LEL of .07%.
JP-5 burns at a rate of 45 MJ/kg so if we convert 77,000 lbs we get 34,926.61249 kilograms, we can estimate that the energy produced by the burning jet fuel would be roughly 1,571,701.5 MJ.

In lay terms, a $hitload of heat.

As far as the building collapse, ever watch a building demo by implosion. They use very little explosives to bring em' down. All it takes is to drop one structural member. The structure below is is meant to handle a static load, not the impact of large loads from above. Down it goes.

As for the events on the plane. I went to H.S. with both Todd Beamer and Mark Bingham. I know the kind of men they were. I know they would have done anything in their power to keep that plane from getting to it's target.

 

[Old_Dude]

. . . they would have done anything in their power to keep that plane from getting to it's target.

Obviously, & especially after the new findings were just released, "the government" felt the same way and handled the situation (almost) very well.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

I have to pipe in here and agree with Old_Dude that something is definitely a little weird with the explanation that the plane was taken over and then crashed by some of the passengers.

One point that nobody mentioned yet, was that on 9/11, the plane was reported by the media to have been shot down by the
Air Force. Only on 9/12 did the story about the passenger struggle and crash landing come out.

At that point I didn't know what to believe myself until I heard on the news about 2 months later, a report on a government policy change which authorized the Air Force to shoot down civilian airliners that had been hijacked or otherwise posed a threat. Of course, this was accompanied by very extended and prolonged assurances that safeguards were in place so that it wouldn't happen by accident, etc.

If the plane was shot down, the story about the passengers would have been a good way avoid all the unpleasant questions that would have arisen about whether or not it was the right thing to do, and so on.

Also, doesn't anybody else think it's a little weird how NONE of the black boxes, which are supposedly designed to withstand anything, were recoverable? I'd like to see a statistic comparing the number of plane crashes to the number of unrecoverable black boxes.

 

[Evilmunch]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
I have to pipe in here and agree with Old_Dude that something is definitely a little weird with the explanation that the plane was taken over and then crashed by some of the passengers.

One point that nobody mentioned yet, was that on 9/11, the plane was reported by the media to have been shot down by the
Air Force. Only on 9/12 did the story about the passenger struggle and crash landing come out.

At that point I didn't know what to believe myself until I heard on the news about 2 months later, a report on a government policy change which authorized the Air Force to shoot down civilian airliners that had been hijacked or otherwise posed a threat. Of course, this was accompanied by very extended and prolonged assurances that safeguards were in place so that it wouldn't happen by accident, etc.

If the plane was shot down, the story about the passengers would have been a good way avoid all the unpleasant questions that would have arisen about whether or not it was the right thing to do, and so on.

Also, doesn't anybody else think it's a little weird how NONE of the black boxes, which are supposedly designed to withstand anything, were recoverable? I'd like to see a statistic comparing the number of plane crashes to the number of unrecoverable black boxes.

On 9/11 every media source was clamoring to be the first to report everything that was going on. IIRC someone guessed that it was possible that the plane was shot down... it just escalated from there... just like a bad rumor.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by Evilmunch
On 9/11 every media source was clamoring to be the first to report everything that was going on. IIRC someone guessed that it was possible that the plane was shot down... it just escalated from there... just like a bad rumor.

Yeah. I heard/saw on 9/11 (on NBC News) that a car bomb had exploded outside the State Department in downtown DC. I guess they cleaned it up really fast........

reports in the media are worthless.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by Evilmunch
On 9/11 every media source was clamoring to be the first to report everything that was going on. IIRC someone guessed that it was possible that the plane was shot down... it just escalated from there... just like a bad rumor.

I nor anyone else really knows what actually happened on 9/11. That said, I have a few problems dismissing the reports of the plane being shot down as "rumor":

1. If this was the case, wouldn't alternative stories have co-existed at the same time on 9/11, including the one where passengers brought the plane down? Why didn't we hear bout the frantic 911 call on 9/11? Why a shift from one story to the other, instead of multiple stories existing, one of which later predominates?

2. Why suppress the final minutes of the cockpit voice recordings? What could they possibly contain against "national security"

3. Why suppress the black box? The black box being unrecoverable in the WTC and Pentagon crashes is somewhat more believeable, but this was a pretty routine crash.

Also given the amount of fanfare about safety and procedure that was made when the goverment announced 2 months later that it WOULD shoot down any airliners that happened into similar situations, it seems unlikely they would say if they did shoot the plane down on 9/11.

 

[OneManArmy]

I love conspiracy theories..yeah....
I am totally into them....like Tupac is alive and Cobain got doped and shot.

I even have a shirt from a band I like....on the back it has a small picture of the two towers and it says bush knew on it.

I have to say that the plane being shot down is very possible.....where it happened and the fact it literally went strait down. But it's also obvious that passengers attempted something and very likely that the pilots just slammed it strait down so they would not be over taken and seen as failures....see to be a martyr in their faith you get to be honored in death and have all these wonderful women....I think 50 but it's been a while since I have read up on it....they are seen as heroes in the faith and treated as so after death....even their living families are taken care of by the cause.

That alone tells me it is more likely that the terrorists killed everyone on board by slaming a huge plane 20 feet deep into the ground. Those people on board where heroes either way. The terrorists coward either way.

I just don't see bush taking the risk...he shoots that plane down and we find out.....he's done.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by OneManArmy

I just don't see bush taking the risk...he shoots that plane down and we find out.....he's done. [/B]

This is my main point, that the goverment had the means and motive to shoot down the plane, and that the widespread explanation was a little shady given the suppression of the recordings, the crash location, etc.

I disagree that it would be political suicide for Bush to have authorized it though (if he even did), there's enough room to blame it on someone else acting without his authority. This stuff happens all the time, they even have a name for it - plausible deniability.

 

[OneManArmy]

all this reminds me of a very underated movie.

Long Kiss Goodnight.


"a fund raiser....they're running a fund raiser"

You are gonna fake a terrorist attack to get money from the government?

Unfortunately there is no way to fake the deaths of 4000 people.


Great movie...she is so damn burly, busts that dudes face with a pie...haaaa.

 

[Evilmunch]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
I nor anyone else really knows what actually happened on 9/11. That said, I have a few problems dismissing the reports of the plane being shot down as "rumor":

1. If this was the case, wouldn't alternative stories have co-existed at the same time on 9/11, including the one where passengers brought the plane down?

There were a bunch of different theories... and they were ALL speculation until proof was found.

Why didn't we hear bout the frantic 911 call on 9/11? Why a shift from one story to the other, instead of multiple stories existing, one of which later predominates?

Were you watching TV that day?

2. Why suppress the final minutes of the cockpit voice recordings? What could they possibly contain against "national security"

I dunno. You know how the gub'ment likes to keep stuff classified. In their minds "the less we know the better."

3. Why suppress the black box? The black box being unrecoverable in the WTC and Pentagon crashes is somewhat more believeable, but this was a pretty routine crash.

um... Have you ever seen pics of the ones that have been recovered. They're so TRASHED It's amazing that they can get anything worthwhile from them. I wonder what the failure rate during crashes on these things is.

Also given the amount of fanfare about safety and procedure that was made when the goverment announced 2 months later that it WOULD shoot down any airliners that happened into similar situations, it seems unlikely they would say if they did shoot the plane down on 9/11.

Look... If it was shot down there would be evidence. As in eye witnesses, cell conversations from the plane, intercepted radio communication, radar observation. Shooting down a huge plane over US air space would have been seen by a LOT of people in one way or another. There's just too much there to cover up.

 

[shocktower]

But what I wanna know is how the Hell do you post such huge pictures and more than one at a time ,BTW Oswald could not have shot Kennedy ,he was to high up for a head shot like the one that killed JFK ,and as long as we are on the conspircy Ideas Where the Hell are the WMD`S BUSH IS IN ON IT ,and why the hell do we stick our noses in to stuff we should not and then it comes back to bite us in the ASS ,wake up America let`s take care of our own back yard

 

[jonassterling]

Look... If it was shot down there would be evidence. As in eye witnesses, cell conversations from the plane, intercepted radio communication, radar observation. Shooting down a huge plane over US air space would have been seen by a LOT of people in one way or another. There's just too much there to cover up.

What kind of evidence are you looking for?

The eyewitnesses that heard a sonic boom?

The derbies that were found 6 miles away?

If the plane was shot down at a high altitude how many people could have seen it, and everyone was too busy watching TV then anyway.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
This is my main point, that the goverment had the means and motive to shoot down the plane, and that the widespread explanation was a little shady given the suppression of the recordings, the crash location, etc.

Um, the plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Not in the middle of the Sahara Desert. If they had sent a fighter plane chasing after it with missiles, somebody would DEFINITELY have taken note. I can't think of any other way to shoot down a plane other than with an anti-aircraft battery, and god knows PA farm country is just chock-full of those

Originally posted by jonassterling
What kind of evidence are you looking for?

The eyewitnesses that heard a sonic boom?

The derbies that were found 6 miles away?

If the plane was shot down at a high altitude how many people could have seen it, and everyone was too busy watching TV then anyway.

Woopty-doo. Somebody thought they heard a sonic boom. Maybe it was the sound of a huge jet airliner hitting the ground nearby. Remember the DC sniper attacks? A lot of people saw white vans at every shooting site

Anybody see a jet fighter? How about a jet airliner diving towards the ground trailing a massive plume of black smoke several miles long? NO? I didn't think so....

 

[OneManArmy]

no need to get hostile.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by sub6
If they had sent a fighter plane chasing after it with missiles, somebody would DEFINITELY have taken note

Originally posted by Evilmunch
Look... If it was shot down there would be evidence. As in eye witnesses, cell conversations from the plane...

Since it's a comparatively minor issue with all the other stuff that's happened around 9/11, I doubt that anyone has done a thorough enough investigation into this for you to say so conclusively that there isn't evidence. Pan Am Flight 800 exploded in a ball of flames over Long Island Sound in 1999. There were some eyewitnesses who saw a streak of light in the sky, as would have come from a missile, just before the plane exploded. The official report deemed the explosion to have been caused by "vapors". If this could happen in an area I would conservatively estimate to be 5-10X more densely populated than central PA, would you really give 100% odds that someone DEFINITELY would have seen it?

I'm not saying I think that either plane was shot down, only that it is possible.

Also, nobody's really been able to justify the suppression of the cockpit recordings and the black box findings. Sure I know the boxes get trashed, but that's what they're DESIGNED to do: survive a crash of catastrophic proportions! Someone mentioned, "You know how the gub'ment likes to keep stuff classified". I can understand that for stuff like nuclear missile launch sites ETC but come on!

While I'm on the topic, how about the 28 pages in the recent congressional report on 9/11, regarding possible Saudi involvement, which were not made public at Bush's request?

Unless we wake up try to find out truth and stop putting blind faith in the goverment and media then we are sheep and deserve whatever happens to us.

Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country
Hermann Goering, Hitler's PR Minister

 

[manimal]

you're all wrong!



9/11 never actually happened, it's just a spawn of the matrix to keep us from finding out the real truth

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by sub6
Um, the plane crashed in a field in Pennsylvania. Not in the middle of the Sahara Desert. If they had sent a fighter plane chasing after it with missiles, somebody would DEFINITELY have taken note. I can't think of any other way to shoot down a plane other than with an anti-aircraft battery, and god knows PA farm country is just chock-full of those

Woopty-doo. Somebody thought they heard a sonic boom. Maybe it was the sound of a huge jet airliner hitting the ground nearby. Remember the DC sniper attacks? A lot of people saw white vans at every shooting site

Anybody see a jet fighter? How about a jet airliner diving towards the ground trailing a massive plume of black smoke several miles long? NO? I didn't think so....

Good points! If the airliner had been shot down by a jet fighter, it would have been a much more spread out debis field, instead of the realitivly small debris field at the crash site.

Think about it, an f-16 shoots a missile at an airliner. The missile is primarily designed to destroy a fighter sized target. So, if it would have hit or exploded near a 757 / 767 sized target the aircraft would have been disabled and stuff would have started falling off the plane, like engines, control surfaces, etc. These items (like the Space Shuttle) would have been many miles from the actual crash site, and that is not the case here.

Sonic boom: gee you think there were some pretty "cranked up" jet jockeys up there making sure every airliner got their butt on the ground ASAP, and were probably allowed to go super sonic to get where they were needed, DUH!! We were under attack.

As for if the passengers rushed the cockpit. I think there is more validity to that than most people think. I for one can render an airliner unable to continue to fly with only about 5 seconds in the cockpit, it's not that hard. The terrorist were not trained real well as pilots, so again it would not have been hard to mess with them or the airplane and get it into an out of control condition that would have caused a crash.

No one tried to land that airplane, just look at the crash site. It is a relatively compact debis field, with no major components still intact (maybe 5'x5' max piece that could be easily recognized as from and airplane). This indicates a realitivly steep angle and high speed at impact, indicative of an out of control flight condition. If they had tried to land the airplane, it would have been a shallower angle of impact, and a slower speed. More of the aircraft would have been intact, even after a post crash fire. Basic accident investigation techniques.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
There were some eyewitnesses who saw a streak of light in the sky, as would have come from a missile, just before the plane exploded. The official report deemed the explosion to have been caused by "vapors". If this could happen in an area I would conservatively estimate to be 5-10X more densely populated than central PA, would you really give 100% odds that someone DEFINITELY would have seen it?

I'm not saying I think that either plane was shot down, only that it is possible.

Yeah, but there's a crucial difference - the Long Island plane just blew up in a huge fireball with virtually no warning [edit - AT NIGHT, no less], it was all over in a matter of a couple of seconds. You'd have to have already been looking up to see that happen.

The PA plane crashed into the ground in more or less one piece. If it were shot down, it would have traveled quite a distance, belching smoke and debris, and THAT is what would have been noticed. Remember the Columbia? Hell, it was on TV!! Enough people looked up for that one, and it was 100 miles up!

It strikes me as extremely irresponsible to shoot down an airliner, b/c you don't know where it's going to land. If they shot it down and it landed on shopping mall, there would be hell to pay. Not worth the risk.


Yeah, it's 'possible' that the plane was shot down. It's also 'possible' that the hijackers were planning to fly it to Bermuda for a day in the sun, or that geese were sucked into the engines, causing the crash. But given the facts surrounding the incident, those are all pretty unlikely causes.

Originally posted by OneManArmy
no need to get hostile.

no hostilities here bro, just shootin' the sh*t with the "crazies"!!

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by jonassterling

And these towers were disigned to handle the effects of a 737 crash.

Actually, the towers were designed to withstand (remain standing only) from the impact of a Boeing 707 (fuel weight was not fugured into the anaylsis, and neither were the effects of fire/heat on the truss structure).

Tuck this away for your next trivial pursiut game, the 737 was not even flying during the design phase of the towers.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by sub6
Yeah, but there's a crucial difference - the Long Island plane just blew up in a huge fireball with virtually no warning [edit - AT NIGHT, no less], it was all over in a matter of a couple of seconds. You'd have to have already been looking up to see that happen.

The PA plane crashed into the ground in more or less one piece. If it were shot down, it would have traveled quite a distance, belching smoke and debris, and THAT is what would have been noticed. Remember the Columbia? Hell, it was on TV!! Enough people looked up for that one, and it was 100 miles up!

It strikes me as extremely irresponsible to shoot down an airliner, b/c you don't know where it's going to land. If they shot it down and it landed on shopping mall, there would be hell to pay. Not worth the risk.


Yeah, it's 'possible' that the plane was shot down. It's also 'possible' that the hijackers were planning to fly it to Bermuda for a day in the sun, or that geese were sucked into the engines, causing the crash. But given the facts surrounding the incident, those are all pretty unlikely causes.




no hostilities here bro, just shootin' the sh*t with the "crazies"!!

You claim there is no way to shoot a plane out of the sky without it traveling "quite a distance, belching smoke and debris" the whole way. Somehow given the range of weaponry and tactics available to today's fighter jet pilots I tend to doubt that, but I apologize in the unlikely event that you're an expert in modern aerial combat.

Also, you're 100% correct that it would be irresponsible to take out the plane, but given the circumstances what would you have chosen: some dead civilians or no White House? Which begs the question why was the plane way out there in the first place? It was so out of control it's a miracle they didn't crash into the ground before then!

The bermuda and geese explanation are also possible, but I'm not sure which facts you're referring to other than that there's no way people wouldn't have seen something if it was shot down, which seems to me more of an opinion than fact. The facts that I see are: 1) A plane crashes and is widely reported to have been shot down. 2) The next day it is widely reported to have been re-hijacked back from the terrorists and crashed 3) 2 Months later the government authorizes the shooting down of commercial airliners amid much fanfare about safety, precaution, and procedure 4) To date the final minutes of the cockpit recording and black box are still not publicly available.

If everything's on the up and up, why all the secrecy? Why not release all the info and settle any doubts once and for all? What could possibly be so damaging to national security in these recordings? Again, I don't think anything for sure one way or the other, but you've gotta admin there's something shady going on!

 

[Andyman_1970]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
You claim there is no way to shoot a plane out of the sky without it traveling "quite a distance, belching smoke and debris" the whole way. Somehow given the range of weaponry and tactics available to today's fighter jet pilots I tend to doubt that, but I apologize in the unlikely event that you're an expert in modern aerial combat.

Considering the air to air missiles those fighters would have been carrying, it's intirely likely that if they did "engage" the airliner it would not have exploded "hollywood style".

One of the planes we build here was shot at (in africa, in the early '90's) by a MIG with 2 heat seaking missiles. It blew the right engine off (the plane only has 2), and the second missile followed the burning engine as it left the airplane. The airplane sucessfully landed, was repaired and is still in service today. That was on a business jet sized airplane, now consider a 757/767 which is easliy 3 times as big.

So see it is most likely that if you shot an airliner with an air to air missile (either an AIM-9M "sidewinder" or AIM-120 "amramm"), it would have traveled "quite a distance, belching smoke and debris".

The deris feild at the crash site does not support that theroy (missile) either.

 

[jonassterling]

Debries from this plane were found up to 6 miles away. If the plane was flying low and was hit by a missle while being flown by inexperience pilots or passenger could it not just drop to the ground very quickly?

Somewhere back in this thread someone mentioned lotsa of fighters in the sky on 9-11. according to NORAD no fighters were not scrambled until after the second tower was hit. Hell, even Bush flew out of Florida without a fighter escort, and this was after listening to a childrens story for 8 minutes AFTER he was told of the first plane. He also claimed to have seen the first plane hit the tower on TV at the school, which of course is impossible as the only known video to capture this came out days later.

There are things we are being lied to about. I don't claim to have the answers to any of this, but the facts still aren't adding up. Flight 92 was known to be hijacked for over an hour and we did not have any fighters after it? Either we had a huge security breakdown of somethings fishy.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by jonassterling
Debries from this plane were found up to 6 miles away.

that, I cannot think of an explanation for. Do you have a source for that?

 

[jonassterling]

give me a little while to find one.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by sub6
Do you have a source for that?

Here's a compilation site with several links that mentions the six mile debris radius among other things:

http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/2001/10/102901_Flight_93.html

Also quoted on this page is the frantic 911 caller's statement that the plane had just been hit by something and was going down:

He had heard some sort of explosion and said there was white smoke coming from the aircraft. Then the dispatcher lost him.

You still convinced we know all there is to know?

 

[jonassterling]

Beat me to it Bob.

Here is the link I found after my browser crasher 3 times searching for this stuff.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30682

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Wow that is some bone chilling stuff. I knew some of the facts but I had no idea there about all the eyewitnesses. Hopefully this will be a wake-up call to everyone who said "there's no way, we would have heard about it" and so on, not to think that what is reported in the top US news outlets is the full picture all the time. One of these witnesses was trying to tell people what he saw and nobody even wanted to hear it.

The scariest part to me is this:

Passenger Edward Felt made an emergency call from the plane. He spoke of an explosion and seeing some white smoke. The supervisor who took the call has been gagged by the FBI.

WTF?? Don't we have freedom of speech in this country?

 

[sub6]

Jonassterling - that article you mention cites all of its sources to the Daily Mirror. Not sure if you're familiar with that publication but to say the least, it's not exactly Washington Post material. More like the National Enquirer.

So, I'm gonna look at it with a great deal of skepticism.




That said, IF that's true, I don't know how to explain it.

I still think if a jet were shot down, there would have been a big trail of smoke and it would have been pretty noticeable. Missiles are not precision instruments and it's not like you can neatly chop off the tail of a plane without damaging the fuel tanks or anything else.

If it wasn't shot down, I'd have to attribute that phone call to 911 to a guy panicking and just losing it. IF it's true.




During the DC sniper attacks, the "white van" was widely rumored to have been spotted at most of the shooting sites. An eyewitness told police that he saw a white van at the site of the Home Depot in Arlington shooting, and that it sped away immediately after the woman was shot.

Turned out they had been using a dark Chevy Caprice, and that the eyewitness was lying (he was seen on security cams inside the store, browsing the shelves during the shooting). Sometimes people make sh*t up b/c it makes them feel important.

If a F-15 flew 40-50 feet over a populated area, I have a feeling more than 3 people would take notice. If you've ever heard a fighter plane, those things are LOUD. FRICKIN LOUD. If it was a Lear Jet, I have a feeling it didn't have missile-firing capabilities. Perhaps the FBI rammed the airliner with their learjet to take it down.

Anyway, obviously some things don't add up. Somebody is definitely full of sh*t. I think y'all know who I think it is.....

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
Here's a compilation site with several links that mentions the six mile debris radius among other things:

six miles of paper an "thin nylon" is what it says. If that did come from the plane it wouldn't surprise me.

If a RELIABLE source (not the Daily Mirror or Weekly World News) says they found a tail section six miles away, that's a differenct story.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by sub6
six miles of paper an "thin nylon" is what it says. If that did come from the plane it wouldn't surprise me.

If a RELIABLE source (not the Daily Mirror or Weekly World News) says they found a tail section six miles away, that's a differenct story.

Um, heres some other sections from the same link I posted before, taken from a CNN report, a more "reliable" news outlet:

Additionally, Flight 93's debris field covered anywhere from three to six miles and, as CNN reported, pieces of the plane were found six to eight miles from the main impact area: "Authorities also said another debris site had been cordoned off six to eight miles away from the original crash debris site."

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/13/investigation.terrorism/index.html

"A second debris field was around Indian Lake about 3 miles from the crash scene. Some debris was in the lake and some was adjacent to the lake. "More debris from the plane was found in New Baltimore, some 8 miles away from the crash. "State police and the FBI initially said they didn't want to speculate whether the debris was from the crash, or if the plane could have broken up in midair."

Also, more than three people DID take notice... and nobody wanted to talk to them. The article mentioned 5 separate interviews and there are likely more.

You keep mentioning the sniper attacks and how everybody saw white vans. I propose this is because they were TOLD to keep an eye out for a white van. If you're expecting to see something, that's different. How many people were on a constant vigil for an unmarked white jet in the sky?

Also, the population of Shanksville is under 1000. Surely you must agree that can hardly be considered a "populated area".

But let's drop the issue of whether or not someone would have definitely seen it or not. Say nobody saw anything and they're all full of it, looking to get their 15 minutes of fame. What possible reason would the goverment then have to do the following:

1. Gag the 911 operator who took the call from the hijacked passenger (is this the USA??)
2. Suppress the black box and cockpit recordings
3. Suppress the names of any fighter pilots who would've been on duty in the area
4. Deny, then later rescind the denial, as a "mistake", that no fighter jets were in the vicinity on 9/11

This just doesn't make sense to me. Why would the goverment do this unless there was something being covered up? Why not just release the info and lay to rest any possible doubts in the mind of the public? That to me is something there seems to be no good answer for.

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
Um, heres some other sections from the same link I posted before, taken from a CNN report, a more "reliable" news outlet:

yes. Pieces of paper and "thin nylon" just as I said. That's the "debris" and "pieces of the plane" that they are talking about. The only sources I can find for a) engines falling off and b) fighter plane sitings are coming from the Daily Mirror. And as I said, it's pretty much a supermarket tabloid.

1. Gag the 911 operator who took the call from the hijacked passenger (is this the USA??)
2. Suppress the black box and cockpit recordings
3. Suppress the names of any fighter pilots who would've been on duty in the area
4. Deny, then later rescind the denial, as a "mistake", that no fighter jets were in the vicinity on 9/11

I dunno. If those assertions 1-4 are coming from some place other than the Daily Mirror then that's one thing. If they're from the D.M. then I have no qualms about dismissing them as complete made-up bullsh*t.


Like I said, stuff doesn't add up, and one side is lying. Either the gov't or the news sources that printed this stuff. I think it's the news sources, b/c I find it unlikely that a London tabloid would get the scoop on all these people, and that CNN, NBC and the Post wouldn't have immediately swooped in and sold an ASS-LOAD of news by following up on this. I mean, that is a huge bombshell. The news loves to bring down the government whenever it can, because it sells like NOTHING else does. I think if those people quoted in the Mirror actually existed, they'd have been on page 1 of the Wash.Post.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by sub6
I dunno. If those assertions 1-4 are coming from some place other than the Daily Mirror then that's one thing.

Well, assertions 2 and 3 are widely accepted facts. Daily Mirror or no Daily Mirror. The black box "somehow" couldn't be recovered and the cockpit recordings are in fact still suppressed. If the plane was crashed normally by a passenger due to a mistake, the black box should have survived and would support that. Same with the cockpit voice recordings. Let's for a minute dismiss all the other supporting evidence of a cover up as BS. This alone is enough. Why would the goverment conceal this information if nothing was going on ????

We'd all agree that taking the plane out would be better than having it hit the White House or a nuclear power plant, but why lie, or allow the appearance that it could be a lie by not releasing key information to the public?

 

[jonassterling]

I had quite a few more sources, but I was having computer trouble yesterday and that last one was all I could come up with. Thanks for the heads up on the DM.

If I can look at more than 2 websites at once today, I'll have more.

I think someones full of it too.

 

[jonassterling]

I'm not having a lot of luck today. Most of the newspapers I've searched don't archive long enough to find what i'm after.

But I found this pic again. Everytime I start to think maybe the government is really just trying to protect us, this shows up again, and I get very angry.

 

[BobTheEngineer]

OK, here's some other links.

The first is an AP report which claims air traffic controllers had learned there was a military F-16 style jet tailing "making 360 degree turns" to stay with Flight 93.

The next is from the Philadelphia Daily news, containing more eyewitnesses to the white jet, a statement from the mayor of Shanksville in which he claims to know 2 people in close proximity who heard a missile, and another statement from the mayor stating a 1,000 pound piece of the engine was found a "considerable distance" away.

The third is from the Bergen Record an contains another eyewitness account of the white jet.

http://www.portland.com/news/attack/010913faa.shtml
http://www.fpp.co.uk/online/01/11/UA93/Bunch_PhillyNews.html
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/2001/bergenrecord091401.html

I found other links as well. Some contrasted this crash with Flight 587 over Long Island, in which the black box and cockpit recordings were released within 36 hours of the crash.

EDIT: Whoops, I forgot, the 2nd link also claims the FBI immediately confiscated the 911 tape of Edward Tell, who reportedly said "we've been hit, there's white smoke coming out of the plane, we're going down". So there is another source besides the Daily Mirror

 

[sub6]

Originally posted by BobTheEngineer
OK, here's some other links.

Cool, thanks! I'll have to think on this.....


Jonassterling - didn't the U.S. install Saddam H. in the first place? I thought he was basically a puppet for a while, then after the Iran/Iraq war, he pretty much took off..

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by sub6
Jonassterling - didn't the U.S. install Saddam H. in the first place?

Damn straight, the same thing happened in Afghanistan, the US actually trained bin Laden as an operative and supplied him with arms in order to create a militia against the USSR. This was done to stop them from invading and communizing the country.

In one of the old Rambo movies, I forget which, Rambo's actually working with the Taliban against Russia.

This type of stuff is pretty much SOP for the US industrial-military-intelligence complex.

 

[BurlyShirley]

Originally posted by jonassterling

But I found this pic again. Everytime I start to think maybe the government is really just trying to protect us, this shows up again, and I get very angry.

So, what?

Rumsfeld is supposed to be able to predict the future?

 

[BobTheEngineer]

Originally posted by BurlySurly
So, what?

I saw it as a representation of the US Government giving arms and money to questionable regimes in order to influence world power in their favor at the current time. Then when their power gets out of hand, it comes back to bite us in the ass, and usually some kind of war or "armed conflict" happens and some Americans have to die for a dumb-ass reason.

The same thing with the Taliban. Back in the 80's Reagan was calling them "Freedom Fighters". Russia falls apart and they're no longer needed to fight communism, now they're "terrorists" getting in the way of US oil companies expansion into Afghanistan.