It's Never 10 Years.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

But I'm telling you, that was no commercial plane.

You're right. It's a space station!

...

Seriously though, a point-by-point rebuttal:

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Click to reveal..

You can obviously see a missile right there.

I see a blurry, grainy shot of the underside of a plane, with several line that look like they appear due to reflection off the paint job on the planes.caused by the angle of the camera.

Secondly, why would they need a missile? A Boeing 757 has a weight of around 100,000 kilograms. That means that, if we conservatively estimate cruise speed at 500 kph, the plane itself had around a gigajoule of kinetic energy- factor in the chemical energy of all the jet fuel, and you're looking at dozens to hundreds of gigajoules of energy (for unit comparison, a gigajoule is approximately the energy of 500 pounds of TNT).

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

A plane crash wouldn't have made a giant crater like it did unless it had some "help" (as in a certain something being shot at the tower first).

Help like several tons of kinetic and chemical energy in the form of a 787? I could show you my math if that would help you understand.

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

I'm the kind of person that likes to question things that are just accepted by the average person.

Look, I don't usually like pulling my credentials on people in Internet debates where they can't actually be substantiated, since people who rely exclusively on ethos-based arguments on the Internet tend to do so because they can't come up with logical arguments and prefer making up credentials instead. However, since I've been made repeated statements about my job and degrees for years here, I'll make an exception for truthers, since they really irk me and it kind of is an insult to my field. FYI: I'm a structural engineer with a decade and a half of experience in the field and a Master's, so I would like to say that I may be a little more qualified to make judgements on the feasibility of massive structural failure in high-rise buildings than, say, the average user on the Internet forum.

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

The real question is if those planes didn't have the people for those four flights, what happened to them?

How about this- the people were on the flights, which were hijacked by lucky terrorists whose success was compounded by federal missteps and poor intelligence, who then proceeded to fly the planes into WTC 1 and 2, which sustained massive structural damage due to the force and heat, which subsequently collapsed and took down the adjacent building(s?)?

That seems to be altogether simpler, more logical, and above all more plausible than a massive conspiracy involving all levels of a hyper competent shadow government bent on killing its own citizens in order to invade a country halfway around the globe and spend trillions of dollars failing to occupy it.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

That seems to be altogether simpler, more logical, and above all more plausible than a massive conspiracy involving all levels of a hyper competent shadow government bent on killing its own citizens in order to invade a country halfway around the globe and spend trillions of dollars failing to occupy it.

Unless they want us to think that the invasion failed, but in reality the Middle East (If it is even called that!) is...um...the center of super-evil bioweapon testing!

[Karoka]

But what about the fact that it's gray, has no windows, and that the initial impact occurred before the actual plane hit?

[nikki.]

If you look at that image, you can clearly see that there is an identical shape on the other side of the plane, almost as if the fuselage is widening at that point - it's just in shadow. The shape is still pretty clear though, even to somebody with poor eyesight (i.e., me) looking at a very poor-quality image.

 

Doing a quick google search found this:

 

Click to reveal..

 

It would seem all jetliners have that shape, unless the government is sticking camouflage missles onto all planes. Damn governments.

[Tirien]

Oh conspiracy theories, how I love your delicious insanity and hysteria.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

But what about the fact that it's gray, has no windows, and that the initial impact occurred before the actual plane hit?

Two reasons:

1. Of course it's gray. Not only are commercial airlines largely steel grey when viewed from the bottom, that's a black and white photo, so of course it's going to be grey.

2. I rewatched the video, and a frame-by-frame look shows pretty clearly that the tower is impacted at the same time the nose of the plane would reach it.

, it's fairly obvious that any misconception of the explosion occurring before the impact is just a result of the poor video.

And as a final thought, why would aforementioned evil shadow government even bother to use a military plane and load it with a missile, which is obviously incredibly suspicious and incriminating, when a regular passenger plane would be just as effective?

[Sullust]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

1. Of course it's gray. Not only are commercial airlines largely steel grey when viewed from the bottom, that's a black and white photo, so of course it's going to be grey.

My new favorite quote.

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

But what about the fact that it's gray, has no windows, and that the initial impact occurred before the actual plane hit?

Two reasons:

1. Of course it's gray. Not only are commercial airlines largely steel grey when viewed from the bottom, that's a black and white photo, so of course it's going to be grey.

2. I rewatched the video, and a frame-by-frame look shows pretty clearly that the tower is impacted at the same time the nose of the plane would reach it.

, it's fairly obvious that any misconception of the explosion occurring before the impact is just a result of the poor video.

And as a final thought, why would aforementioned evil shadow government even bother to use a military plane and load it with a missile, which is obviously incredibly suspicious and incriminating, when a regular passenger plane would be just as effective?

But what about the no window thing?

As much as I'd love to continue this...discussion, it's now my bed time. Don't tell me to have pleasant dreams because my subconscious will force me into nightmares if you do.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

But what about the no window thing?

Those are shots of the bottom of the plane. I highly doubt cargo bays have many windows in any sort of plane, commercial airliner or secret military jet.

[The Ratt]

Hey Karoka, on that video you posted, if you pause it at 0:48, the people are saying that a plane wouldn't fit in the hole in the pentagon, however if you rotated the wings 90 degrees, oh look! it fits.

[Dintiradan]

Also,

.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Sorry if I'm bringing up a dead horse (although a day is hardly dead), but I think there was a case of mistaken definition.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Fundamentalism, as least as I mean in this context, is the ideology that holds that if you don't believe as they do, then it justifies to them to cause you harm in some way, physically, financially, or by denying you liberty.

That sounds more like extreme bigotry to me. Fundamentalism is just what it sounds like - believing in the fundamentals of a practice rather than more modern variants. My dictionary gives this definition of fundamentalism:

Quote:

strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology

There is nothing in there about harm or strife.

 

I certainly understand what you're saying, Harehunter. Those who believe others are inferior and deserving of harm because they hold difference beliefs are certainly unreasonable. If the Pope* decided that all non-Catholics were evil and should be killed, he would certainly lose support. If he acted on that belief, I would not hesitate to have him arrested.

 

The issue that I see is your use of the term fundamentalism. While you may not realize it, some people will see what you write without looking for context or your definition. The reason that we have standard definitions is to maintain clear communication. You can't expect us to use your definition.

 

*Just using a non-Islamic figure for example. I mean no disrespect to anyone or any religion.

[Trenton.]

There were 4 plains that day. Why then Karoka, did the fourth plane crash without a struggle without passengers?

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

But what about the no window thing?

Those are shots of the bottom of the plane. I highly doubt cargo bays have many windows in any sort of plane, commercial airliner or secret military jet.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about the picture this time. I'm talking about the eye witnesses that said they saw no windows on it, and that it was in fact gray (0:29, it's not a black and white image )

Originally Posted By: The (Armored) Ratt

Hey Karoka, on that video you posted, if you pause it at 0:48, the people are saying that a plane wouldn't fit in the hole in the pentagon, however if you rotated the wings 90 degrees, oh look! it fits.

This explains it better than I can.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Also, the Titanic disaster was a conspiracy.

What happened was there were explosives built into the ice, and it exploded on impact. That's why the iceberg broke the metal ship thing

EDIT:

Originally Posted By: Trenton Uchiha, shaper servile.

There were 4 plains that day. Why then Karoka, did the fourth plane crash without a struggle without passengers?

Huh? I don't get it. Also, what font is that?

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

But what about the no window thing?

Those are shots of the bottom of the plane. I highly doubt cargo bays have many windows in any sort of plane, commercial airliner or secret military jet.

Sorry, I wasn't talking about the picture this time. I'm talking about the eye witnesses that said they saw no windows on it/

Um, you have the same problem. Eye witnesses were on the ground and obviously had no better view of the top and sides of the plane than the images and video recovered.

Also, eyewitnesses are terribly unreliable.

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Quote:

There were 4 plains that day. Why then Karoka, did the fourth plane crash without a struggle without passengers?

Huh? I don't get it. Also, what font is that?

Quoting shows you the text, which is in "Impact."
Trenton is asking why there was a fourth plane found if it wasn't actually a passenger plane. Implying that the government (or whoever did this "conspiracy") went and crashed a jet airliner just to add that part to their cover story seems highly unlikely.

[Cairo Jim]

Originally Posted By: Master1

Sorry if I'm bringing up a dead horse (although a day is hardly dead), but I think there was a case of mistaken definition.

Originally Posted By: Harehunter

Fundamentalism, as least as I mean in this context, is the ideology that holds that if you don't believe as they do, then it justifies to them to cause you harm in some way, physically, financially, or by denying you liberty.

That sounds more like extreme bigotry to me. Fundamentalism is just what it sounds like - believing in the fundamentals of a practice rather than more modern variants. My dictionary gives this definition of fundamentalism:

Quote:

strict maintenance of ancient or fundamental doctrines of any religion or ideology

There is nothing in there about harm or strife.

I certainly understand what you're saying, Harehunter. Those who believe others are inferior and deserving of harm because they hold difference beliefs are certainly unreasonable. If the Pope* decided that all non-Catholics were evil and should be killed, he would certainly lose support. If he acted on that belief, I would not hesitate to have him arrested.

The issue that I see is your use of the term fundamentalism. While you may not realize it, some people will see what you write without looking for context or your definition. The reason that we have standard definitions is to maintain clear communication. You can't expect us to use your definition.

*Just using a non-Islamic figure for example. I mean no disrespect to anyone or any religion.

It's not like previous popes never tried. In fact, I'm pretty sure they were good at doing such things.

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Master1

Um, you have the same problem. Eye witnesses were on the ground and obviously had no better view of the top and sides of the plane than the images and video recovered.

Also, eyewitnesses are terribly unreliable.

Now that you've brought it up, I feel stupid for even mentioning witnesses...but still. Mr. video shows that it was a gray plane.

Originally Posted By: Master1

Trenton is asking why there was a fourth plane found if it wasn't actually a passenger plane. Implying that the government (or whoever did this "conspiracy") went and crashed a jet airliner just to add that part to their cover story seems highly unlikely.

I would have done it if it was a part of my cover story...that I don't have, calm down folks. And if they found the 4th plane (which you say was found), there was no plane found at the pentagon, meaning it wasn't a plane that hit it. So in actuality, there were three planes on that day, military or not.

[Sullust]

Are you suggesting that the footage we saw on live television was edited in real-time ?

[Karoka]

There was footage of when the pentagon was hit?

[Sullust]

I was referring to the towers themselves.

[Karoka]

Oh, I was referring to the pentagon (or should that be a capital P?)

[Niemand]

While researching some other points I came across this nice illustration of why eyewitnesses would have had difficulty making out windows on planes speeding past: Two of the planes involved (one at the WTC and the one at the pentagon) belonged to American Airlines, which paints a dark blue stripe on the side of the plane at the height of the windows. Oh, and the plane is also gray.

 

Also, how much wreckage do you expect from a passenger jet? They're basically aluminum bubbles with a thin skin and only minimal structure, since piling on a lot of metal is a good way to make your plane too heavy to fly, and they want to fill the inside with passengers and baggage. Also aluminum can be burned, so a good deal of it will be rendered unrecognizable if you dowse it in jet fuel and set the whole thing on fire.

[Alorael at Large]

Wreckage from four planes has been found: two in the rubble of the WTC towers, one in the Pentagon, and one in which passengers wrested control of the plain from hijackers and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

 

No wreckage is missing, people are accounted for and were in phone communication on at least one flight, there, and the Pentagon attack didn't even do nearly as much damage as it might have had they hit another part of the Pentagon. Sure, it makes great cover with minimal damage... but why attack the Pentagon at all if you don't want to cause damage? Surely the World Trade Center did enough damage?

 

—Alorael, who does see some evidence that funny things happened around 9/11. Stock trading of United and American Airlines went way up just before the attacks. But there are coincidences, and the basic facts of terrorists crashing planes are really very clear.

[Sullust]

To be fair, a pentagon seems like it would be less affected by a similar impact on a square.

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Two of the planes involved (one at the WTC and the one at the pentagon) belonged to American Airlines, which paints a dark blue stripe on the side of the plane at the height of the windows.

Well in that case, all that shining blueness would have been seen on footage, which it wasn't.

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Also, how much wreckage do you expect from a passenger jet?

I was expecting this amount of wreckage:

Click to reveal..

I don't really think it was a plane, and even if a plane did in fact go through it wouldn't have made almost perfect holes through the walls.

Originally Posted By: Niemand

They're basically aluminum bubbles with a thin skin and only minimal structure

So then why did the WTC fall so easily to it? A huge skyscraper like that falling that fast is just unbelievable. It's not like the towers were just a bunch of Jenga blocks (as one person put it).

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Originally Posted By: Niemand

They're basically aluminum bubbles with a thin skin and only minimal structure

So then why did the WTC fall so easily to it? A huge skyscraper like that falling that fast is just unbelievable. It's not like the towers were just a bunch of Jenga blocks (as one person put it).

Our resident structural engineer already went over that and gave a very clear explanation.

[Sullust]

I'll just leave this here:

 

Also we already covered that the intense heat is what initiated the collapse.

 

Edit: I'll add that I suspect the 'zoomed' in face to be faked.

[Karoka]

I still don't get how the tower just stood there for a good hour after the initial hit, then suddenly fell in about 30 seconds. If the core or whatever was melting, then shouldn't the floors that took the actual hit collapse first? And it kinda looked like it started falling from the bottom.

[Sullust]

It takes time for the metal to heat up sufficiently (and deform) to reach the point where a collapse is possible.

 

All the views I've seen lead me to believe the collapses started at the top. I suspect if it began at the bottom the buildings would not have gone down so 'smoothly' and we'd have had several thousand more casualties.

[Harehunter]

Originally Posted By: Master1

Sorry if I'm bringing up a dead horse (although a day is hardly dead), but I think there was a case of mistaken definition.
...
I certainly understand what you're saying, Harehunter. Those who believe others are inferior and deserving of harm because they hold difference beliefs are certainly unreasonable. If the Pope* decided that all non-Catholics were evil and should be killed, he would certainly lose support. If he acted on that belief, I would not hesitate to have him arrested.

The issue that I see is your use of the term fundamentalism. While you may not realize it, some people will see what you write without looking for context or your definition. The reason that we have standard definitions is to maintain clear communication. You can't expect us to use your definition.

*Just using a non-Islamic figure for example. I mean no disrespect to anyone or any religion.

I stand corrected. I was using the word improperly by its definition. I am still grasping for the correct word to convey my meaning. And your use of the Inquisition does not offend me. In fact, that is another perfect example of a theocracy run amok. Another reason to prohibit the establishment of a state church.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Originally Posted By: Niemand

They're basically aluminum bubbles with a thin skin and only minimal structure

So then why did the WTC fall so easily to it? A huge skyscraper like that falling that fast is just unbelievable. It's not like the towers were just a bunch of Jenga blocks (as one person put it).

Because when said aluminum bubble crashes into a building at over 500 mph, it has a lot of energy. Dantius has already covered that.

[Kelandon]

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Originally Posted By: Sylae

You aren't one of those crazyfolk who think... that Obama is japanese are you?

I've never heard that one before.

Have you heard that he's Akhenaten? Because I hadn't until a few days ago.

[Aran]

It's possible; everyone knows the pharaohs were actually Goa'uld.

 

Also, Flame Fiend is half right.

[A less presumptuous name.]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Two of the planes involved (one at the WTC and the one at the pentagon) belonged to American Airlines, which paints a dark blue stripe on the side of the plane at the height of the windows.

Well in that case, all that shining blueness would have been seen on footage, which it wasn't.

Again: the windows are on the upper half of the plane, which can be very difficult to see. And eye witnesses are unreliable.

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

Originally Posted By: Niemand

Also, how much wreckage do you expect from a passenger jet?

I was expecting this amount of wreckage:

Click to reveal..

2 things. First, the plane burned in a huge building and then was crushed during the collapse, so the wreckage would be far less plane-like. Second, an enormous building fell on/with the plane, so

Code:

Plane : Building :: Needle : Haystack 

[The Ratt]

Hey Karoka, did you know that the 2011 Japanese earthquake was a coverup? The chinese felt that they were being outcompeted economically and used an earthquake bomb, like this , except much larger.

[Tirien]

Hmmmm... Could this mean that all of the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico are created by Cuba in a attempt to destroy America? Someone needs to look into this...

[Aran]

The government did Katrina!

 

(I wish I'd finally found a conspiracy theory too bizarre for people to believe in, but a little googling disillusioned me.)

[Ceiling Durkheim]

You just aren't thinking of bizarre enough conspiracy theories, then. I have yet to see one saying that Barack and Michelle Obama are the two WTC towers in human form, and that Joe Biden is the destroyed section of the Pentagon. Of course, a la Rule 34, someone probably believes that now. They didn't before, though.

[Tyranicus]

Originally Posted By: Kelandon

Originally Posted By: Tyranicus

Originally Posted By: Sylae

You aren't one of those crazyfolk who think... that Obama is japanese are you?

I've never heard that one before.

Have you heard that he's Akhenaten? Because I hadn't until a few days ago.

I have, but only because you posted it on Facebook.

[Karoka]

Okay, I get it. I was wrong. Thanks

Originally Posted By: Tirien

Hmmmm... Could this mean that all of the hurricanes in the Gulf of Mexico are created by Cuba in a attempt to destroy America?

Yes, and the Virginia was caused by China trying to take over the U.S. so they wouldn't have to deal with our debt.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Flame Fiend

I still don't get how the tower just stood there for a good hour after the initial hit, then suddenly fell in about 30 seconds. If the core or whatever was melting, then shouldn't the floors that took the actual hit collapse first? And it kinda looked like it started falling from the bottom.

Okay. I'm presuming that you're familiar with the concept of stress and strain and deformation and the modulus of elasticity, because obviously you'd have taken the time to research into such an incredibly complex and deep field before making broad claims about what the fact that the towers didn't fall for an hour or so means.

...

Haha, who am I kidding. The MoE, or elastic modulus, is a measurement of how far a beam or component can deform without being permanently altered on a molecular scale. As a demonstration, find one of those cheap clear frosted plastic BIC pens (these are the best for engineering demonstrations) and bend it a little. See how it returns to its regular shape after you do so with no visible indication that you bent it? That's because it deformed elastically, which as you can guess means it goes right back to its original shape and can do so as many times as you like. Now bend it as far as it can go and let go, and it won't return to its original shape and a sort of milky white band appears where you bent it? That's because you've bent it past the modulus of elasticity and there was a change in the structure of the material and it has began to deform in a plastic manner (this is just a term, it doesn't refer to plastics specifically, metals do this too) instead of elastically, so not only will it never ever return to its original shape, but it's also much easier to bend from then on- you'll not that you can now twist and bend the pen with a fraction of the effort you needed before.

What essentially happened to cause the failure was that the jet fuel and the friction and the heat didn't melt the beams, per se, but rather that they heated the beams and columns supporting the building to the point where the metal began to soften. If you've ever seen a blacksmith at work, or even just watched it, you'd know that there's no "melting point" at which the metal goes from "ROCK HARD" to "LIQUID" in a flash, but rather gradually softens to the point where it is malleable with common tools- and a standard wood-fueled fire is more than enough to get it there. Anyways, this increase in temperature leads to a decrease in said modulus, and eventually things reach the point where the load that they would normally be able to support at room temperature would deform them in their heated, weakened state and the beams would begin to enter plastic rather than elastic deformation, and eventually experience catastrophic failure. Of course, moving into thermochemistry for a bit to talk about heat transfer, objects don't immediately take on whatever the surrounding temperature of the environment is, and for certain metals with low thermal conductivity, it takes a while to heat up. So while the jet fuel was burning, the beams were heating up, and the beams would have to heat up for a while in order for the modulus to decrease to the point of collapse, which would account for the time difference between impact and collapse. Savvy?

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Lt. Sullust

To be fair, a pentagon seems like it would be less affected by a similar impact on a square.

The plane had to go through red tape at the Pentagon, the strongest material on Earth.

[Aran]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

The MoE, or elastic modulus, [...] Savvy?

Woah, leave my beautiful conspiracy theory alone with your "physics" and "facts"!

[Tirien]

Originally Posted By: Arancaytrus

Originally Posted By: Dantius

The MoE, or elastic modulus, [...] Savvy?

Woah, leave my beautiful conspiracy theory alone with your "physics" and "facts"!

Physics is a conspiracy to make us think that all our conspiracies are wrong, and that we are crazy.

Facts, on the other hand, is the result of thousands of puppies being eaten by the fluffy turtles.

[Ceiling Durkheim]

I'm still very pleased that there exists a mathematical object called the "stress tensor." (...I don't actually know much of anything about fracture mechanics, but I did hear a lot about it back when my roommate was writing his thesis on the subject. Between his thesis on fracture mechanics and mine on Christian eschatology, it's a wonder the apartment survived that year.)

[Cairo Jim]

I'll probably have to go through several "stress tests" if my boss acutally gets his hands on a fairly big contract. A lot of the stuff we deal with is structural steel and that can get subject through a lot of tests in itself.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Reality Clamp

—Alorael, who does see some evidence that funny things happened around 9/11. Stock trading of United and American Airlines went way up just before the attacks. But there are coincidences, and the basic facts of terrorists crashing planes are really very clear.

you probably know this already but for the record this doesn't need to be explained by either coincidence or conspiracy (at least, besides the one conspiracy that we know happened). osama bin laden and his family were pretty wealthy and well-connected; they certainly had both the knowledge and the resources to make money off the attack he planned.

[Randomizer]

The bin Laden family made their money in construction. It was a conspiracy to get more work for them.

 

Seriously you'll notice that no Arabs died in the attacks that weren't listed as terrorists on the planes. There must have been a great conspiracy to warn them off.

[Aran]

Originally Posted By: Cairo Jim

I'll probably have to go through several "stress tests" if my boss acutally gets his hands on a fairly big contract.

As long as you remember to run when they start talking about thetans.

[Cairo Jim]

This is more along the lines of our welds and the steel being put under stress, if our work wasn't done right, it will break under stress. If done right, it will hold.