Alternative 9/11 Theories

Though they were theories, it was never considered a crime. If semantics are all your theories are built on, it might explain why your side seems to spend more time chasing their tail.

You can not rebuild a plane from the few parts that were recovered, but that doesn’t mean there was no plane. So many of your opinions seem to be based on more popular culture things seen on TV or movies then anything in real life.

This thread is getting old.

[edit on 9-5-2008 by Jake the Dog Man]

Originally posted by Jake the Dog Man
Though they were theories, it was never considered a crime.

And if i show you it was considered a crime are you going to admit to reallity or still live in a fantasy world?

reply to post by ULTIMA1

Its normally done if the crash is considered a crime. Just like flight 800.

Unless you are trying to state that 9/11 was not a crime?

The NTSB reconstruct aircraft after all other resources are exhausted because it's expensive and very time-consuming. Reconstruction is the exception, not the rule.

EgyptAir Flight 990 is a good example and it was a crime.

The NTSB has also confirmed that there are no plans to reconstruct the aircraft - almost 70% of which has been retrieved from the ocean floor.

This, aviation experts say, highlights the fact that investigators are not looking for alternative explanations to replace the theory that the crash was deliberate. Source

The above quote could be said about Flight 77, Flight 93, Flight 175, or Flight 11.

Originally posted by Boone 870
The NTSB reconstruct aircraft after all other resources are exhausted because it's expensive and very time-consuming.

But we have no other resources. We have no photos, videos, or reports that explain the crime scenes.

Also 9/11 was the biggest terrorist criminal attackes in the US. Why wouldn't they do a reconstruction?

The Navy took months to recover all the small pieces of Flight 800, so it must have been a crims.

Originally posted by jfj123
I am absolutely interested in discussing the physics. You said it would be very easy to post the model and math so as soon as you post it, we can discuss it.

I'm not going to play games with you. My side of the discussion is already in this thread as you know. You know the point being made, you claim it has been addressed, so where is it?

You write so much, but say so little...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
But we have no other resources. We have no photos, videos, or reports that explain the crime scenes.

Also 9/11 was the biggest terrorist criminal attackes in the US. Why wouldn't they do a reconstruction?

The Navy took months to recover all the small pieces of Flight 800, so it must have been a crims.

Why would they do a reconstruction? Do you understand why a reconstruction is done?

reply to post by ANOK


Maybe I misunderstand you: you're saying you could easily construct a model to demonstrate the NIST model reached the wrong conclusion, but you are not willing to do it?! That doesn't sound like the words of someone after the truth. If I had information capable of proving something like that, I'd certainly make it public, not try to unburden myself of it by saying, "I've made my point clear." This assuming one is only interested in the truth.

reply to post by _Del_


LOL I was being somewhat sarcastic. I didn't say I wouldn't build a model it's just not necessary and you guys thinking it is is really pretty funny. NIST didn't come to any conclusions, their report is still incomplete as in it doesn't explain the collapses. It only offers an hypothesis as to how the collapses could have initiated and they stopped at that. To get to the conclusion they did they made a lot of assumptions of which are all questionable.

It's funny that you guys consider the NIST report complete and consider it's findings to be facts. Only those that are not educated well enough would be fooled into believing that half truth piece of guess work.

If only you would realise this then what some of us are saying might make more sense to you. All you need to do is actually do some open minded research that doesn't focus on proving something one way or another. Stay away from 9-11 sites, they are all biased. It's not wise to repeat what others say, and trust what you are repeating as fact, no matter where it comes from. Because when it isn't you look pretty dumb...

Originally posted by ULTIMA1
And you evidence that the landing gear wheel is from AA11 is what?

I didn't claim to have evidence of what plane it came from, just that this and many other aircraft parts fell in the (busy at the time) streets which puts all the no-plane alternate theory variants in severe jeopardy if not out of contention altogether.

Do you have evidence of it not being an aircraft wheel?

And please, consider the weight of that wall panel before suggesting it was planted there.

Originally posted by ANOK

Originally posted by jfj123
I am absolutely interested in discussing the physics. You said it would be very easy to post the model and math so as soon as you post it, we can discuss it.

I'm not going to play games with you. My side of the discussion is already in this thread as you know. You know the point being made, you claim it has been addressed, so where is it?

You write so much, but say so little...

SO as it turns out, your claim that posting a model and the math isn't really true or you wouldn't have spent so much time avoiding doing so I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt but looks as if your statement was just a bluff Oh well I was so looking forward to review your physics model and equations

reply to post by ANOK


I never said the NIST model didn't have approximations or make assumptions. I said I trusted the judgment of the 200 expert both civilian and government with regards to their conclusions. I have no idea of your credentials, but I'm happy to review any model you construct of the events that might call into question the conclusions drawn by the NIST model. What I won't do is take your statement that you can easily make a better model showing a different conclusion at face value; why would I? You want me to be more skeptical about their credentials and less about yours. I'm not saying this combatively, only that 200 experts in their fields are against your impressions (who I have no idea about your credentials). The version of the random guy on the internet, simply doesn't have the same weight as I evaluate evidence.
I'm just saying, I'm a pretty open minded guy (believe it or not). My first impression is that we shot down a plane in PA -- but I'm honest enough to say I couldn't prove it. It's just my impression and may or may not be true.
To date I haven't seen a conspiracy theory that makes sense to me. What I've seen is an endless ramble of theories trying to shed doubt on the official story in order to prove their own (widely varied) chain of events. The problem is it doesn't work like that. I can admit that there may be room for doubt in some of the official story, but that doesn't mean it isn't true, and it certainly doesn't mean some other theory is true because the official one isn't. 90% or more of what's out there is "'A' is the official story. 'A' seems like it might not be true. 'B' must be true."
If you can show your model predicts the event better than the official one and show how you came up with the values and equations, then I will honestly consider your model. Until then, you are (fairly or unfairly) a random guy on the internet saying "It's clearly not true".

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you understand why a reconstruction is done?

Yes, as part of a criminal investigation.

Do you have any reason why they would not do an investigation as part of the crime scene?

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I didn't claim to have evidence of what plane it came from, just that this and many other aircraft parts fell in the (busy at the time) streets which puts all the no-plane alternate theory variants in severe jeopardy if not out of contention altogether.

Well if its not from the plane that was supposed to have hit the building wouldn't that also put the official story in severe jeopardy ?

We're talking about alternate theories here and the very existence of such things as that wheel in that timeframe narrows the possibilities down to theories involving planes. It could ultimately be proven to be from AA11 and I see nothing to discount that it is.

I noticed that the FBI took away at least one truckload of plane parts. I wonder if they're still being held somewhere.

I have my own ideas about plausible alternate theories but none of those are on the scale of faking plane crashes or bombing occupied buildings.

Originally posted by Pilgrum
I noticed that the FBI took away at least one truckload of plane parts. I wonder if they're still being held somewhere.

Yes funny how people keep bringing up all these planes parts but there is no evidence like photos of them or that they have been used to do a reconstruction.

Also no reports to match any of these parts to the 9/11 planes.

Originally posted by ULTIMA1

Originally posted by _Del_
Do you understand why a reconstruction is done?

Yes, as part of a criminal investigation.

Do you have any reason why they would not do an investigation as part of the crime scene?

That is not why they conduct a reconstruction. They do a reconstruction to figure out what failed where. This is helpful to determine why the plane crashed, or if there was an explosive in where was it located and what parts of it can be found to ID (so they know where it came from and what it was). We know the answers to these questions in the case of the 911 attacks. It was not a mechanical failure or explosive that led to the crash(es).

Originally posted by jfj123
SO as it turns out, your claim that posting a model and the math isn't really true or you wouldn't have spent so much time avoiding doing so

I thought I'd give you the benefit of the doubt but looks as if your statement was just a bluff

Oh well I was so looking forward to review your physics model and equations

What are you talking about? What isn't true? What statement was a bluff? I said I could make a model but it isn't necessary, you obviously have a comprehension problem, which might explain quite a lot.

You don't need a model, how many more times do I have to say this? You are just avoiding answering the questions. Just be honest, admit you have no clue how to answer the questions, just like the government doesn't.

Where is the model that proves the governments hypothesis and why do you not require the same from them as you do me?

Why don't you make a model proving global collapse is possible, with no resistance. Why don't you model the South Tower tilt to prove what it did was possible? Because I'm telling you now all known laws of physics already tells us you won't be able to do it. Can you prove me wrong? When you have solid known physics laws you don't have to provide a model for proof, we already know what will happen. Predictions of events are commonly predicted in science based on known physics.

Known physics tells us when two objects collide there is friction/resistance. Known physics tells us when an object is moving about a pivot, 'angular momentum', it will continue its path unless acted on by an unbalanced force. It's up to you (and the government) to prove that the towers had reason to not act in accordance with known physics. It may take math and a model to try prove that because you have no known science that shows us how it could have happened in accordance with the NIST report. (without the obvious help from another energy source).

My proof is in known physics and science, it's already been shown to be so that those laws always apply, and for them not to other forces have to have been acting to change those laws, forces that are not explained in the NIST report.

You want a model of how friction/resistance and angular momentum works go back to high school.

Does this math help you any?...

Angular Momentum of a Particle

The angular momentum of a particle of mass m with respect to a chosen origin is given by
L = mvr sin θ

or more formally by the vector product
L = r x p

The direction is given by the right hand rule which would give L the direction out of the diagram. For an orbit, angular momentum is conserved, and this leads to one of Kepler's laws. For a circular orbit, L becomes
L = mvr

Source

I doubt it...

[edit on 10/5/2008 by ANOK]

reply to post by Jake the Dog Man


Yea. I know how you feel. Which is why I created this thread.
And you can see how far it has gotten me.
They will broke no dissenting opinion on here without attempting to bury it in this same old bullcrap.
And unfortunately they have the mods backing.

*sigh*
Such is the way of the world.





reply to post by _Del_


Exactly.
I fail to see what an impact with a tall building (The Twin Towers) or a hard building (The Pentagon, well a harder building as it was supposedly reinforced) would need to be investigated with a reconstruction.

As for those that have alternative theories (otherwords PILGRUM) please please please please PLEASE!!!! post your alternative theories so we can talk about them, even if it is just you and I. I do not wish to let the trolls win.

[edit on 10-5-2008 by WraothAscendant]

reply to post by ANOK


NIST's Models LOL..... I have never laughed so hard in my life.....

ANOK read my signature that perfectly describes NIST.

Maybe NIST's "experts" will soon create computer models proving it's entirely possible for Wile E. Coyote to run off a cliff and remain suspended in mid-air for several seconds, until he foolishly looks down, which then causes gravity to "kick in", resulting in his inevitable plummet down the gulch.


Peace

CR

[edit on 10-5-2008 by Conspiracy Realist]