It may surprise you that a field of soft soil is a bit different than the wall of a building. Here's a closeup of the impact crater. And here's another.

That video you posted was a "nose up" crash. The plane hit the ground on its belly belly (nose-up) so it skidded, broke apart, and caught fire. A lot of crashes are like that since pilots will do their best to keep the nose up even when crashing is inevitable. But the hijackers of flight 93 had intentionally crashed the plane nose down once it became apparent that the passengers were taking back control. The flight data recorder recovered from the crash site and dozens of eyewitnesses confirm this. Since the plane went nose-in, all its energy was focused directly at the ground, so the majority of the plane, its engine, and most of its fuel would go where? That's right, directly into the ground. But that isn't to say there wasn't a fireball or an ejection of fuel and other debris. Here's a picture of the billow taken moments after the crash:

Fuel and debris landed in the trees ahead, but most of it was found under the soft soil in the impact crater. Contrary to the claims of the conspiracy theorists, 95% of the plane was recovered from the crash site as well as the remains of all of its passengers (hijackers and all.)

Neocan wrote:Well, I know it's a high pressure zone because that's just how planes fly; This high pressure zone is strengthened as speed increases; The speed of a descending plane with intent of impact is rather high.

The angle of the wings are also kind of important. Are you saying that it's impossible for a plane to decrease altitude while going high speeds?

Finger wrote:Pretty sure that most US oil companies were actually against the war. For years they had been pressuring the white house to lift sanctions against Iraq so that they could do legitimate business with its government.

Some sources would help.

Finger wrote:But ok, tell me exactly how much business US oil companies have done in Iraq so far.

What do you mean? Are you asking how much oil they sucked out of Iraq? I suppose I could research that but it's unlikely I'll find any reliable info since companies are under no obligation to reveal such info to the public.

Finger wrote:And I'm still waiting for examples of the general news media reporting a link between Iraq and 9/11.

Here's a 90 minute documentary I found today about this subject. You can watch it at http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/btw/watch.html

I said before I understand the differences that trajectory affects, and I honestly think you're underestimating the lack of a crash zone this plane should've had.. How much fire damage did the hull of the aircraft sustain? How about the bodies found? Where are the turbine engines?

Finger wrote:The angle of the wings are also kind of important. Are you saying that it's impossible for a plane to decrease altitude while going high speeds?

I specifically pointed out that the plane was descending.. The improbable part of this myth of a plane is that this pressure zone prevents the plan from flying close enough to the ground to hit the building like it did. There wasn't a plane, sorry, and the surveillance tapes at the pentagon would prove this point but I have no doubt they're all held under national security..

xman wrote:

Niocan wrote:I've said it before: You've both convinced yourselves that the other hypothesis cannot be true so I can't do or say anything that would infringe on that choice..

Quite the converse. It is you who is set not to see. I was right where you are not that long ago. I still believe that US crew is cruel enough to do terrible things, but the evidence is against them. Do yourself this favour and for a few weeks, try to disprove the '911truth'. Really try and do that for yourself. When you hear an explanation rather than counter with, "that couldn't have happened", ask "how could that have happened"? I used to say, "I've done that", but I am happy I did it afresh. Would you please give it a try?

So your answer is 'No' then.

xman wrote:So your answer is 'No' then.

Quite obviously so; Do you have any explanations for these points or are you letting someone else copy and past the answers from debunking sites?

Niocan wrote:

xman wrote:So your answer is 'No' then.

Quite obviously so;

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

Niocan wrote:I said before I understand the differences that trajectory affects, and I honestly think you're underestimating the lack of a crash zone this plane should've had..

How should it have been? The cabin of a 747 is 12 feet in diameter. The impact crater was 20 feet in diameter. You can even see the wing and tail marks in this picture:

Niocan wrote:How much fire damage did the hull of the aircraft sustain? How about the bodies found?

Fire wouldn't have done much of anything to the vast majority of the plane since it had (as previously said) been buried in the impact crater (up to 25 feet deep.) Though there was burned debris in the exposed portion of the crater as well as in the path of the fireball.
"Bodies" weren't found, remains were. They were identified through fingerprints, dental records, and DNA. Then all (except the four hijackers) were returned to their respective survivors.

Niocan wrote:Where are the turbine engines?

Here's part of one found buried in the crater:

The other one was found about 300 yards from the crash site in the direction the plane was traveling.

Neocan wrote:I specifically pointed out that the plane was descending.. The improbable part of this myth of a plane is that this pressure zone prevents the plan from flying close enough to the ground to hit the building like it did.

Except when they do anyway.

Neocan wrote:There wasn't a plane, sorry, and the surveillance tapes at the pentagon would prove this point but I have no doubt they're all held under national security..

And the 100+ people who saw the plane don't mean a thing? I bet if there was no video of the planes hitting the twin towers, you'd think there weren't any planes there either.


Miranox, I will respond to your post in due time, but it will likely be in a new thread since our line has deviated from being about the events of 9/11 to being primarily about the Iraq war.

OK first off, I should say hello, I am the Exylos. Second there are a lot of major problems with your there was no plane at the pentagon theory. I was a EMT working at Walter Reed Army Medical Center on Sept 11th, at the time of the attacks I was E5. I was also one of the ones who worked to pull the remains from the wreckage, and put them in the middle of the pentagon, where people could not see them.

I can tell you with 100% certainty it was a plane, an personally after seeing what the remains looked like, you people show them no respect. You are so stuck in the place: I can't believe it so it must not be true, that you have to have a conspiracy. The truth is there was one, but not by the government, but by terrorists who wanted to kill Americans and that is exactly what they did.

I will not be posting pictures, or showing you evidence, as enough people have done that here. But I will tell you feel lucky I am not a moderator on this forums, because for as much as I love free speech, I would gag you and ban you. Because though a Psycho has a right to free speech, the intelligent people of the world, who look at a tragedy for what it is. Have the right to be spared from your insanity.

To those of you who thankfully have been trying to show them proof, thank you. But I am sorry to say its like hitting the ground with a brick.
The idea is good but the only way it would really do anything to change their minds, or teach them that they are indeed wrong, you would need to be standing on the sun and ensure that the brick reached meteor equivalent speeds.

TheExylos wrote:I will not be posting pictures, or showing you evidence, as enough people have done that here. But I will tell you feel lucky I am not a moderator on this forums, because for as much as I love free speech, I would gag you and ban you. Because though a Psycho has a right to free speech, the intelligent people of the world, who look at a tragedy for what it is. Have the right to be spared from your insanity.

Actually we're lucky because people with such contradictory values don't run the US. Visit China; they really like censorship there.

Finger wrote:Miranox, I will respond to your post in due time, but it will likely be in a new thread since our line has deviated from being about the events of 9/11 to being primarily about the Iraq war.

That's fine but I don't check this site for newly created threads very often so if you want me to respond then post the link here. My reason for linking the documentary is to show how the general media is used to spread propaganda. It wasn't my intention to focus just on the Iraq war. However, the discussion has spiraled away from what I initially intended so I'm fine with dropping the 9/11 topic.

Notice how you jumped right over the fact that I stated I was a witness to it, and that you show no respect to the people who died.
So you prove exactly why conspiracy theories and the people who propagate them, are insane.

As for take a look at china you Fraken(note not the word i wanted to use) retard, as I said for as much as I love free speech, I do not class the babbling and incoherent, half baked, non realistic fantasy that you seem to want to pedal, as speech at all. Further more i said i would not be showing you proof because of what you just did right there, you ignore statement A jump to statement B. Showing you evidence as i said is like throwing a brick at the ground, and sadly if i was finger I would be getting exhausted and begging someone to attach me to an arm.

If one of us was to invent a time machine and take you back in time to sept 11, drag you to the pentagon slam your head into the plane. We would need to do over and over and over again, each time asking is it a plane, and each time I have no doubt that you would say no it's not, which would result in us doing it again, wash rince and repeat, and then we would be taking the trip back to modern day alone, because you would never say it was, and we would have beat you to death using the plane.


NOTE: If i misunderstood your meaning I apologize, but as i said i was there and this is the one and only conspiracy theory as of yet that simply bothers me all to hell. If did understand your meaning then please ignore this and take the post as its typed.

Welcome to the League, TheExylos. It's great to have a witness jump in, though I'm betting Neocan has already dismissed you as a government plant.

TheExylos wrote:Showing you evidence as i said is like throwing a brick at the ground, and sadly if i was finger I would be getting exhausted and begging someone to attach me to an arm.

Yeah, it takes lots of patients. The only reason I've even addressed Neocan's posts is because they're claims that haven't really been brought up on this forum yet. Yes, he's probably too far gone to be convinced (even by a time machine,) but there are people like xman who came here agreeing with the conspiracy theory and have since changed their minds. Not to mention the potential lurkers who don't respond at all. If the JFK conspiracy theory has taught us anything, it's that ignoring the nutters leaves their claims (however stupid) unchallenged, allowing them to fester, recruiting more and more naive followers at younger and younger ages until there's an entire subculture who accept the conspiracy theory simply because they were raised on it.

Anyway, you've probably already noticed, but if you look at Miranox's previous posts, he never expresses a belief in the "inside job" conspiracy theory.

Most likely and thank you for the welcome, and i applaud the amount of patients i have seen you use. On some Contheories i try to be patient but well as i said this one drives me insane..lol..

As for being a government plant...I wish, because I hate the government but for a real reason not a contheory i don't even live in the country anymore.

Finger wrote:... ignoring the nutters leaves their claims (however stupid) unchallenged, allowing them to fester, recruiting more and more naive followers at younger and younger ages until there's an entire subculture who accept the conspiracy theory simply because they were raised on it.

This is entirely the case. Boy was I glad I finally saw a good explanation of the 'magic bullet' because that's one I also fell for for quite some time. Once I saw the conspiracy tactics like moving the goal post all the time I saw reason to seriously doubt those claims. When the outright lies are laid bare it becomes very difficult to take anything else seriously. Sure there cold have been another shooter in Dallas, but I find it very hard to believe there really was because the credibility of the speaker is shot.

With 9/11 it started with showing pictures of the wrong sized hole in the Pentagon and claiming it was the whole thing and it was just a missile fired from a fighter jet. that's a red light right there and then finally seeing the 'other' side of building 7 before and as it fell set off another. Why do they NEVER explain that in the conspiracy vids?

I dismissed the moon hoax very quickly after hearing about that one because it's easy to see how they're wrong time and again with the 'waving' flag and the silly sped up film and just not even considering that the shadows could fall any number of different ways on an uneven surface. Even William Shakespeare is the victim of an 'Authorship Controversy" which is just another mindless conspiracy theory. A peasant glover that man was NOT. I've been to Stratford and his estate was HUGE. You don't get that from being an unlettered hick.

You guys are doing a great service with these explanations and I must say thank-you. I hope I will be better prepared to spot the bull shit the next time it comes around because it will. I know it will.

Finger wrote:Except when they do anyway.

That video is quite probably fake.

1) it is a KC-135 tanker, not a 747

2) notice the sound volume. Anyone who has worked or lived near an airport or military airfield can attest to the fact that aircraft such as these are VERY loud.

3) There is no shadow of the aircraft on the ground

4) the aircraft appears to disappear after it passes behind a tree.

Although I agree with your basic premise, let's not give the crazys any extra ammo by sticking to facts and verifiable evidence.

-1

Edit: In support of your basic premise, however, I have personally witnessed smaller aircraft (F/A-18's and F-14's specifically) fly at very high speeds very close to the ground (within 10 feet.)

Here's a slightly better quality version of that video:
http://www.break.com/index/low_flying_747.html

1) Yeah, you're right. Though I don't think it really makes that much of a difference in the context of the argument. Neocan said it's impossible for planes to fly that low that fast. Showing him one that does refutes that argument. But since we know that this is a K-135 and not a 747...

2) According to Boeing, a commercial jet like a 747 has a decibel level of about 130-140, but older model K-135s top out at about 126 and models made after 1988 are only 99 decibels (human speech is 50-60.) But you can tell that the sound did in fact get too loud for the camera's microphone since it cuts out when its at its highest (when the plane is closest to the camera.) Another thing to note is that you can even hear the wind created by the airplane's wake cracking against the microphone after it passes.

3) Look again, there is a shadow on the ground slightly ahead of the plane itself. It conforms to other shadows in the shot and even changes shape with the topography and vegetation.

4) On that lower quality version it did appear to disappear, but on the one I linked above you can see it ever so slightly as it gets further and further away, blending into the cloudy background.

I have professional experience dealing with video and effects (not a whole lot, but more than most) and I don't see any reason to doubt the authenticity of this video. If it's fake, it's a fantastic fake. But even if it were, here's another one:

I think the biggest problem with listening to the crazies so to speak, is that they make it harder for the people who see a real problem to be heard. We spend so much time listening and arguing with people who don't want to believe that it happened and was real, That discussions like should we attack Iraq, (A country that had no connections to the terrorists or its organisation.) or should we stay on target and continue to destroy the organisation are lost in the din. In Afghanistan they had Osama Bin Laden pinned down and it has since become known that bush pulled the soldiers away from that fight to send them to Iraq, and it is my observation, that he was able to do and get away with that only because the people who needed to see it to stop it were busy arguing if this whole thing was an elaborate contheory or not.

I understand that we need to try and educate these people and reading back what i just said sounds like a contheory in it's self, and would make more sense than the moon one and this one all together...lol.. Government plants and encourages conspiracy theories to aid in the hiding of their actions...chuckles.. But I wish it was, I don't think that they plant these people I think they are naturally there, I just think that maybe they have learned to use them to their advantage. Then when it comes out the excuse then can be used, we were so busy fighting this problem, that we did not know about this problem until it was too late.

Sorry if this sounds like general rambling as its 7:45 in the morning and i am waiting for my weekly dose of man soap the WWE royal rumble gets downloaded and my mind is doing the moving at 30 miles an hour while my son screams from his hatred of waiting for breakfast and attempting to tell his mother he believes she is moving to slow.

But this is the conclusion i have come to, what if the arguing of was this real, and did this happen is the reason we don't see the realities until its too late, and like finger said above I have been dismissed as a government plant, what if we are not the plants but the contheory people are, and we are the ones being kept busy, so we don't see through the din.

Ok there was my contheory rant for the morning.

Finger wrote:Here's a slightly better quality version of that video:

Looked like the same video. Anyway, after I read your post I d/l'd it and took a closer look and have to agree with you.

TheExylos, I don't know why you're so angry but you shouldn't label people as stupid or crazy regardless of their beliefs. Many scientists believe in a personal God for example. Many others believe various conspiracy theories. Very smart people can believe things for which there is no evidence. Elitism and hostility are pointless and will only attract more hostility.

Choosing to believe any of the 9/11 conspiracy theories does not mean disrespecting the people who died. Also, the 3000 or so Americans who died on 9/11 deserve no more respect than the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians that were killed by US soldiers. Due to internal conflict following the invasion, civilian casualties are now at a few hundred thousand. You should considering showing some respect for them too. Iraq is in a far worse state than during Saddam's reign.

Miranox wrote:Iraq is in a far worse state than during Saddam's reign.

Uh, no. Pre-invasion (or what could legitimately be referred to as liberation) Iraq was in the hands of a brutal dictator who actively oppressed and had tried to commit genocide on Iraqi minorities. Post-liberation a member of that repressed minority has been democratically elected and is now in the process of bringing the country into the future. Those in the Iraqi government have been tried for their crimes against humanity and those in neighbouring countries no longer have to fear the warmongering tendencies of Hussein.

Miranox wrote:TheExylos, I don't know why you're so angry ....

hm. Let me see. Could it be because he witnessed the destroyed remains of innocent civilians himself and has to listen to you insinuate he is a liar? I might retort with an ad hominem myself under those circumstances.