NationStates Jolt Archive

Hello. I just got a little tired of reading the same old disproven conspiracy theories about 9/11 on the forum, so here’s a little reality check and some links. Sorry it is so long.

Conspiracy Theory No. 1: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.

Answer (from the Urban Legends Reference Page http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm):
Despite the appearances of exterior photographs, the Boeing 757-200 did not "only damage the outside of the Pentagon." It caused damage to all five rings (not just the outermost one) after penetrating a reinforced, 24-inch-thick outer wall. As 60 Minutes II reported in their "Miracle of the Pentagon" episode on 28 November 2001, the section of the Pentagon into which the hijacked airliner was flown had just been reinforced during a renovation project:
"We made several modifications to the building as part of that renovation that we think helped save people's lives," says Lee Evey, who runs a billion-dollar project to renovate the Pentagon. They’ve been working on it since 1993. The first section was five days from being finished when the terrorists hit it with the plane.
The renovation project built strength into the 60-year-old limestone exterior with a web of steel beams and columns.
"You have these steel tubes and, again, they go from the first floor and go all the way to the fifth floor," says Evey. "We have everything bolted together in a strong steel matrix. It supports and encases the windows and provides tremendous additional strength to the wall."
When the plane hit at 350 miles an hour, the limestone layer shattered. But inside, those shards of stone were caught by a shield of cloth that lines the entire section of the building.
It is a special cloth that helps prevent masonry from fragmenting and turning into shrapnel. The cloth is also used to make bullet-resistant vests.
All of this, especially the steel, held up the third, fourth and fifth floors. They stayed up for 35 minutes. You can see them through the smoke, suspended over the hole gouged by the jet. Only after the evacuation did the heat melt the new steel away. Evey says that without the reconstruction, the floors might have collapsed immediately.
Exterior photographs are misleading because they show only the intact roof structures of the outer rings and don't reveal that the plane penetrated all the way to the ground floor of the third ring. As a U.S. Army press release noted back on 26 September 2001, one engine of the aircraft punched a 12-foot hole through the wall of the second ring:
On the inside wall of the second ring of the Pentagon, a nearly circular hole, about 12-feet wide, allows light to pour into the building from an internal service alley. An aircraft engine punched the hole out on its last flight after being broken loose from its moorings on the plane. The result became a huge vent for the subsequent explosion and fire. Signs of fire and black smoke now ring the outside of the jagged-edged hole.
Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.

An eyewitness stated:
The plane banked sharply and came in so low that it clipped light poles. It slammed into the side of the Pentagon at an estimated 350 miles per hour after first hitting the helipad. The plane penetrated the outer three rings of the building. The jet fuel exploded, which sent a fireball outward from the impact point. About 30 minutes after the crash, a cross-section of the building collapsed, but only after enough time had elapsed for rescue workers to evacuate all injured employees.
The fire was so hot that firefighters could not approach the impact point itself until approximately 1 P.M. The collapse and roof fires left the inner courtyard visible from outside through a gaping hole. The area hit by the plane was newly renovated and reinforced, while the areas surrounding the impact zone were closed in preparation for renovation, so the death toll could have been much higher if another area had been hit.

Also, in photos on the site, debris from the plane are clearly visible.

And, finally, a member of my church lives in Arlington, Virginia and saw the plane descend towards the Pentagon and my cousin happened to be one of the first responders on the site and he saw, with his own eyes, the wreckage.

Check out www.snopes.com for more debunking.

Conspiracy Theory No. 2: Why weren’t fighter jets sent to intercept the hi-jacked airliners?

Answer: (reference: http://edition.cnn.com/2001/US/09/16/inv.hijack.warning/ and http://blogs.salon.com/0001561/2003/09/06.html#a3400):

It is true that NORAD was warned about the hijacking of the flights that hit the World Trade Center, both taking off from Boston, long before dispatching aircraft near Washington DC. But that is beside the point, as at that time there was no known threat to the capital area, only to New York.
--8:38 a.m.: Boston air traffic center notifies NORAD that American Airlines flight 11 has been hijacked.
--8:43 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines flight 175 has been hijacked.
--8:44 a.m.: Otis Air National Guard Base in Mass. orders to fighters scrambled.
--8:46 a.m.: American Airlines flight 11 strikes the World Trade Center's north tower.
At this time, flight 77 has just left Dulles in DC (8:22), and is probably not yet hijacked. So why should craft then have been dispatched around Washington DC? That happens some time later.
--9:25 a.m.: FAA notifies NORAD that United flight 77 may have been hijacked.
--9:27 a.m.: (approximate time) NORAD orders jets scrambled from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia to head to intercept United Airlines flight 77.
--9:35 a.m.: Three F-16 Fighting Falcons take off from Langley AFB headed toward Washington area.
--9:37 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 is lost from radar screens.
--9:38 a.m.: American Airlines flight 77 strikes the Pentagon.
As we can see, there was too short a warning to intercept the flight that hit the Pentagon. Ten minutes after the plane hit the building, F16s were in place over the capital. At this time, nobody knew how many hijacked planes were in the air.

Finally, I was in Washington, DC that day and heard events unfold on local radio. I walked across the Theodore Roosevelt Bridge into Virginia as part of the evacuation of DC and saw the damage to the Pentagon. I heard the fuel tanks of the plane explode after the crash. So, please don't anyone try to tell me I didn't see or hear what I saw and what I heard.

"Conspiracy Theory No. 2: Why weren’t fighter jets sent to intercept the hi-jacked airliners?" <---technically, that's a question, not a theory

anyway, I'm glad someone finally answered that question. I've wondered for so long why the military didn't respond. So, why did the FAA wait 40 minutes before notifying NORAD about 77?

sure man, that's just the offical version. Who do you think is part of the conspiracy, the officail people, duh!!! :lol:

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/wot/sept11/whatwasthegovernmentdoingon911.html#2%20%20%20%20%20%20Summary%20of%20FAA/NORAD%20Communications

The "time-line" in the first post is erronious at best and a lie at worst.

Hello. I just got a little tired of reading the same old disproven conspiracy theories about 9/11 on the forum, so here’s a little reality check and some links. Sorry it is so long.
.

http://www.unobserver.com/index.php?pagina=layout4.php&id=911&blz=1

Why not just link to this and debunk the most accepted conspiracy theory of all: that Osama carried it out and the PNAC had nothing to do with it!

No offense intended, but I'll leave the conspiratorial leaps in logic to you and stick to documented facts and eyewitness accounts.

No offense intended, but I'll leave the conspiratorial leaps in logic to you and stick to documented facts and eyewitness accounts.

Like the documented video and eyewitness accounts of bombs doing the job?

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm

Here's one example of how conspiracy theories are built on "stray factoids" that someone attempts to hammer into a consistent, logical picture. (The problem, of course, is that life is not always consistent and does not always conform to human logic.)

On the website sited above, www.cooperativeresearch.org, they try to build the case that the Israli government had foreknowledge of the 9/11 attacks. As one piece of evidence, they cite a September 28, 2001 Washington Post article as saying that two employees at an Israeli-owned instant messaging company with offices in New York received an e-mail warning them of the attacks two hours before they happened. The implication drawn from the website is that someone involved in the attack was trying to warn Israelis in New York to protect them.

The actual Washington Post article, Agents Following Suspects' Lengthy Electronic Trail; Web of Connections Used to Plan Attack, printed on October 4, 2001 describes the FBI's efforts to backtrack the movements of the 9/11 terrorists through their computer records. The article goes into great detail about just how plugged in the terrorists were and how they used the Internet to book their tickets, send and receive messages, etc. It sites several specific incidents contrasting their sophisticate computer use with surly attitudes, glaring at a librarian who watched them web surf at a library, demanding additional phone lines at a hotel, and as one further example, the Post writes that two employee of Odigo Inc. in Herzliya, Israel (the company may or may not have offices in New York, the Post doesn't say, but the employees were in Israel) received instant messages with anti-Semetic slurs that threatened that some sort of attack was about to take place.

There are no further mentions of this in the Post so I don't know if it was a prank that conincidentally occured on 9/11 - if it had happened on 8/23 no one would have reported in the Post - or if one of the terrorists decided to spew a final burst of anti-Semtic hate laced with a bit of gotcha at an identifiably Israeli target. In any case, it is far from a case of a conspirator trying to warn Israelis in New York of an impending attack.

I would suspect that many of the facts on the above website would similarly lose their punch if examined closely. Unfortunately, I don't have time, but I invite others to employ your God-given skeptism and investigate such claims - not just by reading conspiratorial websites but by going to primary soruces - before believing them.

No offense intended, but I'll leave the conspiratorial leaps in logic to you and stick to documented facts and eyewitness accounts.

Like the documented video and eyewitness accounts of bombs doing the job?

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm

Prove to us that the energy content of the jet fuel could have had no affect whatsoever in causing the collapse of the tower before you spread conspiracy theories.

- not just by reading conspiratorial websites but by going to primary soruces - before believing them.

Oh, I agree! I just think that you should also be more skeptical of the propaganda-machine. I still haven't seen any evidence that 9/11 was carried out by "muslim terrorist" ...

Where is the airport video-tape?

Prove to us that the energy content of the jet fuel could have had no affect whatsoever in causing the collapse of the tower before you spread conspiracy theories.

It's not a "theory" -- it's video!

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm

No offense intended, but I'll leave the conspiratorial leaps in logic to you and stick to documented facts and eyewitness accounts.

Like the documented video and eyewitness accounts of bombs doing the job?

http://prisonplanet.tv/articles/april2004/042704secondaryexplosions.htm

I'm not a structural engineer, but my guess is that a structural engineer would have a pretty good explanation for it. Also, consider that engineers and architects have gone over every bit of data on the collapse in the nearly 3 years since 9/11. If any of them had discovered anoymalous secondary explosions, don't you think there'd be some discussion of it in some legitimate source? And if you think the Post and New York Times and Fox News are all part of the conspiracy, then why wouldn't the BBC, for instance, have picked it up? Conjecture from prisonplanet.tv doesn't impress me. Show me where an engineer has said in some objective or at least respected forum that someone odd happened, then I'll consider it.

- not just by reading conspiratorial websites but by going to primary soruces - before believing them.

Oh, I agree! I just think that you should also be more skeptical of the propaganda-machine. I still haven't seen any evidence that 9/11 was carried out by "muslim terrorist" ...

Where is the airport video-tape?

How about the following facts?

1. Al Qaida admitted it!

2. Eyewitnesses called from the aircraft and described the terrorists

3. Tons of other documented connections between the terrorists, the flights (we have their on-line Internet ticket bookings), and the planners and financial backers.

I'm not a structural engineer [snip] Conjecture from prisonplanet.tv doesn't impress me. Show me where an engineer has said in some objective or at least respected forum that someone odd happened, then I'll consider it.

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/7529/index.php

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

1. Al Qaida admitted it!

when?

2. Eyewitnesses called from the aircraft and described the terrorists

How are the terrorist described and by whom?

3. Tons of other documented connections between the terrorists, the flights (we have their on-line Internet ticket bookings), and the planners and financial backers.

can you cite this?

As western communist sympathisers were to Lenin so are conspiracy theorists to the perpetuators of major acts: they are all useful idiots.

It's very simple. A plane did NOT hit the pentagon.

Before we get into a plane couldn't do this or that, we first need proof of plane wreckage. CAN ANYONE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF THE PENTAGON WITH AIRPLANE WRECKAGE AROUND IT? I can't seem to find one for some odd reason.



And how did the hijacked plane manage to fly for 1 hour without being intercepted by the military? Under Americas own rules if a plane flies for around 5 minutes without responding(Large airliners) it MUST be intercepted. This time they where given an extra 55minutes and still were not intercepted.


Also the first reports form the pentagon said that a truck bomb had gone off.

Why did GW shrub allow the saudis to fly home when every other flight was grounded?

It was reported that most of the 9/11 hijackers were saudi citizens...wouldn't common sense say that we should have held onto those saudi nationals until we found out what they knew?

Or is our president the puppet of The oil companies as many of us have long suspected?

As western communist sympathisers were to Lenin so are conspiracy theorists to the perpetuators of major acts: they are all useful idiots.

as blind intolarance was to Nazi Germany, so is blind intolarance to ~ well, you get the idea...


Oh, since when were "asking questions and not accepting things at face value" anti-American? Perhaps we have a different view of "patriotism"

Alright as for the pentagon we got pretty solid proof other than eyewitness accounts. There was one survivor who staggered out of the flames and not only had he been drenched in jet fuel but his lungs were filled with the stuff and he had 3'rd degree burns almost evrywhere on his body. He also suffered from poinsoning because he was inhaling at the time of impact. If it were a bomb it wouldn't have released jet fuel.

As for the two towers it was actually flown into by UFO's using a sophisticated holographic machine to make it look like an airplane and brainwashed the people to say it was terrerists. They wanted to incite war on us humans so amist our choas they could swoop down and take over the world!

But seriusly it were airplaned that hit the trade center people saw it the terrerists trained here in florida (same as for the pentagon) And people telephoned in saying it was terrerists. I'm sure next to no one in the government would give their lives for Mr.Bush and if they would they aint that good of flyers. As for an ICBM we can track that on radar and would'v intercepted it a long time before it hit.

Aelov you really are stupid. How could someone walk away from an explosion like that drenched in jet fuel? Did the fire simple avoid him?

It's very simple. A plane did NOT hit the pentagon.

Before we get into a plane couldn't do this or that, we first need proof of plane wreckage. CAN ANYONE SHOW ME A PHOTO OF THE PENTAGON WITH AIRPLANE WRECKAGE AROUND IT? I can't seem to find one for some odd reason.



And how did the hijacked plane manage to fly for 1 hour without being intercepted by the military? Under Americas own rules if a plane flies for around 5 minutes without responding(Large airliners) it MUST be intercepted. This time they where given an extra 55minutes and still were not intercepted.


Also the first reports form the pentagon said that a truck bomb had gone off.

Please re-read my first post. Also, here are some more links including eyewitness accounts of the crash and photos. Also, as I said, I personally an eyewitness to the crash and one of the first responders who saw the evidence of the crash. So don't tell me they didn't see what they saw.

http://paulboutin.weblogger.com/2002/03/14

http://perso.club-internet.fr/mouv4x8/11Sept01/A0082_b_They%20saw%20the%20aircraft.htm

http://www.dragonslair.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/77/ffdd.html

http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/slideshow/slideshow.cfm?ID=Pentagon1&NUM=8

http://www.criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

I'm not a structural engineer [snip] Conjecture from prisonplanet.tv doesn't impress me. Show me where an engineer has said in some objective or at least respected forum that someone odd happened, then I'll consider it.

http://boston.indymedia.org/newswire/display_any/7529/index.php

Televised images of the attacks on the World Trade Center suggest that explosives devices caused the collapse of both towers, a New Mexico Tech explosion expert said Tuesday.

http://www.civil.usyd.edu.au/latest/wtc.php

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/Eagar/Eagar-0112.html

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse.html

http://news-service.stanford.edu/news/2001/december5/wtc-125.html

1. Al Qaida admitted it!

when?

2. Eyewitnesses called from the aircraft and described the terrorists

How are the terrorist described and by whom?

3. Tons of other documented connections between the terrorists, the flights (we have their on-line Internet ticket bookings), and the planners and financial backers.

can you cite this?

1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F1EF73B5B0C778DDDAB0994D9404482

2. http://www.msnbc.com/news/aaattacks_front.asp?cp1=1

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,788430,00.html and http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_798520.html?menu= and http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_03/5606.html

3. Tons of other documented connections between the terrorists, the flights (we have their on-line Internet ticket bookings), and the planners and financial backers.

can you cite this?

1. http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F50F1EF73B5B0C778DDDAB0994D9404482

2. http://www.msnbc.com/news/aaattacks_front.asp?cp1=1

3. http://www.guardian.co.uk/september11/oneyearon/story/0,12361,788430,00.html and http://www.ananova.com/news/story/sm_798520.html?menu= and http://www.intelmessages.org/Messages/National_Security/wwwboard/messages_03/5606.html

The links are helpful, but do not pretain to my question: Where is the evidence that proves who the terrorist were?

The Al-Quada didn't admit to doing 9/11 as such. they claim responsilbilty. In other words, they haven't admitted doing it. Just said they claimed responsibilty for it. so for all we know, it might of been a government ploy to spark a war between afganistan and america, "liberate" their resources, and move on to saddam in Iraq, "liberating" their resources. Then again, it could of been Al-Quada, we just can't be sure. Everyone just presumes it was them just because they accepted the responsibility for it.

I think bush was just golfing that day when he got the PDB that said something linguistically equal to 'attack imminent'. Thats my theory, I think i heard it on the radio. I call it the lazy spoiled rich kid theory. It needs some helicopters though to make it cool, or crop circles. Reality is the most important of all theories, and considering the evidence coming forth as of late, I wouldn't be suprized if they let it happen. Can anyone plausably explain to me why the president wont apologize, I mean it would help his approval probably. I think hes just that arrogant. 'dern 'raquis flyin them planes we'll show them wheres my flight suit'. Seriously we have to vote this guy into a special ed program where he belongs, he shouldn't be ruling the world.
The Angry Junkies
founder

well here's another simple reality
however much it may neither prove nor disprove anything

the same economic forces and interestes
that inflicted the bush regeme on the u.s. and the world

had both motive and opportunity
to contribute to creating a window of opportunity for the events of
sept 11 2k1

there is no war on terror, drugs or supposedly defunct idiologies

there is a war against your personal freedomes and mine
for the comfort and convenience of entrenched economic fanatacism

and i think that is the real bottom line
whatever the hair splitting details

=^^=
.../\...

Bush needs to seriously re-think his election campaign. I mean, re-running for election is bad enough, but stating he has helped STOP terrorism in the USA? is he blind? there has been more terrorist bombings and attacks since his war on iraq and afganisatan then ever before? there are suicide bombers exploding next to school buses, killing innocent infants, and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? there are children as young as 10 who are being strapped up with bombs and made to walk down streets and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? if he's helped to stop it, god forbid him ever trying to support it.

Bush needs to seriously re-think his election campaign. I mean, re-running for election is bad enough, but stating he has helped STOP terrorism in the USA? is he blind? there has been more terrorist bombings and attacks since his war on iraq and afganisatan then ever before? there are suicide bombers exploding next to school buses, killing innocent infants, and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? there are children as young as 10 who are being strapped up with bombs and made to walk down streets and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? if he's helped to stop it, god forbid him ever trying to support it.

Maybe he's talking about terrorism in the USA. Because you know, he is the American president.

Bush needs to seriously re-think his election campaign. I mean, re-running for election is bad enough, but stating he has helped STOP terrorism in the USA? is he blind? there has been more terrorist bombings and attacks since his war on iraq and afganisatan then ever before? there are suicide bombers exploding next to school buses, killing innocent infants, and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? there are children as young as 10 who are being strapped up with bombs and made to walk down streets and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? if he's helped to stop it, god forbid him ever trying to support it.

Maybe he's talking about terrorism in the USA. Because you know, he is the American president.

Bush needs to seriously re-think his election campaign. I mean, re-running for election is bad enough, but stating he has helped STOP terrorism in the USA? is he blind? there has been more terrorist bombings and attacks since his war on iraq and afganisatan then ever before? there are suicide bombers exploding next to school buses, killing innocent infants, and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? there are children as young as 10 who are being strapped up with bombs and made to walk down streets and he says he's helped STOP terrorism? if he's helped to stop it, god forbid him ever trying to support it.

Maybe he's talking about terrorism in the USA. Because you know, he is the American president.

You'd say that little Bush should at least feel responsible for the consequences of his actions abroad, with him being president, right? So, to say "hey, there haven't been any terrorist attacks within US border so this must mean Bush is doing okay" is rather anti-social to the rest of the world, who I suspect is getting used to this USA stance. By the way, I believe that technically occupied Iraq does count as US territory since it are US troops that are occupying the place. So, taking that into consideration and how Bush&cronies like to paint the Iraqi resistance off as 'terrorists' it can easily be argued that there is terrorism gallore on US ground. Pretty much all of it coming from USAers too, but that is rarely mentioned, of course, for it might upset the Dreamers who still cling to this fantasy that they are bringing freedom&democracy :lol:

The only conspiracy in 9/11 was the terrorists who used planes as missles and yes there is evedence that islamic terrorists were the ones who took over the planes for the bodies of 1 or 2 im not sure were found on the roof top of a near by biulding becuase the force of the crash threw them out of the plane they were dead of corse but they matched pictures of suspects the FBI was looking for. I belive they showed their photos on the news a while back

If you dont call suicide bombings,road side bombs, using woman and children as shields, taking hostages not terrorism then what is terrorism?
All i see this "resistance" to try and take a shot at the U.S. and killing of civilians. These people are scum and are being delt with accordingly with ac-130 gun ships and US marines and dont say that the US is killing civilains becuase they are evil its becuase the resistance is giving us little choice.

Since you asked... :)

I'd call the unrightfull invasion and occupation of Iraq, and all the chit the USA pulled off there, an act of terrorism.

I'd call the consistent lying by Bush&co to the american people and the world at large, an act of terror.

Just to provide a few examples of the terrorism that is taking place RIGHT NOW...

There is a funny thing here. Those who believe that 9-11 was a conspiracy by us also are the Bush haters. Just watch me take them seriously after I see them buy these conpiracy theories. I guess they are lost soles who believe anything, especially moveon.org.

I think bush was just golfing that day when he got the PDB that said something linguistically equal to 'attack imminent'. Thats my theory, I think i heard it on the radio. I call it the lazy spoiled rich kid theory. It needs some helicopters though to make it cool, or crop circles. Reality is the most important of all theories, and considering the evidence coming forth as of late, I wouldn't be suprized if they let it happen. Can anyone plausably explain to me why the president wont apologize, I mean it would help his approval probably. I think hes just that arrogant. 'dern 'raquis flyin them planes we'll show them wheres my flight suit'. Seriously we have to vote this guy into a special ed program where he belongs, he shouldn't be ruling the world.
The Angry Junkies
founder

Actually Aug. 6, 2001 was a big day for the president. He was working with his speechwriter and science advisors to work on the funding of stem cell research projects. He gave his speech later that night. The president wasn't golfing. He was working at his ranch.