zeitgeist

265 posts / 0 new
Last post
capricorn
Offline
Joined: 3-05-07
Jan 10 2009 10:34

There's Are You in a Bad State?

Anrchst's picture
Anrchst
Offline
Joined: 10-01-09
Jan 10 2009 10:58

Thanks. I'll give it a once over.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Jan 10 2009 16:43
waslax wrote:
mikus wrote:
So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

No, I never said or implied that. I was just clarifying what seemed to be a fairly basic misunderstanding by sphinx of what Vlad336 had written.

Okay, sorry.

I direct the question to the people who are actually concerned with WTC7 then.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Jan 10 2009 16:45

As far as the transponders are concerned, my assumption was/is that commercial airplanes give off similar radar signatures and there are so many of them that it would be rather difficult to quickly tell which airplane was which if the transponders were turned off.

Does anyone know if this is the case?

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Jan 10 2009 17:02

This is from the 9/11 commission report.

"On 9/11, the terrorists turned off the transponders on three of the four hijacked aircraft. With its transponder off, it is possible, though more difficult, to track an aircraft by its primary radar returns. But unlike transponder data, primary radar returns do not show the aircraft's identity and altitude. Controllers at centers rely so heavily on transponder signals that they usually do not display primary radar returns on their radar scopes. But they can change the configuration of their scopes so they can see primary radar returns. They did this on 9/11 when the transponder signals for three of the aircraft disappeared.

Before 9/11, it was not unheard of for a commercial aircraft to deviate slightly from its course, or for an FAA controller to lose radio contact with a pilot for a short period of time. A controller could also briefly lose a commercial aircraft's transponder signal, although this happened much less frequently. However, the simultaneous loss of radio and transponder signal would be a rare and alarming occurrence, and would normally indicate a catastrophic system failure or an aircraft crash. In all of these instances, the job of the controller was to reach out to the aircraft, the parent company of the aircraft, and other planes in the vicinity in an attempt to reestablish communications and set the aircraft back on course. Alarm bells would not start ringing until these efforts-which could take five minutes or more-were tried and had failed. "

Take a look at this site:

http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/911/norad/

It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jan 10 2009 18:29
Anrchst wrote:
Aside from cultists, why do you dislike Zeitgeist specifically?

I'm assuming that you take issue with Zeitgeist overlooking underlying causes, instead speculating about symptoms. That's the the problem I see with it.

Is there a good Anarchist film for propaganda, one which illustrates why we should demand the abolition of the state, private property, and capitalism, in favor of common ownership of the means of production, direct democracy, and a horizontal network of voluntary associations, workers' councils and/or a gift economy, one which uses verifiable facts? Haven't seen one.

i've been thinking of doing something like this, but i desperately need collaborators for footage. archive.org can only get me so far. anyone interested?

tsi
Offline
Joined: 4-04-08
Jan 11 2009 00:59
jesuithitsquad wrote:

i've been thinking of doing something like this, but i desperately need collaborators for footage. archive.org can only get me so far. anyone interested?

I'm halfways-competent with adobe premier and sonar. If you're serious about this as a longer term project I'll volunteer to help, although I don't know what I could do to help with footage. What sort of stuff are you looking for?

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jan 11 2009 06:23
mikus wrote:
It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

I agree about the conspiracy theory madness, but I don't why you are smearing the entire communist left here, when, afaik, it is only the ICC and their sympathizers who are "so drawn to this sort of thing". I am not drawn to any conspiracy theory, including any and all about 911. I am agnostic, and sceptical about all versions (including the official one) of what really happened on 911. I find none of them convincing, but I admit I haven't (like the vast majority of people) thoroughly investigated any of them. I think the agnostic/sceptical position is the correct one to take for anyone in such a position. And, I think that no matter which version is true -- and the true version perhaps hasn't even been formulated yet -- it makes no difference to my political perspective. I also think that is the correct position to have for pro-revolutionaries in that respect.

jesuithitsquad's picture
jesuithitsquad
Offline
Joined: 11-10-08
Jan 11 2009 19:01
tsi wrote:
jesuithitsquad wrote:

i've been thinking of doing something like this, but i desperately need collaborators for footage. archive.org can only get me so far. anyone interested?

I'm halfways-competent with adobe premier and sonar. If you're serious about this as a longer term project I'll volunteer to help, although I don't know what I could do to help with footage. What sort of stuff are you looking for?

I'm going to start a new thread about this. I'm wavering between doing a weekly/bi-weekly series about responses to the crisis and doing a full-on movie. I threw this together yesterday as a kind of primer. Not my best work, but it's something. Youtube compression fucking sucks, btw.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Jan 11 2009 23:42
waslax wrote:
mikus wrote:
It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

I agree about the conspiracy theory madness, but I don't why you are smearing the entire communist left here, when, afaik, it is only the ICC and their sympathizers who are "so drawn to this sort of thing".

I don't think it's a smear, I think it's evident from this thread that of the people who are into this stuff, the left communists are highly represented. They seem to be disproportionately into this. And yes, mostly they are ICC'ers or supporters (except I don't think Vlad is a supporter...?), but then again most left communists on libcom are ICC'ers or supporters.

BTW, I'm not saying that all left communists are conspiracy theorists or that there is anything inherent in left communism that makes one interested in conspiracy theories.

Perhaps more than left communists as such who are into conspiracy theories, it is tiny groups who display about equal concern for evidence as conspiracy theorists do. I don't know. I just thought it was strange that the left communists were so highly represented on this thread.

888's picture
888
Offline
Joined: 30-09-03
Jan 12 2009 05:32
Zazaban wrote:
mikus wrote:
So there was a controlled demolition of an unrelated building for the purposes of... alerting conspiracy theorists to the existence of a conspiracy?

Well, for the conspiracies to be discovered the the theories, they have to leave little clues around so that they can be exposed. Which is exactly what an all-powerful demonic cabal would do. Yep.

Of course they do, they have to set themselves up for the final scene where they finally reveal the whole of their evil plans to a captive audience...

sphinx
Offline
Joined: 25-12-05
Jan 12 2009 07:19
Quote:
It's time for the conspiracy theory madness to stop. I don't know why left communists seem so drawn to this sort of thing.

Yes it is. I don't know if I'd say left communists have a particular attraction to the topic though.

waslax wrote:
I am not drawn to any conspiracy theory, including any and all about 911. I am agnostic, and sceptical about all versions (including the official one) of what really happened on 911. I find none of them convincing, but I admit I haven't (like the vast majority of people) thoroughly investigated any of them. I think the agnostic/sceptical position is the correct one to take for anyone in such a position. And, I think that no matter which version is true -- and the true version perhaps hasn't even been formulated yet -- it makes no difference to my political perspective.

I'm sorry but it is this waffling in particular that gives conspiracy theory the forum it already has in radical circles. "Dood, I dunnooo!"

Like any major historical event, there has been a significant amount of history written about 9/11 which has exhaustively laid out of the chain of events that culminated in the attacks. I've already mentioned several books. Let me mention another "Masterminds of Terror" by Yosri Fouda, an Al Jazeera reporter who ventured to Pakistan to interview Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Ramzi Binalshibh about how they plotted the attacks.

Quote:
The book contains the full written justification for the attacks by Binalshibh, as well as the entire text of Fouda's interview with the terrorists, which was carried out in hiding as both men were being hunted down. Also included are interviews with close relatives of the hijackers, revelations of Mohammed's connections with the first attack on the Twin Towers in 1993, details of the role played by Binalshibh and Mohammed in the killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl, how the two men built al-Qaeda's Far Eastern network, and an expose of the secret communications between Binalshibh and 11th September hijack leader Mohammed Atta.

This book came out in 2005!! And yet you will never hear any conspiracy proponents even discussing its existence because it represents good history not channeled through the traditional propaganda channels, and clearly indicts the perpetrators in their own words.

There is nothing to be agnostic about. 9/11 is one of the most investigated and thoroughly accounted events in recent history. It is important to understand that the perpetrators saw in these attacks not only the propaganda by the deed that their organization's political capital is based on, but found their motivation in among other things ideological opposition to American troops on Saudi soil, anti-imperialism (the Pentagon) and anti-semitism, seeing the attack on the trade towers as an attack on world Jewry (Atta especially).

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 12 2009 11:18
Quote:
In other words, like all other conspiracies involving hundreds of people it would not be able to be kept secret. Ironically, the US State is one of those with more "open" government than most others (otherwise Chomsky would be out of job) so that such a conspiracy or such a machiavellan decision would eventually be discovered. Even in Nazi Germany such decisions were recorded if not made public, as historians have found.

Like Operation Northwoods, the information on which was released in 1997, over thirty years after its original proposal. Of course, Northwoods was only proposed, never actually carried out. ULTRA was kept secret from the end of WW2 all the way through to the 70s, for 29 years and relied on thousands of people keeping quiet.

I'm unconvinced by the majority of the conspiracy theories, but I do think there's evidence to suggest the US State knew something was coming which I gave a very brief summary above.

On air-traffic control, I don't dispute that it's normal for air-traffic control to occasionally lose contact with aircraft and it may have taken a while to establish what was going on. What I was disputing was the fact that it seemed impossible once interceptors had been lauched (and planes have their own primary radar systems, of course) to find the planes once they had got to the area they were searching. Even if ground control couldn't view them, are we supposed to believe the planes were suddenly invisible to pilots themselves? Flight 77 was apparently undetectable for 36 minutes over some of the most sensitive airspace in the whole of the US. They had primary radar contact for a significant proportion of that time but just couldn't identify the plane due to the lack of transponder signals. And the other two planes had already hit the towers! I still find this breathtaking.

However, the fact that the Pentagon was Flight 77's target suggests either no conspiracy/incompetence or a conspiracy that was far from in complete control. I find it hard to believe the US wanted to (potentially) blow up its own headquarters and the propaganda value is probably far less than the Twin Towers. So, if there was a conspiracy, it was one that (as I suggested previously) just wanted to something to happen but was probably unprepared for the audacity of the attacks.

One of the problems with this discussion is that the specifics of 9/11 and the general question about "machiavellianism" are conflated. It is perfectly possible that there was absolutely no conspiracy behind 9/11 - the question is how people come to this conclusion. If it's because of the facts, fair enough. But if it's because people simply can't believe a democratic government would be capable of planning or carrying out such an atrocity (even the rather diluted theory I've proposed) I think there's a problem.

waslax's picture
waslax
Offline
Joined: 6-12-07
Jan 13 2009 08:56

Sphinx, thanks for the reference and the earlier ones too. I don't think I am waffling, though, as I expressed a consistent scepticism to all existing theories/versions of events. Waffling would be expressing sympathy towards one theory at one time, and then away from it, and towards another theory at another time. I have not thus far expressed any sympathy towards any of the competing theories/versions of events. Maybe this would be waffling, however: of the different theories/versions I am aware of, I find the official version to be the least implausible.

mikus
Offline
Joined: 18-07-06
Jan 14 2009 05:36
Demogorgon303 wrote:
... I do think there's evidence to suggest the US State knew something was coming which I gave a very brief summary above.

No you didn't. You asked if anyone knew if it was true that Coleen Rowley wanted to get a search warrant on Zacarias Moussaoui and then was stopped by FBI officials, and you then posted an article which contained evidence that certain parts of the US government might have known about that the 1993 bombing was coming.

If that's what you consider evidence that parts of the US government were somehow involved in the attacks (whether through outright manipulation or by allowing the attacks to occur), it's no wonder you take the conspiracy theories seriously!

Demogorgon303's picture
Demogorgon303
Offline
Joined: 5-07-05
Jan 14 2009 09:24
Quote:
No you didn't. You asked if anyone knew if it was true that Coleen Rowley wanted to get a search warrant on Zacarias Moussaoui and then was stopped by FBI officials, and you then posted an article which contained evidence that certain parts of the US government might have known about that the 1993 bombing was coming.

I asked if anyone knew whether Rowley's testimony had been ommitted from the Commission report. The fact that her investigations were actually blocked is not disputed to my knowledge and is supported by numerous other sources who say the same thing - whether there was an ulterior motive to this is, of course, another question.

Quote:
If that's what you consider evidence that parts of the US government were somehow involved in the attacks (whether through outright manipulation or by allowing the attacks to occur), it's no wonder you take the conspiracy theories seriously!

That, and evidence that the US government has actively planned at least one similar if smaller scale conspiracy in the past (Operation Northwoods) and seems likely to have had advanced knowledge of the 1993 WTC bombing. There also numerous other factual examples of "conspiracies" by the US state. The Church Committee uncovered all manner of conspiracies by the US intelligence agencies. Similarly, the CIA experiments in mind control are also not just a myth (although there is certainly a lot mythology about them) - there was a real attempt to develop such techniques under the banner of MK-ULTRA (not the same as the ULTRA project I mentioned above which was the British code-breaking operation). The project began in the 50s and was finally uncovered in the 70s by a Senate investigation (hampered by the fact the CIA destroyed most of the files although some did survive).

Note also the actions of other "democratic" governments such as Operation Suzannah by Israel. Or Operation Gladio, the P2 lodge (which had connections all the way through NATO), and the "Strategy of Tension" in Italy. Or the plot by some parts of the British Intelligence Services to overthrow Harold Wilson.

Back to 9/11 we know one fraction of the US ruling class were quite open that a "new Pearl Harbour" was needed to push forward a new programme of US imperialism and that this fraction (the "neo-cons") happened to be in power at the time of the attacks.

And we also know that, if nothing else, the US bourgeoisie was the prime beneficiary of 9/11 in terms of uniting a population (at a time when the US had already begun to face an economic downturn) behind that programme, not to mention a brief moment when it managed to re-unite its old allies behind its war aims.

And, again, you lump all the "conspiracy theories" together under one banner. There are clearly different levels of credibility. Practically everyone on the left at least adheres to the "conspiracy theory" that the aim of the war in Iraq wasn't to spread freedom and democracy in the Middle East. Most on the left accept that the Bush and Blair administrations conspired to deceive their respective populations about both the war aims and the justification (WMDs) for that war. But, at the time, I recall being accused of "conspiracy theories" because I suggested this to some friends who were caught up in the war propaganda and also because I pointed out how the West had supplied chemical weapon precursors to Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war.

Given these historical facts, the idea that all the conspiracy theories about 9/11 should automatically be considered ridiculous is naive in my book. There is clear historical precedent for such a conspiracy at least being conceived, analysed and seriously suggested to the President himself (Northwoods)! That doesn't mean we should believe in anything and everything either, of course, which is why I don't happen to believe that the US government (in this case) organised the attacks themselves, or that they put explosives in the buildings or that the Pentagon was hit by a cruise missile, etc.

But what I have proposed is completely within the bounds of credibility, is actually quite tame given some other real historical examples, and has some circumstantial evidence in its favour. You and many others may not be convinced and that's fine, I'm not too worried about it as long as its based on a rational appraisal of the facts. What worries me is the automatic knee-jerk reaction about "conspiracies" which blinds us to the real mechanics of the iceberg state.

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:28

Edited

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 26 2013 07:41

ALL CAPS makes my argument MUCH stronger!!!

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

3w43245325

Picket's picture
Picket
Offline
Joined: 20-12-10
Sep 26 2013 08:07

All caps looks like shouting. Do you shout when you speak?

For emphasis, italics are a good choice.

Bold, even, though I think it looks a bit shouty too grin

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 26 2013 13:12

And people are still talking conspiracy theories about 9/11? SMH.

I don't know much about planes, however I know a man who does. He investigates what goes wrong with them, he's pretty much what you might call a World Expert, in fact casually known in the industry as the Dr House of plane failures and before changing direction he had a background on forensic chemistry. And to clarify that he's not an apologist for the industry, he is of the general opinion that governments are duplicitous bastards, full of secrets and lies and that the industry is often economical with the truth, when it comes to plane crashes. The black box recorders only record the flight details and do not record individual engine part failures, which often cause the crashes. Regularly not all parts are recoverable after a crash and all too often unexplained crashes are, in his opinion, unfairly blamed on pilot error. There's not a lot of scope for pilot error in a modern jet plane - they're all fly-by-wire - but it saves a shit-load on litigation costs if the dead pilot takes the blame. He didn't officially investigate 9/11 but was fascinated by it because it was nothing like any incident that has happened before. Just to emphasize again, he has no vested interest in covering up "what really happened on 9/11" and in his very expert opinion, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with the 9/11 crash sites from the official story.
You can look at those crash sites and say they don't look like any other crash you see on the news and that's absolutely true. Most crashes take place on take-off or landing at much lower altitude and velocity and even planes that fail at altitude have pilots doing their level best to bring the plane down. These planes were long haul flights full of jet fuel. Not to put anyone off flying (much) he refers to planes as "flying bombs." The ones which hit the WTC would cause a fire so hot and contained within the building it was inevitable that those buildings collapsed. No building could be built to withstand those temperatures and the fire-proof insulation which would have contained a normal fire, in this case, acted like a furnace causing it to burn even hotter. Also, gravity was pulling the burning jet fuel downwards, not keeping the fire contained on the floors which the planes hit. Temperatures this high would melt the steel girders, and even if only the supports on the higher floors melted, the bucking would have caused the whole building to come down, relatively rapidly. The Truther guy (can't remember his name) who tours the world telling people why he thinks it was a conspiracy is not an aerospace specialist, he is an architect. I'm sure he knows a lot about how buildings behave under normal fires, earthquakes etc but he knows very little about how planes behave when they hit the ground.
The Pennsylvania rash left nothing but a crater, which is what you would expect with a plane full of jet-fuel crashed at at a 40 degree angle at velocity. There would be very little left. Incinerated. The reason it didn't look like the average plane crash, with fuselage and luggage strewn around, is because it wasn't anything like a normal plane crash, for reasons already explained. The Pentagon site, on the other hand, caused far less damage because the plane was brought down at a far lower speed, having reduced velocity in order to hit a low-rise building.
In short, all those conspiracy theories about how those planes could not have caused the damage they did are rattled off by people who know jack-shit about what happens when planes crash.

Are there 9/11 cover-ups? I'm sure the security agencies were a bit red-faced about not seeing this one coming, OBL was talking about wanting to have another pop at the WTC years before it happened, whether or not it could have been prevented is another matter. But all these insane theories about missiles being fired at the Pentagon, black-ops explosive experts bringing down the Twin Towers etc are just flights of fantasy. As for the third tower which fell, sometimes buildings fall down. I doubt it was built to withstand the stress of two enormous towers collapsing in it's vicinity. Civil engineers rarely have to factor that sort of thing into their designs.

Seriously, after all these years are people hanging on to the tin-foil hatted conspiracy theories about 9/11? There's nothing like letting a few facts get in the way of a good story and as conspiracy theories go, it's right up there with the Lizard Kings and the International Conspiracy of Jewish Bankers. And people wonder why the Zeitgeisters are such a joke....

Khawaga's picture
Khawaga
Offline
Joined: 7-08-06
Sep 26 2013 15:24
Quote:
TZM is basically Marxism, with the ADDED feature of using the scientific method to distribute resources. Despite what mainstream Zeitgeisters claim, Zeitgeist / Venus Project is DEFINITELY a branch of Marxism and I am quite happy to admit this

.

Sure it is...

TAEHSAEN
Offline
Joined: 26-09-13
Apr 12 2014 23:35

32151521

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Sep 26 2013 17:06
Quote:
What about building 7
Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 26 2013 19:25
Quote:
If an entire skyscraper can be destroyed and pulverized into dust by fire in a few hours, like what happened on 9/11, then why do demolition companies need a few months to rig a skyscraper with explosive charges to bring it down? Wouldn't they be out of business since all that trouble could be saved by just lighting a few floors on fire for a few hours?

Yup, cause that's what Fleur said roll eyes

Quote:
He did it just to "spite america's freedom"? Really? Are you THAT naive?

Yes, that's what everyone on libcom thinks. We are THAT naive.

Also, I'm not totally sure you understand the logic of terrorism.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 26 2013 19:29

*cracks fingers. Bring it on conspiracy boy*

1. Jet fuel cannot melt steel in the open air.
Did you read what I said? It wasn't in the open air. It was in a furnace-like environment. I am aware that not everyone understands how a furnace works. However I do, given that I use one myself to make bronze and other alloys. It was not in the open air, there was a limited air supply and a limited way for heat to escape. It was far hotter than if it was in the open air. Even of you had a puddle on the ground, only the outside edges would be in the open air. In the middle heat can't escape, since there's already flames surrounding it. ie the middle of the flame is hotter. However, crashes which happen, in what you call the open air, often result in molten metal. Try googling the 1985 Manchester air craft crash sites or the the Paris crash of Concorde or indeed air craft crash sites in general. Aviation fuel has a higher calorific value than butane, which is can be used in welding torches to -guess what?- melt steel. And how do you think people melt steel in the first place in order to make girders? In a furnace. Given that the WTC was acting like a furnace on 9/11 then it is not surprising that molten metal was found at the crash site.
Also, do you know why jet engine high pressure turbines are not made out made out of steel? It's because aviation fuel burns hot enough to melt it.

2. Building 7
Fuck knows. It didn't have a plane crash into it so my tame airplane crash investigator, with many years experience in the field, who has never worked for the government, really doesn't know. Maybe because it was an old building which was hit by massive amounts of debris from the other towers and when it was designed nobody factored in being walloped by this debris, nor the sheer seismic force of the fall of the Twin Towers - they were really, really big, you know - caused it's structural integrity to fail. A bit like they way so many buildings in the area were seriously damaged and needed to be demolished afterwards because they were nolonger safe. By the way, it wasn't a single small fire in Building 7 but multiple fires throughout the building. That sort of shit happens when burning debris hits a building. The building had also been altered before 9/11, so some of the floors were taken out. This wasn't supposed to have affected the structural integrity of the building but I I don't suppose they had put the collapse of the Twin Towers or the earthquake-like effect of their fall on it's foundations into the math when these plans were drawn up.

3.Why did the buildings fall at free fall?
They didn't. Get your terminology right. There is conjecture that they actually fell faster than free-fall. There was an active mechanism pulling them down, as a consequence of fire caused implosion because there wasn't enough oxygen as a consequence of the furnace-like conditions inside the Twin Towers. It was sucking air in. Have you ever held a newspaper sheet in front of a fireplace? If not, try it. It gets sucked in towards the fire. It's simple high-school physics.

4.They found passports of one of the pilots on the ground.
So what? They also found an uncharred rag doll from one of the floors which went up. Has it occurred to you that when the planes hit the buildings some of the fuselage might have got a tad damaged and some of the stuff inside the plane might of flown out. In any case, some small thing which cannot be immediately explained does not some grand conspiracy make. You know what, I've had a mysterious hole appear on my deck. No idea how it got there. OH MY GOD IT MUST BE MOSSAD! You know I have some Palestinian friends and one of them brought me back a present from Palestine last year, which must be an encrypted message from Hamas. Or on the other hand, it could have been raccoons. But I didn't see it happen so I cannot actually fully explain it.
5.Explosions heard prior & in the basement.
Hundreds of people heard prior explosions did they? Around about 8 million New Yorkers didn't however. It's not at all noisy in downtown NYC during the daytime, is it? And during the sort of chaos and confusion (note the word CONFUSION) people often get chronology mixed up. There was an explosion in the basement? What, the basement which was still standing and and supported by four walls after the building collapsed on it? How the fuck can you tell where any noise was coming from in that situation. Sound was transmitted by the superstructure of the building. Have you ever done that experiment with two tin cans and a piece of string? Pay attention, this is relevant, sound is transmitted through solid objects. There were objects distorting and collapsing. Somewhere in this there were sounds being generated. I'm not sure many people were hanging around in order to definitively pinpoint the origins of these sounds. Sound travels approx 15 times faster through steel than air, it could be a function of the accident, making it sound like came from the basement.
6.If an entire skyscraper can be pulverized as on 9/11, why do demolition companies need a few months to bring it down with explosives? Maybe because they are demolition specialists who aim to bring down buildings SAFELY, without the added benefit of an accelerated jet-fuel based combustion IN A FURNACE-LIKE CONDITION, aiming not to turn the building into a highly toxic ash, which covered a large portion of the Island of Manhattan, spreading carcinogens and other toxins which have caused deadly respiratory conditions. Because they're professionals. In comparison, Nagasaki was turned into a radioactive wasteland in a matter of seconds. There is a safe way to bring down a building. 9/11 was not one of those methods.
7. None of the security cameras showed the planes coming in. Where were they positioned? I don't know but I would be very surprised if a camera in the lobby caught an aircraft flying towards them. Also, it would have been a bit of a weird angle to point a security camera. If only all CCTV was pointing above our heads. I would have thought that the Pentagon had other techniques for detecting incoming missile attacks, rather than pointing CCTV up at the sky. Like RADAR or something. I expect the security cameras were pointing at ground level. Planes generally move about in the sky. I was unaware that the Pentagon was particularly free and easy about releasing security footage. The garage across the street, however, are a little less uptight about national security and clearly captured a plane heading into the Pentagon building.
8. Signal on phone.
I've never tried getting a signal on my phone because I have a mortal fear of being wrestled to the floor by air marshals, so I can't give you a definitive answer here. But let me tell you something - and you didn't hear this from me, hush, hush - but most modern jet airplanes have satellite links, the Boeing 767 included. I guess you haven't got a signal because you've been flying in some old piece of shit.( Not that I don't fly in old pieces of shit too.) GE. Pratt & Whitney, Rolls-Royce are actively monitoring engine health, which is a good thing really. It's really a lot like GPS. Do you know how that works? These links are heavily encrypted usually but it is possible to get a signal on a modern aircraft. They don't want you to however, lest it interferes with the avionics but this has become less of a problem recently and a lot of airlines have relaxed their rules. Mostly people can't make calls on planes BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T TRIED IT because they've been told they're not allowed and for fear of causing a plane crash. Please don't try this next time you're on a plane, just in case you are flying on an old piece of shit and you do mess with the avionics. You don't want to shut the engines down. Also, by the time some of these calls were made - and let's not exaggerate here there were only a few - the planes were losing altitude and they may have been in range of a cell tower. Just as a point of interest the radiowaves on cell towers go up as well as across and down.
9. Why were there 9/11 hijackers alive after the crash? Oh now you talking super big bollocks. Were there anyone alive and if so why weren't they dragged trough the streets of NYC and hung from the lamp-posts? Complete shit. No-one could survive those crashes BECAUSE THEY WERE BLOODY GREAT BOEING 767s FULL OF JET FUEL. No-one lives to tell the tale of that sort of crash. Google Lockerbie Pan Am 103. Unless, of course they were actually CIA agents, who jet-packed out before impact and were instantly squirrelled away by their handlers.
10.What was OBL motive?
I don't know, not being a perfidious leader of Al Qaeda, I can't say our thought processes are alike. I do know however that Al Qaeda had previously tried to blow up the WTC, it was a little pet project of his and he had been making rumbling threats against US soil and what is more dramatic than hitting the Twin Towers, buildings which were very emblematic of NYC. And subsequent video recordings of him discussing the attack showed him expressing surprise at how dramatic the building collapse was. That was unless they were fake and it was actually an out of work actor from Idaho playing the role. And if you were going to attack anywhere in NYC with planes, it probably would be a better, more easily recognized target than, say the Jersey Turnpike. What did he hope to gain from it? Fuck knows. I don't think he did it for the Airmiles.
11.Why was the hole in the pentagon so small?
Slightly beyond high school physics here but not too difficult to grasp, it's simple mechanics. Concrete really doesn't deflect much, especially reinforced concrete which was build to withstand nuclear attack. On the other hand, airplanes do, largely being made out of aluminium. Have another little google and check out some air crash wreckage. The first thing you might notice, apart from gremlins, is that they do tend to get a little bit mangled. Well, a lot mangled actually and one hitting the Pentagon - and you have to hand it to the civil engineers who designed it, it's a sturdy little structure- would be very likely to the point of CERTAINTY to rip the wings off. It doesn't need to be a big hole because not all of the plane penetrated the building. Try it yourself. Try smashing an empty beer can against a wall. It gets crushed. Drink the beer first though.
Why did the crash at the Pentagon contradict the crash at the WTC? What does that mean, were they arguing? Unless you mean that they were different. Take that from the No Shit Sherlock file. Let's go again, WTC planes penetrated the building, made of glass with steel supports (the load-bearing ones were incidentally towards the centre of the building) causing FURNACE-LIKE CONDITIONS (see above) and the Pentagon, massively reinforced concrete, designed to withstand massive attack, which did not have a whole plane combusting inside it and was not a skyscraper imploding into itself. Yeah, they're a bit different, I'll give you that.

No, I don't tend to think of myself as particularly naive, as you suggested. And incidentally, I happen to find your rape analogy particularly offensive. You can shut the fuck up straight away on that one. The consequences on 9/11 - and can we please try to remember here that 3000 people died an appalling way, it seems to me that whenever I come across any 9/11 conspiracy this is practically forgotten in the rush to formulate ever more fanciful scenarios - are that we have been forced to relinquish even further our freedoms in the name of the War on Terror and 100,000s of dead people in the Middle East. And yet, those non-sheeples amongst us feel the need to formulate weird conspiracy theories. No I haven't fallen prey to government propaganda, the last time I looked physics, chemistry, civil engineering, mechanical engineering, and a touch of sod's law doesn't fall especially under the sway of whatever sinister cabal you imagine is manipulating all this. Maybe you could open a book or two - NO NOT ONE WRITTEN BY ONE OF YOUR CULT LEADERS- one that might explain the science behind the 9/11. And then you might want to grow up a little.

P.S. the toothfairy doesn't exist either.

commieprincess's picture
commieprincess
Offline
Joined: 26-08-07
Sep 26 2013 20:20

^ Best. Post. Ever.

Fleur
Offline
Joined: 21-02-12
Sep 26 2013 20:29

Why thank you smile
I did have massive technical support on it though.

Chilli Sauce's picture
Chilli Sauce
Offline
Joined: 5-10-07
Sep 26 2013 20:57

BAM!

^See, that's the appropriate use of all caps.

Mr. Jolly's picture
Mr. Jolly
Offline
Joined: 28-04-11
Sep 26 2013 22:22

But what about building 7?