Lets just pretend....

A few benefits of 9/11 why it could be a inside job


www.examiner.com...

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Clearer, you mean? Well, you could learn to express your point properly. When your ideas are as strange as yours it at least helps if they are articulated clearly.

This is genuinely what I understood from your post. That you're asking if one would support a conspiracy theory if it was the generally accepted narrative. Leaving aside the pointlessness of the question, the answer is almost certainly "no" for the vast majority of debunkers.

You seem a little tense there buddy, but hey thats oookay with me. Unfortunately, there has been some form of breakdown in communication here so I'm going to attempt to clarify. What I'm asking is: If the official story was that all three WTC buildings were imploded (as they appeared to be by the layperson), the hole at the Pentagon was created by a missile (as it also appeared to be by the layperson), and flight 93 was shot down (as again the visual evidence seems to indicate), would those who support the current official story be trying their damnedest to prove otherwise.

If that is not clearly articulated enough maybe this will help. If the gov't initially supported what is now considered to be conspiracy theory, would people be visiting this site and others to claim that:
a) that 2 planes caused 3 buildings to collapse in what conspicuosly seemed to be 3 seperate controlled demos.
b) that a 757 could actually fit into a hole clearly not big enough, evaporate on impact, and evade all 86+ cameras known to be surveying the specific area in which the plane struck.
c) that flight 93 was not struck in the air but rather plunged into a hole in the ground almost completely intact...a hole that if you watch the video I posted earlier in the thread can be found on a photograph taken in 1994.

Would you?

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Excuse me? If you "completely and utterly disagree" that steel that had been destroyed by explosives would necessarily show evidence of destruction by explosives, would you mind terribly explaining why? I think it's a given that the laws of physics need to apply to your conspiracy stories just as they need to apply to everyone else.

I believe there has also been a misunderstanding here also. Of course I believe that steel that had been destroyed by explosives would necessarily show evidence of such. In fact, I believe that it has. Obviously, you do not. From what I have seen in past threads the primary reason for this is a special dislike for Dr. Jones and his work. I would go even further to say that it seems pretty reasonable that our gov't would not ship the steel off to China as quickly as humanly possible without letting several competant labs and scientists gather samples without interference because that does seem to be the best way to come to an impartial conclusion, yet we both know that was not allowed. Most importantly, I believe it is absolutely necessary for the laws of physics to apply to whatever conclusion is drawn. Unfortunately, it seems that the current "official story" is the one that asks us to suspend those rules more so than any other (besides maybe CGI planes). How you cannot see that is something I truly do not understand. You can wrap a turd in a snickers wrapper and try to sell it to me, but if it smells bad and looks like a turd instead of a snickers bar, I'm just not going to buy it.

Originally posted by budaruskie
I believe there has also been a misunderstanding here also.

There is no misunderstanding here. You specifically said that you disagree with every single thing I said and I'm asking you to elaborate, as disagreeing with *everything* I said on principle is a policy of faith based logic, not research. If you are saying you misspoke, I will accept that.

Of course I believe that steel that had been destroyed by explosives would necessarily show evidence of such. In fact, I believe that it has. Obviously, you do not. From what I have seen in past threads the primary reason for this is a special dislike for Dr. Jones and his work.

I cannot comment on what other people posted in past threads, but from my point of view, the reason is threefold-

a) the people clearing out the wreckage at ground zero were experienced steel workers, policemen, firefighters, demolitionists, and pretty much every othe rprofession that involves construction and security. Not one...let me repeat that so you understand...NOT ONE...of these people saw any evidence of any sabotage from explosives. Granted, the truthers are making up faith based excuses such as "super duper explosives that leave no traces" and "everyone at ground zero was a secret gov't agent" but this explanation is less than satisfying.

b) in addition, there were photographers on site, such as Joel Myerowitz, who took many, many photos of the wreckage at ground zero. None of his photos show any damage from explosives, but they do show damage from tearing like paper, bending in ghastly angles, and snapping like twigs, whcih is what would be expected from a structure that collapsed upon itself.

c) Not to mention, the truther movement is basing their position on just too many documentable lies. The claim that "all the steel was immediately sent overseas" is a whitewash of the facts, as every single beam, girder, and crushed car was sent to a site in Staten Island for sorting. Many important pieces are beign kept in a hanger at JFK even now. I've posted enough photos of the steel at the JFK hanger (which likewise showed collapse damage, not explosives damage) to prove that and I know you've seen them.

I stand ready to be convinced that there was sort of conspiracy, but when the truthers have been caught red handed at passing off lies time after time after time (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no Arab names were on the passenger manifests, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, all the steel was immediately shipped off oversears, etc etc etc) it's the truthers who are the ones proven to be thoroughly untrustworthy, not anyone else.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

There is no misunderstanding here. You specifically said that you disagree with every single thing I said and I'm asking you to elaborate, as disagreeing with *everything* I said on principle is a policy of faith based logic, not research. If you are saying you misspoke, I will accept that.

I cannot comment on what other people posted in past threads, but from my point of view, the reason is threefold-

a) the people clearing out the wreckage at ground zero were experienced steel workers, policemen, firefighters, demolitionists, and pretty much every othe rprofession that involves construction and security. Not one...let me repeat that so you understand...NOT ONE...of these people saw any evidence of any sabotage from explosives. Granted, the truthers are making up faith based excuses such as "super duper explosives that leave no traces" and "everyone at ground zero was a secret gov't agent" but this explanation is less than satisfying.

Not even one person huh, who is Kurt Sonnenfeld? Oh and I guess nobody in this particular video counts either.



or this one

b) in addition, there were photographers on site, such as Joel Myerowitz, who took many, many photos of the wreckage at ground zero. None of his photos show any damage from explosives, but they do show damage from tearing like paper, bending in ghastly angles, and snapping like twigs, whcih is what would be expected from a structure that collapsed upon itself.

Again, who is Kurt Sonnenfeld?

c) Not to mention, the truther movement is basing their position on just too many documentable lies. The claim that "all the steel was immediately sent overseas" is a whitewash of the facts, as every single beam, girder, and crushed car was sent to a site in Staten Island for sorting. Many important pieces are beign kept in a hanger at JFK even now. I've posted enough photos of the steel at the JFK hanger (which likewise showed collapse damage, not explosives damage) to prove that and I know you've seen them.

Yes and who exactly had or has access to all of this evidence? Also, I'm not denying that you posted some pictures but truly I have not seen them.

I stand ready to be convinced that there was sort of conspiracy, but when the truthers have been caught red handed at passing off lies time after time after time (I.E. no interceptors were scrambled, all the WTC bomb dogs were withdrawn, no Arab names were on the passenger manifests, noone saw what hit the Pentagon, all the steel was immediately shipped off oversears, etc etc etc) it's the truthers who are the ones proven to be thoroughly untrustworthy, not anyone else.

You say that the "truthers" are a bunch of liars yet within the same paragraph you perpetuate known lies yourself. So I want to know from you, were interceptors scrambled or not? Were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out of the building or not? Were there any Arab names on the passnger manifests or not? Who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon, what date did the steel begin to be shipped, etc.

If you refuse to answer the above questions thats fine, if you would please humor me in answering just this one. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to the Pentagon case. We know for sure that something did indeed strike the wall of the Pentagon. Some people say plane, others say missile, some saw the plane fly over here, some saw it over there, and pilots have come to a concensus that the official flight path and maneuvers were at the very least doubtful, some say pure bullsh*t. So with all of that said, what would be the easiest way to prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon and not a missile? I dare say, the gov't could show us a clear video from one of 86+ cameras known to have captured the attack. Obviously, the evidence must exist right, because somebody inside the military must have wanted to see the attack for themselves. So, why after all of these years do they still hide the video with the smoking gun?

Originally posted by budaruskie

Again, who is Kurt Sonnenfeld?

He's a guy from Colorodo who took off to Argentina when an order for his arrest was issued for the murder of his wife. Once there he found and married an Argentine national in two weeks, and when the US asked Argentina to extradite him he applied for political asylum and suddenly began making claims that he had video footage showing something suspicious about the WTC collapse, although he has yet to show anyone what it actually is.

Are you really using *that* guy as a source for your conspiracy claims? I mean, seriously?

Yes and who exactly had or has access to all of this evidence? Also, I'm not denying that you posted some pictures but truly I have not seen them.

???Huh? You really aren't suggesting that the public should have full unsupervised access to the remaining wreckage, are you? People will be hacking off pieces left and right for souveniers and selling them on Ebay. You know that and so do I.

You say that the "truthers" are a bunch of liars yet within the same paragraph you perpetuate known lies yourself. So I want to know from you, were interceptors scrambled or not? Were the bomb sniffing dogs pulled out of the building or not? Were there any Arab names on the passnger manifests or not? Who saw the 757 hit the Pentagon, what date did the steel begin to be shipped, etc.

a) Yes, interceptors were scrambled. A flight of F-16s were scrambled out of Langley in Virginia and a flight of F-15s were scrambled out Otis in Massachussets, to pursue the hijacked aircraft that took off from Dulles and Boston, respectively. This was already covered in the 9/11 commission report.

b) It was the NYPD bomb dogs that were withdrawn. The NYPA always had their own bomb dogs and these were never withdrawn. One of them, named, "Sirius" was killed in the collapse.

c) The hijackers' names were on the passenger manifests. This whole bit was started by that con artist David Ray Griffin who went by a released list of the victims, which wouldn't include the names of the hijackers.

d) The Pentagon was out in the middle of an industrial park and there were office buildings, highways, residences, etc all around, so hundreds of people specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon:

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

e) Since there's a sizable collection of WTC steel still in a hanger in JFK and NIST collected a number of samples of the steel for their report, technically the answer is, "never".

If you refuse to answer the above questions thats fine, if you would please humor me in answering just this one. There is a lot of confusion when it comes to the Pentagon case. We know for sure that something did indeed strike the wall of the Pentagon. Some people say plane, others say missile, some saw the plane fly over here, some saw it over there, and pilots have come to a concensus that the official flight path and maneuvers were at the very least doubtful, some say pure bullsh*t. So with all of that said, what would be the easiest way to prove that a 757 did hit the Pentagon and not a missile?

Finding the wreckage of the object that actually hit the Pentagon:

Wreckage from flight 77 found at the Pentagon

First of all Buda, I myself didn't understand your statement either at first. Now that I do, my answer is...well I wasn't a supporter of the OS either so no I wouldn't question it.

Now G.O.D., concerning your stance on the steel beams displaying explosion damage can you please elaborate on what that damage would be like? I genuinely do not know and I've only researched this conspiracy mildly. I would suppose however the fact that the OS suggests that the flames ignited by the plane fuel was strong and hot enough to melt steel to a point, which allowed the building to collapse in on itself. Regardless if the flames were hot enough to be done by the plane crash or an explosion, wouldn't such destruction corrupt any concrete evidence to identify it was an explosion or not? Let's pretend that it is a conspiracy, wouldn't they have procedures to mislead the evidence? In conclusion with my limited knowledge in such physics, is that we can't accurately identify an explosion through the steel beams, at least not through this incident.

However as we are speaking about the steel beams, I remember an "expert" claiming that demolition explosives are usually indicated by the procedure done unto the buildings steel beams, that it has a very precise smooth diagonal cut. Which I did see a "photo" pertaining to as much.

Also like Buda claims, the videos that were not released could also be lumped with many "photos" that were never released.

I have no knowledge on the steel transportation. Also on "experts" unless you have concrete evidence on the credibility of such experts, I scrutinize every expert that supports the OS AND the conspiracy theories.

Also G.O.D. (lol) please do not lump "truthers" into one category and assume we all believe what the conspiracy field has speculated. For example, some "truthers" believe there were no planes at all, I..do not agree. All I do is apply logic and common sense, it genuinely looked like a demolition collapse to me and that was enough to raise eyebrows. Its not that the OS logic isn't sound, but you can't blind yourself, you must be open to all angles and there are many inconsistencies.

The real problem here is...we have questions and that is normal, were not CRAZY people, we are AMERICANS, citizens of a nation founded on the belief that we have our rights. The government are not our parents, they WORK for US, it should never be "oh the government said so." No, we should ask questions and the government must abide!

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Are you really using *that* guy as a source for your conspiracy claims? I mean, seriously?

I was merely pointing out that to say and you made it very clear that NOT ONE person said anything to the contrary of the official story is not true. It is also surprising how you just ignored all of those other people on scene like policemen, firemen, reporters, and the average Joes that we have very clear audio and video of saying that there were explosions. Why would you just ignore them? I'm honestly not very familiar with Kurt Sonnenfeld but the fact that he was a FEMA photographer just conveniently disproved your first two points.

???Huh? You really aren't suggesting that the public should have full unsupervised access to the remaining wreckage, are you? People will be hacking off pieces left and right for souveniers and selling them on Ebay. You know that and so do I.

In fact that is not at all what I suggested and I'm not sure how you could have interpreted what I did in fact say to mean that. This is my exact quote: "I would go even further to say that it seems pretty reasonable that our gov't would not ship the steel off to China as quickly as humanly possible without letting several competant labs and scientists gather samples without interference because that does seem to be the best way to come to an impartial conclusion, yet we both know that was not allowed." When the gov't only allows ITS OWN SELECTED OFFICIALS to investigate such vital evidence, I can't help but wonder why.

a) Yes, interceptors were scrambled. A flight of F-16s were scrambled out of Langley in Virginia and a flight of F-15s were scrambled out Otis in Massachussets, to pursue the hijacked aircraft that took off from Dulles and Boston, respectively. This was already covered in the 9/11 commission report.

b) It was the NYPD bomb dogs that were withdrawn. The NYPA always had their own bomb dogs and these were never withdrawn. One of them, named, "Sirius" was killed in the collapse.

c) The hijackers' names were on the passenger manifests. This whole bit was started by that con artist David Ray Griffin who went by a released list of the victims, which wouldn't include the names of the hijackers.

d) The Pentagon was out in the middle of an industrial park and there were office buildings, highways, residences, etc all around, so hundreds of people specifically saw the plane hit the Pentagon:

Eyewitnesses to the Pentagon attack

e) Since there's a sizable collection of WTC steel still in a hanger in JFK and NIST collected a number of samples of the steel for their report, technically the answer is, "never".

Finding the wreckage of the object that actually hit the Pentagon:

Wreckage from flight 77 found at the Pentagon

David Ray Griffin is not a con artist, at least in my opinion, but you are entitled to yours. Did those scrambled jets fail to do their jobs? Seems rather unlikely especially when one man gets a medal for shooting down a plane, and Rumsfeld himself says it was shot down, but I digress. As far as the dogs and passenger manifests go, I'm honestly not sure who to believe but those seem like trivial aspects in relation to the other elephants in the room. Either way, neither of those particular two occurances really have much impact in my opinion regardless of who is right. As far as the hundreds of Pentagon witnesses go, I have not seen hundreds of witnesses with a coherent picture of events other than they did see a flying object strike the Pentagon. That is exactly why we should all be able to see the actual original video footage for ourselves, so we can put that baby to bed. As far as the wreckage found at the Pentagon, frankly its not at all consistent with what the gov't claims happened and it certainly doesn't help that they literally covered up the lawn ASAP. I've personally seen and heard clips where a man (I forget his name at the moment) who was a high ranking employee of Rolls Royce said without question that a component from the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon was not from one of his engines. So, I guess that just comes down to who you choose to believe. That is such a shame considering a single clear video or group of videos that must exist could easily prove one way or another.

I completely agree with Thekid when he says we are just Americans who see through what is an obvious lie using just our common sense. That really was the point of this thread. If the the gov't position was consistant with what everyone considers to be common sense, then its highly unlikely that nearly as many people would disagree with it. Instead, they chose a version of events that seems totally out of touch with reality, mixed it with very questionable investigation techniques, strange soundbites, and unjustified secrecy. Leaving many of us with no choice but to think we are not being told the entire truth. I appreciate your ability to discuss these things without name-calling and insults as so many others immediately revert to.

Originally posted by budaruskie
I was merely pointing out that to say and you made it very clear that NOT ONE person said anything to the contrary of the official story is not true. It is also surprising how you just ignored all of those other people on scene like policemen, firemen, reporters, and the average Joes that we have very clear audio and video of saying that there were explosions. Why would you just ignore them? I'm honestly not very familiar with Kurt Sonnenfeld but the fact that he was a FEMA photographer just conveniently disproved your first two points.

I'm not ignoring it becuase I acknowledge that witnesses heard explosions. The buildings were chock full of flammable objects that would naturally go BOOM when on fire (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc), and William Rodriguez specifically said in his testimony to NIST that when the plane struck he first thought it was a generator that blew up. It's the conspiracy people who insist these explosions were necessarily explosives and not an overheated fire extinguisher, which I find speculative since the explosions were going off randomly, as in when the fires were reaching whatever blew up in turn, rather than being set off in synchronization as controlled demolitions need to be.

The fact that Sonnenfeld is a FEMA photographer in no way makes him exempt from committing murder, and murderers are in no way immune from pulling every dishonest stunt they can to avoid going to prison. We have other photographers who were at the site in addition to Sonnenfeld (I.E. Joel Meyerowitz) and he has yet to show what he has that these other photographers didn't pick up. He hasn't proven why he should be taken as a credible witness yet.

David Ray Griffin is not a con artist, at least in my opinion, but you are entitled to yours.

I'm not accusing him of being a con artist solely on personal opinion. I'm accusing him of being a con artist becuase he's blatantly making false claims and passing them off as fact, and I can give you as many examples of this as you wish.

As far as the hundreds of Pentagon witnesses go, I have not seen hundreds of witnesses with a coherent picture of events other than they did see a flying object strike the Pentagon. That is exactly why we should all be able to see the actual original video footage for ourselves, so we can put that baby to bed.

It has already been put to bed. There was a gigantic chunk of aircraft fuselage lying on the Pentagon lawn and it clearly has AA colors, and a guy in a nearby building packing to move looked out the window and specifically saw that it was an AA passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. PLUS, they found the black box AND traced the DNA of the passenger remains to the passengers on AA77. There is far more evidence showing it was AA77 than there is evidence showing it wasn't AA77, so in all honesty, if multitudes of eyewitness accounts, photographs of wreckage, and even DNA evidence aren't enough to convince you, then I sincerely don't know what would be in any footage of an actual impact that will be enough to convince you.

As far as the wreckage found at the Pentagon, frankly its not at all consistent with what the gov't claims happened and it certainly doesn't help that they literally covered up the lawn ASAP. I've personally seen and heard clips where a man (I forget his name at the moment) who was a high ranking employee of Rolls Royce said without question that a component from the engine wreckage found at the Pentagon was not from one of his engines.

I know of that interview, but the problem is that he doesn't explain what he's basing his opinion on. On the other hand, THESE people are experts in the aerospace industry, and they definitively have identified the wreckage as being components from a Rolls Royce engine and they even explain why:

Examination of the Pentagon wreckage

I have no idea who that other guy is so I can't ask him, but since you're here, I'll ask you- why is he correct and these aerospace experts are wrong? They're backing up why they arrived at their conclusion and he isn't.

Instead, they chose a version of events that seems totally out of touch with reality, mixed it with very questionable investigation techniques, strange soundbites, and unjustified secrecy. Leaving many of us with no choice but to think we are not being told the entire truth. I appreciate your ability to discuss these things without name-calling and insults as so many others immediately revert to

Thank you for your comments, but I beg to differ over the "out of touch with reality" statement. Islamic fundamentalists have been hijacking aircraft (and an occasional cruise liner) for decades, and their ability to launch suicide attacks is near-legendary. Remember, we're talking about a culture so fanatic in their beliefs that they'll even go ape-sh*t over cartoons of Mohammed in Danish newspapers, as well as sentence Salmon Rushdie to death simply for writing a book, not to mention, Christians in Indonesia being murdered for using the word "Allah" to describe god. The question isn't how likely they would produce these 19 hijackers, the question is how could they NOT produce these 19 hijackers.

With all due respects to the OP, we can "pretend" only so much, here.

Originally posted by budaruskie

Would you?

Yes.

But what's the point of your question?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade

Originally posted by budaruskie

Would you?

Yes.

But what's the point of your question?

I don't know.

Why you would make such a short non-sensical response more than one line.

Why bother responding at all?

The point of this thread was to at least make one wonder if the gov't had sponsored what most people originally assumed had happened i.e. (controlled demo) instead of a miraculous once in the history of the world explanation (i.e. 2 planes knocking down 3 buildings) only those with the wildest of imaginations would have then been insane enough to suggest it. The same could be said about a de-materializing 757 that evades all video and for the first time ever creates only a hole large enough for a small portion of the plane to fit through. If this were a real possibility, why didn't the planes that struck the WTC towers only create 15 ft. holes? You can clearly see the entire outline of the planes in those buildings including both wings and engines which are conspicuously missing at the Pentagon. Are we really supposed to believe that somehow the laws of physics are different in D.C. than they are in N.Y.? Has there ever been another plane crash where the body of the plane was completely buried underground, as we are told happened with flight 93? If it hit the ocean and they said it went under the surface, then I could believe that, but not the same ground that World Trade Centers are built upon. You might as well say 2 planes did all the damage at Pearl Harbor or that a kid with a slingshot took out the Challenger shuttle. We can at least agree that those statements are laughable excuses at best can't we?

You "truster" guys cling to the 911 and NIST reports believing in the science contained within. Unfortunately, my eyes and sheer common sense cannot allow me to do that. Apparently, thousands of architects, engineers, physicists, pilots, demo experts, scientists, people who were on scene for the event, people who were part of the 911 commission, at least one guy at Underwriters Labs, and countless others just like me have the same exact problem. Whether or not you ever come to your senses doesn't really matter to me, I just want to know the truth.

Virtually everyone in America and around the world was thinking this exact same thing when he said it.

We had to be told it was otherwise.

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

I'm not ignoring it becuase I acknowledge that witnesses heard explosions. The buildings were chock full of flammable objects that would naturally go BOOM when on fire (electrical transformers, pressurized pipes, etc), and William Rodriguez specifically said in his testimony to NIST that when the plane struck he first thought it was a generator that blew up. It's the conspiracy people who insist these explosions were necessarily explosives and not an overheated fire extinguisher, which I find speculative since the explosions were going off randomly, as in when the fires were reaching whatever blew up in turn, rather than being set off in synchronization as controlled demolitions need to be.

Come on Dave, really? William Rodriguez also said that the exact explosion you are speaking of happened BEFORE the plane impact. What pipe or transformer caused the damage in the video below?

The fact that Sonnenfeld is a FEMA photographer in no way makes him exempt from committing murder, and murderers are in no way immune from pulling every dishonest stunt they can to avoid going to prison. We have other photographers who were at the site in addition to Sonnenfeld (I.E. Joel Meyerowitz) and he has yet to show what he has that these other photographers didn't pick up. He hasn't proven why he should be taken as a credible witness yet.

I never said anything of the sort. I thought I made it clear that I only brought him up to point out that AT LEAST ONE person, who in this case happened to be a FEMA photographer, does believe that explosives were used. Can we please stop talking about him, its a completely trivial point you are making, in regards to our conversation.

I'm not accusing him of being a con artist solely on personal opinion. I'm accusing him of being a con artist becuase he's blatantly making false claims and passing them off as fact, and I can give you as many examples of this as you wish.

Maybe some other time or in a PM, again this is just taking away from the original intention of the thread. Or is that exactly what you are doing here?

It has already been put to bed. There was a gigantic chunk of aircraft fuselage lying on the Pentagon lawn and it clearly has AA colors, and a guy in a nearby building packing to move looked out the window and specifically saw that it was an AA passenger jet that hit the Pentagon. PLUS, they found the black box AND traced the DNA of the passenger remains to the passengers on AA77. There is far more evidence showing it was AA77 than there is evidence showing it wasn't AA77, so in all honesty, if multitudes of eyewitness accounts, photographs of wreckage, and even DNA evidence aren't enough to convince you, then I sincerely don't know what would be in any footage of an actual impact that will be enough to convince you.

I've seen the "gigantic chunk" and it does in fact have AA colors, but that by itself is not enough to convince me it was a 757. A guy saying it was an AA passenger jet, even multiple witnesses saying that it was, is not enough. Not that I don't necessarily trust them or their judgement but they could have been mistaken and there are several witnesses who saw varying sizes, flight paths, and colors. I do believe that they did in fact see a flying vehicle of some sort, but its hard to mistake a 757, I've lived close to airports and I know this for a fact. "They" did find a black box and the exact same "they" are the only ones who have seen its data and "they" only describe portions of its supposed contents. It is interesting that you would point out that multitudes of eyewitnesses is not enough to convince myself of an aspect of the event, when far more eyewitnesses claimed explosions occurred in N.Y. yet you yourself are far from convinced of their existence. There are some photographs yes, some of mechanical parts even yet it is not agreed upon what parts they are by people who build the flippin' parts themselves. Supposedly it drug a wing on the lawn and I've never seen a picture of that. There are also no photographs of bodies, luggage, wings, rutters, etc. To me, that is inconclusive at best and certainly not a closed case. This particular question also needs to be answered, "what kind of fire destroys titanium and aluminum yet doesn't destroy DNA?" By the way, a clear video or several videos would absolutely go a long way towards convincing me of a 757 and there is only one reason why I've never seen one.
P.S. your own links give credence to my view on this point, you should review them.

I know of that interview, but the problem is that he doesn't explain what he's basing his opinion on. On the other hand, THESE people are experts in the aerospace industry, and they definitively have identified the wreckage as being components from a Rolls Royce engine and they even explain why:

Examination of the Pentagon wreckage

I have no idea who that other guy is so I can't ask him, but since you're here, I'll ask you- why is he correct and these aerospace experts are wrong? They're backing up why they arrived at their conclusion and he isn't.

I'm sorry but when a guy who himself is an expert that works for the company that built the engines says that he is positive its not what the gov't says it is, I cannot ignore him. If other "experts" claim that it is, then it comes down to who do you believe. If all of the other missing pieces were there, the hole was consistent with the plane, pilots didn't dismiss the flight path and maneuvers as BS, and again there was some video evidence then it would be easy to say that my particular expert was mistaken. Unfortunately, that is not the case so its still an open debate in my mind.

Thank you for your comments, but I beg to differ over the "out of touch with reality" statement. Islamic fundamentalists have been hijacking aircraft (and an occasional cruise liner) for decades, and their ability to launch suicide attacks is near-legendary. Remember, we're talking about a culture so fanatic in their beliefs that they'll even go ape-sh*t over cartoons of Mohammed in Danish newspapers, as well as sentence Salmon Rushdie to death simply for writing a book, not to mention, Christians in Indonesia being murdered for using the word "Allah" to describe god. The question isn't how likely they would produce these 19 hijackers, the question is how could they NOT produce these 19 hijackers.

With all due respects to the OP, we can "pretend" only so much, here

It is not my intention here to debate who is responsible in this thread. Without question there are Muslim extremists who intend to do harm to Christians, Americans, and other groups of people but I know for sure that they are not hiding evidence or actively deceiving the public via gov't reports and experiments. Please, let us put aside any prejudices towards any groups and focus solely on what we (you and me) can see with our own eyes about specific aspects of the tragedy.

Last but not least, I'm positive that I will not convince you to completely change your mind by myself. This thread was intended to get you to look at the events in a "what if" scenario where the gov't was claiming things had happened differently. I truly don't believe that you or anyone else would be claiming such hard to swallow explanations were the truth if the gov't version of events had always been demolitions, missile, intercepted plane. Only because that is the version that fits the visual evidence and many would say the scientific evidence the best. Only a blind man would say that the buildings didn't appear to be imploded, or that the hole at the Pentagon didn't appear to be consistent with the size of a missile not a 757, and the scattered debris field of 93 didn't appear to be from a plane coming apart in the air, even if science could prove otherwise.

reply to post by budaruskie


Just a couple of points about aircraft wreckage at the Pentagon which you refer to.

There is not in fact a debate amongst experts as to what the engine wreckage is. This article goes into considerable detail and is by an aerospace engineer :-

www.aerospaceweb.org...

If you scroll down a bit you will find the source of the "Rolls Royce does not recognize engine part" allegation which you appear to have accepted. You will see that it came from John Brown at Allison Engines, Indianapolis , a subsidiary of Rolls Royce from 1995. Allison Engines manufactured the AE 3007H turbofan for the Global Hawk so there is no reason why he should be familiar with a part from an RB 211 manufactured in UK.

Originally posted by budaruskie
Come on Dave, really? William Rodriguez also said that the exact explosion you are speaking of happened BEFORE the plane impact. What pipe or transformer caused the damage in the video below?

No he didn't. He was referring to the explosion above him. The explosion you're referring to was the explosion he felt below him, which he claims occurred before the plane struck. How someone inside the building could possibly know what was happening outside the building is beyond me, but that's not the point. We have a WTC maintenance worker specifically acknowledging that objects within the WTC are capable of exploding, and it's a given there are more flammable objects in skyscrapers than just generators.

The video is a red herring argument. How was controlled demolitions supposedly responsible for destroying a car out in the street?

I never said anything of the sort. I thought I made it clear that I only brought him up to point out that AT LEAST ONE person, who in this case happened to be a FEMA photographer, does believe that explosives were used. Can we please stop talking about him, its a completely trivial point you are making, in regards to our conversation.

...and this person only mentioned he had this material AFTER he went on the lam for being wanted for murder, and has never shown what he has that none of the other photographers have, which makes his motives and materials suspect and this whole bit an exercise in straw grasping on your part. You'll excuse me if I find it more relevent than you do, since my whole point is that the conspiracy movement is basing their entire case on straw grasping exactly like this.

I will readily eat my words if this guy ever actually does reveal what he has...but I suspect despite your faith in him that you're not going to take that bet.

I've seen the "gigantic chunk" and it does in fact have AA colors, but that by itself is not enough to convince me it was a 757. A guy saying it was an AA passenger jet, even multiple witnesses saying that it was, is not enough. Not that I don't necessarily trust them or their judgement but they could have been mistaken and there are several witnesses who saw varying sizes, flight paths, and colors.

This is very spurious logic. We have a question in front of us- "what hit the Pentagon"? As evidence, we have eyewitnesses who specifically say it was a passenger jet they saw, plus, we have large amounts of aircraft wreckage that necessarily came from a large aircraft, plus we have photos of wreckage that have been matched to parts that would be on a 757, plus we have the black box data showing it was from flight 77, plus we have DNA testing on the remains showing they were passengers from flight 77. You'll excuse me if I say I need something more tangible to refute all the evidence showing it was flight 77 than simply, "they could have been mistaken."

It is interesting that you would point out that multitudes of eyewitnesses is not enough to convince myself of an aspect of the event, when far more eyewitnesses claimed explosions occurred in N.Y. yet you yourself are far from convinced of their existence.

It's patently obvious at this point you're only selectively reading what you want to read here, since I have repeatedly agreed that there were explosions in the towers. The person I talked to who worked in the south tower heard explosions herself as she was tryign to evacuate. The difference is that you're imagining that these were explosives that were secretly planted in the tower, rather than any of the flammable objects that were irrefutably in the building and which will irrefutably go BOOM if they catch on fire. If even one of these explosions was from a flammable object going BOOM from being on fire, then it necessarily means they all were from flammable objects going BOOM from being on fire.

By the way, a clear video or several videos would absolutely go a long way towards convincing me of a 757 and there is only one reason why I've never seen one.

The most obvious one is that there are no more worthwhile videos to even release and it's only from these conspiracy web sites pushing out these ridiculous conspiracy theories that the claim there are more unreleased videos came from to begin with. Just becuase it's the Pentagon it doesn't mean they're going to train a security camera on a blank wall.

This is why this whole "what really hit the Pentagon" argument is preposterous to begin with. If you're of a mind to dismiss eyewitness accounts AND aircraft wreckage AND DNA tests AND black box data on the insistance that everything could be fake and/or mistaken, then you're certainly of a mind to dismiss any video showing the impact regardless of what it contained, so demanding to see the video is a dishonest argument. If such a video even did exist and was released showing a 757 in all its glory, the conspiracy theorists here would be insisting the gov't manufactured the image themselves, the same way they're insisting the gov't faked the moon landing photos. You know that and so do I.

I'm sorry but when a guy who himself is an expert that works for the company that built the engines says that he is positive its not what the gov't says it is, I cannot ignore him. If other "experts" claim that it is, then it comes down to who do you believe.

We have another question in front of us- "what is this part being shown in the photographs?" On one side we have an unknown person being quoted from an unknown source an an unknown point in time, working in an unknown capacity, claiming for unknown reasons that this component didn't come from a Rolls Royce engine, and on the other side we have an identified Aerospace expert (his name is listed on the web page, I don't care enough to go back and look it up) who wrote a report that not only identifies exactly what the part is, he even shows schematics from a Rolls Royce engine showing exactly where the part was located on the engine, PLUS, a side by side photo comparison. Yet, you'll believe the mystery guy who can't identify the part over the aerospace engineer who just did.

You are right. People will believe what they themselves want to believe.

If all of the other missing pieces were there, the hole was consistent with the plane, pilots didn't dismiss the flight path and maneuvers as BS, and again there was some video evidence then it would be easy to say that my particular expert was mistaken. Unfortunately, that is not the case so its still an open debate in my mind.

Yet more spurious logic. In criminal investigations involving human remains, they attempt to find out who the victim was through forensics, becuase if a skull is linked to a particular person they know absolutely the remains belong to that particular person and that the person is deceased because people are unable to survive without their skull. Similarly, there is enough evidence showing the craft that hit the Pentagon was flight 77, so they do not need to locate every single nut, bolt, and door hinge to continue proving it was flight 77 becuase planes cannot continue to operate with pieces of fusalege and engines missing. Since it was flight 77 that hit the Pentagon, it necessarily means it did create the damage shown on the building and did fly the way it was described, regardless of whatever these self imagined experts expect they should or should not have seen.

It is not my intention here to debate who is responsible in this thread. Without question there are Muslim extremists who intend to do harm to Christians, Americans, and other groups of people but I know for sure that they are not hiding evidence or actively deceiving the public via gov't reports and experiments. Please, let us put aside any prejudices towards any groups and focus solely on what we (you and me) can see with our own eyes about specific aspects of the tragedy.

This is not the point. The point is that there is an irrefutable identifiable section in Muslim society that a) are fanatic religious zealots b) are willing to kill innocent people in terrorist acts, c) willing to kill themselves d) have a past history of hijacking aircraft. You're attempting to convince me that it's completely outside the realm of possibility that it occurred to one or more of the people in this group to do all this at the same time. I'm trying to tell you that the most obvious solution is the most likely solution.

Only a blind man would say that the buildings didn't appear to be imploded, or that the hole at the Pentagon didn't appear to be consistent with the size of a missile not a 757, and the scattered debris field of 93 didn't appear to be from a plane coming apart in the air, even if science could prove otherwise.

I will take the above statement with a grain of salt, as I know full well this drivel isn't originating from you, but from those ridicilous conspiracy internet web sites you're going to and filling your head with abject paranoia. Tell me something, if this is all some elaborate conspiracy then why is Saudi Arabia *confirming* the hijackers were Saudi citizens?

Saudi gov't confirms identities of 15 of 19 hijackers

The topic of this thread is "let's pretend it's true", but for you to "pretend it's true" you have to continue to pretend a whole lot of OTHER things are true. By now it's self evident that I'm basing my position on the available evidence I've seen, while you are basing your conspiracy claims on material that you imagine is true I.E. the FEMA murderer photos, the Pentagon video, the eyewitnesses being mistaken, etc. You do see my point in all this, I trust?

Originally posted by Alfie1
If you scroll down a bit you will find the source of the "Rolls Royce does not recognize engine part" allegation which you appear to have accepted. You will see that it came from John Brown at Allison Engines, Indianapolis , a subsidiary of Rolls Royce from 1995. Allison Engines manufactured the AE 3007H turbofan for the Global Hawk so there is no reason why he should be familiar with a part from an RB 211 manufactured in UK.

So in short, the same person claiming this couldn't have come from a 757 is likewise saying there's no way this component would have come from a Global Hawk...?

reply to post by GoodOlDave


Dave, I just have to say that your profile picture is classic, it’s one of my absolute favorites. As far as our discussion goes, I’m a little disappointed in the fact that it didn’t actually result in the discussion I was aiming at but I feel it has been somewhat related and productive nonetheless. If I could have initially stated the premise in such a way that made everyone abandon their identification with a particular version they accept to be true, maybe then it would have actually progressed in the desired direction. With that said, it has actually been kinda nice and in reviewing your links I did see some things I had not seen before. I do not believe that I know the truth about every aspect of the events no more than I believe that you do. My goal is only to continue fostering open debate on the topic with the hope that the real truth, which I know in my gut I’ve yet to be shown, will finally be revealed.
You said:

William Rodriguez specifically said in his testimony to NIST that when the plane struck he first thought it was a generator that blew up.

I said:

William Rodriguez also said that the exact explosion you are speaking of happened BEFORE the plane impact.

You said

He was referring to the explosion above him. The explosion you're referring to was the explosion he felt below him, which he claims occurred before the plane struck.

He is clearly stating in the video above that he heard 2 explosions with the first from below (which he thought was a generator) and the second from above. He also said he spoke to the 9/11 Commission and that his testimony is not found anywhere in their report. Is that what you are referring to or is there another report from NIST with different testimony. At least one woman in the video below makes it clear that she also experienced an explosion BEFORE the plane hit. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but ANY explosion before the initial plane strike is contrary to the gov’t version of events, right?

I’m not at all convinced that the plane could even make a generator in the basement explode and certainly not before-hand. Although we cannot be sure, the amount of devastation they describe seems to be inconsistent with what would be expected from a diesel engine, yet more consistent with a bomb. Again, this testimony proves that any version of events that does not allow for these known explosions to have occurred must be recognized as untrue.
The “red herring” video goes a very long way to discredit the gov’t version of events even without knowing what caused it. I thought falling debris from the collapses of the North and South towers created the fires clearly seen in WTC7. Why does this video seem to show otherwise because it seems pretty clear that it was taken before those collapses? Obviously there was an explosion and I didn’t claim that CD was the cause, but the gov’t clearly thinks that the planes had to have done it.
I must go, but will continue to respond to your last post later.