9/11 Mysteries

jlew24asu · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

What could they possibly have lifted the fingerprints from? They were lying about that obviously.

he said human remains. why are you asking about fingerprints?

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

he said human remains. why are you asking about fingerprints?

Because the govt said they lifted prints to identify the terrorists from the wreckage. I read/said they discovered no terrorist remains so how could they possibly identify and know who was really on the plane? It's a question. It's all way back there somewhere...

jlew24asu · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Because the govt said they lifted prints to identify the terrorists from the wreckage. I read/said they discovered no terrorist remains so how could they possibly identify and know who was really on the plane? It's a question. It's all way back there somewhere...

o ok. I wasnt exactly sure what the government claims it found. even I admit, finding a finger print from that wreck seems impossible.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

o ok. I wasnt exactly sure what the government claims it found. even I admit, finding a finger print from that wreck seems impossible.

Yeah apparently all but one person of the 64 people on flight 77 was identified (via dental records and or fingerprints). Seems odd as very little to none of the plane itself was recovered. I can't see getting fingerprints after an intense fire like that. To be fair they did use DNA testing as well though.

Abookamongstthemany · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah apparently all but one person of the 64 people on flight 77 was identified (via dental records and or fingerprints). Seems odd as very little to none of the plane itself was recovered. I can't see getting fingerprints after an intense fire like that. To be fair they did use DNA testing as well though.

This also brings to mind how they claim to have found one the hijackers
passports amidst the rubble near ground zero. That has to be the most unbelievable things I've ever heard them try to pull off. That and the fact that they have no serious security footage of the strike on the Pentagon. I mean shit, they have clear footage of the last time I went into a gas station but nothing they can offer up to prove what happened at one of the most secured areas in our entire country. Riight.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This also brings to mind how they claim to have found one the hijackers
passports amidst the rubble near ground zero. That has to be the most unbelievable things I've ever heard them try to pull off. That and the fact that they have no serious security footage of the strike on the Pentagon. I mean shit, they have clear footage of the last time I went into a gas station but nothing they can offer up to prove what happened at one of the most secured areas in our entire country. Riight.

That's the pentagon for ya...always cutting corners to save money :rolleyes:

DriftingByTheStorm · July 2007

can i ask one new question that came to me the other day after watching many hours of conspiracy footage?

Do commercial airliners come equipped with a "HIJACKED" distress signal?

It was brough up in a video that they are, and that it is a simple code that can be entered in a matter of seconds if the pilot(s) think there is a hijacking on board ... it is not the same as the transponder ... so says this movie ...

is this true ... why were NONE of them activated, and why did ALL of the pilots give up their planes to known terrorists? ESPECIALLY AFTER ONE HIT THE FIRST TOWER !?!

Just a question.

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

can i ask one new question that came to me the other day after watching many hours of conspiracy footage?

Do commercial airliners come equipped with a "HIJACKED" distress signal?

It was brough up in a video that they are, and that it is a simple code that can be entered in a matter of seconds if the pilot(s) think there is a hijacking on board ... it is not the same as the transponder ... so says this movie ...

is this true ... why were NONE of them activated, and why did ALL of the pilots give up their planes to known terrorists? ESPECIALLY AFTER ONE HIT THE FIRST TOWER !?!

Just a question.

That is a good question I know all taxi cabs have that little distress light on the back of them (where I am). To be fair there was a definite element shock of disbelief across the board so that plays in. Some of it is explainable but Norad not so much.

I just found this:
http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/FlyingHigh/story?id=816534&page=1

hmm...good question.

g under p · July 2007

RolandTD20drummer wrote:

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

This also brings to mind how they claim to have found one the hijackers
passports amidst the rubble near ground zero. That has to be the most unbelievable things I've ever heard them try to pull off. That and the fact that they have no serious security footage of the strike on the Pentagon. I mean shit, they have clear footage of the last time I went into a gas station but nothing they can offer up to prove what happened at one of the most secured areas in our entire country. Riight.

That's the pentagon for ya...always cutting corners to save money

I work down the street from the Vice President here in DC and I travel past the Pentagon several times a week. Anyway, has anyone ever seen how difficult it is to even see the Pentagon from the nearest highway 395 N/S? Much less navigate such a large plane into that tight area without hitting the lawn infront of the Pentagon or the countless light poles, wires etc.

Experienced pilots would have a hard time hitting that particular mark much less such a inexperienced hijacker/terrorist.

I could see them possibly finding the Pentagon (tough job as it is) then possibly flying straight down directly into the Pentagon like out in Pa.

Peace
Earle

Drowned Out · July 2007

jlew24asu wrote:

how so? money, greed, power, and fame can drive a person to do anything

I think that even someone willing to participate in murder for gain would be hesitant to risk the lives of their families. A bunch of strangers, no problem…but exposing your family to that risk, nah. And tell me...if YOU had this information, who would YOU bring it to?

jlew24asu wrote:

yes, its possible. what the fuck are you getting at?

You were going in two directions. You said it was possible, but then you said it would be impossible to keep it secret. Just looking for clarification. So if it's possible that 7 was taken out and lied about, why isn't it possible that the other two were?
I also like how both you and making waves quoted my post about wtc 7 and commented only on the wording....while ignoring the part about the possible motive behind "pulling" the building (SEC, CIA, etc).

…so why is it that even if you can admit that it might have been brought down intentionally then covered up.. and the building collapsed in a manner that is suspicious...while housing the SEC and a CIA office.....that this isn't a MASSIVE part of the 9/11 investigation? Or even a separate investigation altogether (because of the destruction of the files and suspicious collapse)?

(wtc 7 question - can anyone confirm or deny what is said in the movie linked in the header post - that there were no firefighters in the building when Silverstein says they made the decsion to "pull them"? (sorry - it))

jlew24asu wrote:

yes this has been proven. as if it needs much proof anyway. a 767 plane going 500+ mph hit the fucking thing. what the fuck do you think will happen? its going to bounce off the support columns?

Where's the proof? How was it proven? Models? Simulations?
What do I think happens when a 767 hits a building? it's fuselage disintegrates, it's wings fold into the body, and the engines transform into engines from smaller planes….you know this….so how did it destroy the columns again?
the plane that hit the pentagon could only make a small hole in blast proof glass....
(How does the engineering/tech data for that glass compare to massive structural steel, anyone know?)

And if the columns were destroyed on impact, why didn't the building collapse immediately? The floor deck, joists, trusses and compromised exoskeleton held up 50 stories until the fire weakened them? Sorry, don't buy it.

jlew24asu wrote:

I dont have an answer as to my there was. its possible after several days of constant heat and pressure, such things could happen. its possible right?

IMO, from what I've read about it...no, not possible. The temperature needed to melt steel could never have been reached by burning paper, furniture, building materials OR jet fuel.

Constant heat from what? There wasn't anything else heating it after the building collapsed, right? I thought the heat WAS the molten metal. So maybe it was pressure? I could easily be mistaken, but I don't think pressure and friction can liquify cold-rolled steel.

jlew24asu wrote:

and? they werent as tall or as heavy as 1,2, or 7 and were designed differently.

I haven't looked at the design for the other buildings. But I know that in general, when engineering a building, the wind and seismic loading requirements, impact resistance requirements, etc. increase with the building height. A taller building should be stronger than a shorter one, or at LEAST subject to the same design testing requirements and codes. The other buildings were completely fucked up and the steel remained intact. WTC 7 appeared fine, but I guess burning wood and paper melted that steel too.
========================================================

One last thing....I'm trying to be somewhat civil here...I'm asking genuine questions, trying to learn more, admitting when I'm proven wrong, and giving disclaimers when I'm unsure of my claims....so why are you being such a dick? The only reason I've seen is that you're offended that someone would suggest YOUR government would plan something like that. Why is that offensive to you? Then YOU tell ME to grow balls and stop whining. wtf man?

El_Kabong · July 2007

g under p wrote:

I work down the street from the Vice President here in DC and I travel past the Pentagon several times a week. Anyway, has anyone ever seen how difficult it is to even see the Pentagon from the nearest highway 395 N/S? Much less navigate such a large plane into that tight area without hitting the lawn infront of the Pentagon or the countless light poles, wires etc.

Experienced pilots would have a hard time hitting that particular mark much less such a inexperienced hijacker/terrorist.

I could see them possibly finding the Pentagon (tough job as it is) then possibly flying straight down directly into the Pentagon like out in Pa.

Peace
Earle

yes, i lived in northern va 1/2 an hour away from dc for 2 decades....the angle it hit does seem kind of hard considering crystal city and all those buildings (macy's and a mall and hotels...) then 395 separating that and the pentagon....seems like the jet engines would've blown some cars around, no?

that plane was KNOWN to be hijacked before it penetrated DC's no fly zone once, passed it, made a u-turn, penetrated dc's no-fly zone once again....

and it's not a matter of how fast could andrew's air force base, 10 miles from dc, get a fighter ready to intercept, makingwaves...look at the timeline, your official timeline, look at cheney's statements:

-he knew as soon as the 2nd plane hit that we were under attack, he said this was "obvious"

how long inbetween the 2nd tower being hit and the pentagon?

-cheney waited until right before the pentagon got hit to give the order to send jets!!!!

2 planes hit the wtc and it was OBVIOUS to cheney we were under attack
a known hijacked plane heads towards dc and he sits and does nothing
a known hijacked aircraft penetrates dc's no-fly zone and our how many trillion in a defense system? and he does....nothing
a known hijacked aircraft penetrates dc's no fly zone ONCE AGAIN and he....waits a bit.....waits....then i guess the light bulb goes off in his head they might be thinking of doing the same thing and he FINALLY DOES SOMETHING

and jlew, what you are instead saying is our government is totally inept and worthless....that we've wasted trillions upon trillions in tax money w/ virtually ZERO accountability! what you are saying is our government is worthless in a major situatuon like 9/11, katrina...and just hands out our tax money to friends and investors????

well, at least you're making some progress jlew!

Anon · July 2007

my2hands wrote:

honestly, i dont know what the fuck happened that day.

but what your mentioning above will always stick with me. there is no fucking way 2 hijacked planes slam into the wtc in front of the entire world, and the plane headed to dc much later doesnt get intercepted?

that makes zero sense. smells funny.

That's something i really struggle with too. I just don't understand how, if the FBI had evidence that attacks were imminent, that the military would not be prepared 24 hours a day, and be ready to act at a minutes notice, immediately a threat is identified. Not coming from America, it just amazes me that the supposedly biggest and best in the world could be caught out like this.
A couple of months ago at work, on a boring night shift

, we were having a discussion about what you guys are debating here, and i said that i cannot believe that the American government would be involved in anything that would deliberately maim or injure their own citizens. Surely that's not possible. To me, America has always seemed so honourable and patriotic and proud of their people and their lifestyle. Another person said 'how is that so hard to understand, their Government has no problems leaving their soldiers in Iraq to get killed or maimed when they should bring them home'.

Conspiracy or no conspiracy, i have no idea what's true or not, so many people died that day and so many are still dying as a result of it. Take a moment to share in remembering the life of someone who can't be here today to join in this discussion and be thankful we can.

Peace..

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

Yeah apparently all but one person of the 64 people on flight 77 was identified (via dental records and or fingerprints). Seems odd as very little to none of the plane itself was recovered. I can't see getting fingerprints after an intense fire like that. To be fair they did use DNA testing as well though.

I have seen where they identified bodies but I haven't seen anything about them getting fingerprints. I am not saying someone didn't say that, but I just haven't seen it anywhere.

MakingWaves · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

It would take longer than near free fall speed for those buildings to come down though. The tops just fell through the bottoms like warm butter. That's a stretch...especially in #7.

You are exactly right. It did take longer than near free fall speed for these building to fall. Conspiracy theorists say they fell at free fall speed or even faster.

This is from Debunking911.com

The mechanics of the collapse are really much more simple than conspiracy theorists would like you to believe. The heat expanded the steel in the truss in all directions. As a result they also expanded into the columns. The trusses/floor system, sagged in the middle because the columns were preventing the trusses from expanding in their direction. That led to the bowing of the exterior columns.

In terms of mass, the floors were comparable to tree trunks and the columns were like branches. The floor connections of the long span floors could support a load of a couple story masses and had an energy absorbing ability of a couple hundredths of a GJ per story. The floor connections were like crepe connecting the floors to the columns. The crepe was sufficient for the structure in its static organized state but was a weak link during collapse when the structure in the region of the collapse front no longer resembled the static organized state.

Listen to the NIST lead investigator explain the leading hypothesis for the towers collapse.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html

jlew24asu · July 2007

Drowned Out wrote:

I think that even someone willing to participate in murder for gain would be hesitant to risk the lives of their families.

why? that makes no sense

Drowned Out wrote:

A bunch of strangers, no problem…but exposing your family to that risk, nah.

so it just so happens that every single person involved has a family and something to protect. enough to give up going in the history books forever as the guy who exposed (and proved) 9/11 was an inside? this is the bullshit you hoenstly believe?

Drowned Out wrote:

And tell me...if YOU had this information, who would YOU bring it to?

another dumb question. um lets see, NBC, ABC, CBS, CNN, FOX, my dog, my blog, my myspace page, my email address book, the guy on the couch, youtube.

Drowned Out wrote:

You were going in two directions. You said it was possible, but then you said it would be impossible to keep it secret.

you are confused. I'm talking about 9/11 being an inside job as a whole. that is impossible to keep a secret. taking building 7 down? again, nearly impossible. but it is possible seeing how the area was blocked off for several hours and a few key people could have come in and "pulled" it. but again, they would also have too much to gain by saying they did that. I do not believe that happened.

Drowned Out wrote:

I also like how both you and making waves quoted my post about wtc 7 and commented only on the wording....while ignoring the part about the possible motive behind "pulling" the building (SEC, CIA, etc).

sure there is also a motive of insurance money too. but that doesnt prove anything.

Drowned Out wrote:

…so why is it that even if you can admit that it might have been brought down intentionally then covered up.. and the building collapsed in a manner that is suspicious...while housing the SEC and a CIA office.....that this isn't a MASSIVE part of the 9/11 investigation? Or even a separate investigation altogether (because of the destruction of the files and suspicious collapse)?

yes I admit that it might have been brought down intentionally. but I see no proof of that being the case. its purely speculation. It is proven however is that the building suffered heavy damage falling debris of WTC 1 and 2. and the building had an unusual design that had several floors supporting an usually high load.

Drowned Out wrote:

Where's the proof? How was it proven? Models? Simulations?
What do I think happens when a 767 hits a building? it's fuselage disintegrates, it's wings fold into the body, and the engines transform into engines from smaller planes….you know this….so how did it destroy the columns again?
the plane that hit the pentagon could only make a small hole in blast proof glass....
(How does the engineering/tech data for that glass compare to massive structural steel, anyone know?)

if you are going to be this naive, I'm not going to bother explaining it. so yea, you win. the plane bounced right off the columns leaving them undamaged.

Drowned Out wrote:

And if the columns were destroyed on impact, why didn't the building collapse immediately?

becuase not all the columns were destroyed. the others that were left undamaged took on the additional load. I swear I feel like I'm talking to a 9 year old. sorry, but this is pure common sense.

Drowned Out wrote:

The floor deck, joists, trusses and compromised exoskeleton held up 50 stories until the fire weakened them?

yes.

Drowned Out wrote:

IMO, from what I've read about it...no, not possible. The temperature needed to melt steel could never have been reached by burning paper, furniture, building materials OR jet fuel.

Constant heat from what? There wasn't anything else heating it after the building collapsed, right? I thought the heat WAS the molten metal. So maybe it was pressure? I could easily be mistaken, but I don't think pressure and friction can liquify cold-rolled steel.

ok so you dont know. finally.

Drowned Out wrote:

I haven't looked at the design for the other buildings. But I know that in general, when engineering a building, the wind and seismic loading requirements, impact resistance requirements, etc. increase with the building height. A taller building should be stronger than a shorter one, or at LEAST subject to the same design testing requirements and codes.

you finally bring some common sense to the table. and I agree with this statement but the building had an unusual design according to the NIST. this happens. there was a building here in chicago called the AON Center. (ironically looks exactly like WTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aon_Center_(Chicago)

When the building was originally built, it was the world's tallest marble-clad building. Eventually, the harsh climate caused the building's Carrara marble sheathing to fail and begin to detach from the building. From 1990 to 1992, the entire building was refaced with white granite at a cost of half the original price of the whole structure. The building employs a tubular steel-framed structural system with V-shaped perimeter columns to resist earthquakes, reduce sway, minimize column bending, and maximize column-free space.

point is that mistakes are made in design.

Drowned Out wrote:

One last thing....I'm trying to be somewhat civil here...I'm asking genuine questions, trying to learn more, admitting when I'm proven wrong, and giving disclaimers when I'm unsure of my claims....so why are you being such a dick? The only reason I've seen is that you're offended that someone would suggest YOUR government would plan something like that. Why is that offensive to you? Then YOU tell ME to grow balls and stop whining. wtf man?

sorry man, I get very worked up over this subject. its good to question the government, I encourage it actually. but I have yet to see proof that my government was DIRECTLY involved in planning, orchestrating, and carrying out these attacks. which some, you included, believe.

I do feel the government has lied about their actions that day, but solely to cover up their tracks of failing to stop it in the first place.

MakingWaves · July 2007

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

can i ask one new question that came to me the other day after watching many hours of conspiracy footage?

Do commercial airliners come equipped with a "HIJACKED" distress signal?

It was brough up in a video that they are, and that it is a simple code that can be entered in a matter of seconds if the pilot(s) think there is a hijacking on board ... it is not the same as the transponder ... so says this movie ...

is this true ... why were NONE of them activated, and why did ALL of the pilots give up their planes to known terrorists? ESPECIALLY AFTER ONE HIT THE FIRST TOWER !?!

Just a question.

So are we know saying the pilots were in on this also???? geesh

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

So are we know saying the pilots were in on this also???? geesh

autopilot anyone?

even flow? · July 2007

MakingWaves wrote:

So are we know saying the pilots were in on this also???? geesh

Speaking of pilots and using some people's tactics....If you can't tell me who was piloting the planes when they hit, and I mean the pilot, why should I believe what you are saying. Anyway..........Why don't you take a shot at a million dollars. You have all the answers on how the buildings came down. That is all you have to prove. Ride into the sunset and prove it to the world! Shouldn't be too tough for someone up on the theories that brought the buildings down?!

http://www.reopen911.org/

RolandTD20Kdrummer · July 2007

The black boxes will explain everything...the firemen found them and turned them in...oh but now they are lost...they never existed now

uhhh fucking ...oops!

hmm

even flow? · July 2007

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

The black boxes will explain everything...the firemen found them and turned them in...oh but now they are lost...they never existed now

uhhh fucking ...oops!

hmm

Buildings falling due to fire. How many times has that happened? Black boxes not found or lost on an important aviation disaster. How many times has that happened? Can show you Saddam's military build up from space, but lose all the guys you are tailing when they enter your own country. How many times has that happened? And so on and so on.

9/11 Mysteries

Comments

Categories