Home Archives Random Quotes Latest Comments Top 100 Submit Quote Search Log In

Quote# 89577

Yeah, and the sad part is that most muricans cant see through the bullshit that all the events of 9/11 were.

Building #7 falls into its own footprint, long after the twin towers fell? Bull-fucking-shit.

The Pentagon, with cameras all over the place and all we see is a few seconds of a non-passenger jet hitting it.

United Airlines Flight 93 hits a dirt field in PA and there is almost no indication that an aircraft of that size ever hit
the place since there is so little debris that was found.

I will be putting my flag out upside down on the 11th of September, like I have for a few years now.


oncebitten55, love-shy 27 Comments [10/1/2012 6:57:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 16
Submitted By: Zim!
WTF?! || meh
Username:
Comment:



1 2
Jeff D.

"Love-shy" and a conspiracy nut. I bet he also thinks that every woman in the world is out to snub him, too.

10/1/2012 7:15:38 AM

Zim!

YAY! My first submit!

10/1/2012 8:16:59 AM

Man Called True

Define "footprint".

Explain the damage to the Pentagon. Please provide actual engineering proof to explain the structural damage, not waving-of-hands and screaming "IT COULDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY!" That will be considered grounds for disqualification.

Please explain the massive quantities of debris matching a crashed jet found in the region around where Flight 93 hit the ground.

And if you can't do these things, oncebitten55, shove your flag up your ass.

10/1/2012 8:47:57 AM

Rabbit of Caerbannog

More from IQ-shy...

10/1/2012 10:02:00 AM

Anon

It should not need to be repeated, but photos left on the other side of the link to avoid triggering: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks

10/1/2012 11:38:50 AM

J. James

Who needs hard evidence when you have the unfounded Hollywood assertions of a biased non-expert??

10/1/2012 12:30:31 PM

Ebon

I believe this is the first time I've ever seen someone use the word "murican" unironically.

10/1/2012 3:53:00 PM

dfmfundies

@Man Called True:

Explain the damage to the Pentagon. Please provide actual engineering proof to explain the structural damage, not waving-of-hands and screaming "IT COULDN'T HAPPEN THAT WAY!" That will be considered grounds for disqualification.

I once ran into a 9/11 truther (unfortunately, it was not with a car) who actually believed that the plane should have left a plane-shaped hole in the Pentagon's wall, like something out of a Warner Bros. cartoon.

They're impervious to reality.

10/1/2012 4:34:34 PM

Doctor Doak

"United Airlines Flight 93 hits a dirt field in PA and there is almost no indication that an aircraft of that size ever hit
the place since there is so little debris that was found."

...It's been eleven years. The place ain't going to look the same as it did then. there are things called "Rain", "Mud" and "Clean-up crews".

Likewise, your username is love-shy. You wouldn't happen to be Chris-Chan, would you?

10/1/2012 5:19:48 PM

fishtank

And nobody will care?

10/2/2012 4:32:21 AM

Passerby

May I make an admission? I'm what you'd classify as a 'truther' regarding Sept. 11 but rather than waste my time with blind accusations and bizzare symbolic gestures I'd rather know what actually happened and why.

From the evidence I can't believe that the towers were levelled into their own foundations (at nearly free-fall speeds) by a fire near the top floors. When you consider how the amount of burning jet fuel is stressed to explain those collapses you have to wonder why there wasn't so much as a brush fire outside the Pentagon, nor was there significant wreckage. Most notably absent were wings, which would have sheared off if an airplane had actually punctured the walls as was claimed. The cell phone calls purportedly made from flight 93 would have been physically impossible, the technology to allow such calls was only invented and implemented more than a year afterwards. (Will find and link pertinent info tonight after work.)

There are considerable financiall dealings and suspicious governmental decisions such as moving ten years of all hard copies of CIA internal investigations to tower 7, but that is circumstance and speculation.

Don't even start me on the inherent absurdity of the "lost luggage" that formed the cornerstone linking it all to Al-Qaida.

Well that's my confession and some of my reasons for believing such out of the way. Ravage them at your leisure if you're so inclined, it's all in good fun and part of honest discussion.

10/2/2012 4:51:36 AM



@ Passerby: we'll just cut to the chase and call you an ignorant fucking idiot.

10/2/2012 4:56:50 AM

Doubting Thomas

There they go bringing up Building 7 again. Why would the government bring down building 7 hours after the twin towers fell? Why bring it down at all? Bringing down the two towers would have been devastating and tragic enough. By the time #7 fell, the nation was already in shock.

And of course, why fake an aircraft crashing into an empty field? An airliner traveling at 500 MPH and hitting the ground means things are going to break up into tiny pieces.

10/2/2012 7:02:27 AM

Filin De Blanc

"The cell phone calls purportedly made from flight 93 would have been physically impossible, the technology to allow such calls was only invented and implemented more than a year afterwards."

Yes, the mobile phone was not invented until 2003. Clearly.

10/2/2012 10:24:12 AM

Passerby

Ah, here's a couple sources.

http://www.datasync.com/~rsf1/cell-air.htm

http://physics911.net/projectachilles/

If the link doesn't work or if you don't want to bother with the long-winded report basically it states communications by cellular phones suffer interference at altitudes above 1,000ft. Above 2,000 that interference becomes unintelligible noise. Above 4,000 you'd be lucky to get the noise. Above 8,000 utterly impossible to establish a connection. Cruising altitude is roughly 30,000 to 38,000 feet.

I'm trying to find the article that announced the completion and installation of the new systems that allow passengers to use their cells to communicate clearly to the ground, but haven't found it, but what I did find is the project announcement which said it would see results in 2006 which is even later than I remember.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/02/technology/circuits/02next.html?_r=1

I thought it was actually fairly common knowledge that a cell was useless in flight as well as a possible source of interference with the craft's instrumentation, but I guess not.

Filin De Blanc your sarcasm is valid as it prompted a question to be properly answered and I am not offended.

#1454126 I am a little disappointed in you. I know this is a particularly unpleasant subject - some of you have undoubtedly lost someone you knew - and I am taking the less popular view that most find hard to defend but that was uncalled for. Everyone here prides themselves on not believing anything they don't think is supported by evidence. For me, this is no different.

Anything else?

10/2/2012 3:01:13 PM

Man Called True

Passerby: There are numerous accounts of people making phone calls from cruising altitude. Even though you're told to turn the phone off in flight, pilots estimate at least ten phone calls are attempted each flight. Not all of them get through, but some do.

Not that it matters, since the hijackers were already pulling the planes well below cruising by the time the phone calls began.

10/2/2012 6:33:22 PM

michael3ov

@passerby

You mean those wings that carry thousands of pounds of jet fuel?

Shut up and go away.

10/2/2012 11:36:37 PM

Doubting Thomas

Yes, you can use a cell phone at altitude. The issue is that you'll likely be bringing up several towers, since at that height the phone will be seeing several different towers simultaneously. However, since all cell phones have gone digital sometime around 2000, the phones will be able to choose the strongest tower. Plus, being digital, cell phones wouldn't be subject to as much interference as analog models.

If you think that people didn't die on Flight 93, then why are so many people "lying" about having family members on board that flight and the other three which crashed into buildings? And again, what benefit does the government get by faking an airliner crash in a rural area in Pennsylvania?

10/3/2012 5:45:28 AM



Passerby

michael3ov

@passerby

You mean those wings that carry thousands of pounds of jet fuel?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=SbJ2oA3KSxY

Do you know what thousands of pounds of flaming jet fuel looks like? Fire. Lots and lots of fire. You know what's missing from the front of the building? A lake of burning fuel. There's a great deal of smoke coming from within the impact zone, but the front lawn and mouth of the wall are totally clear of flames. Also missing are the wings, engines, any sign of a tail...

Do you seriously expect me to believe that both wings, all engines, every single inch of solid titanium hull were blown to literal vapor leaving not a scrap of visible metal larger than a laptop but yet somehow did not spread liquid destruction everywhere? According to the analysis and projections of the fall of the towers some 200,000 litres of fuel spread out over several floors. So where is it in the Pentagon crash? Moreover I'm pretty sure a fuel fire is one of those things attempting to extinguish with water will actually feed instead, yet the Fire Department got it under control using water.

No plane wreckage, and no sign of an inferno capable of disintegrating the wreckage. You may as well ask me to believe a spaceship crashed there. There was even a preposterous claim that a passport, driver's license, and similar paperwork linking the attack to Al-Qaida survived. Titanium was said to have disintegrated while paper and plastic survived.

Man Called True

Passerby: There are numerous accounts of people making phone calls from cruising altitude. Even though you're told to turn the phone off in flight, pilots estimate at least ten phone calls are attempted each flight. Not all of them get through, but some do.

Not that it matters, since the hijackers were already pulling the planes well below cruising by the time the phone calls began.


Actually, according to the official report they were at 35,000 feet when the calls started. And they continued for more than twenty minutes without significant distortions or calls being dropped.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?granuleId=&packageId=GPO-911REPORT&fromBrowse=true

Doubting Thomas

If you think that people didn't die on Flight 93, then why are so many people "lying" about having family members on board that flight and the other three which crashed into buildings? And again, what benefit does the government get by faking an airliner crash in a rural area in Pennsylvania?


When did I say I didn't think people died? Frankly I find the idea that grieving family members are actually paid actors as preposterous as you do. 10 people can barely keep a story straight when it happens to be true so a widespread lie is pretty much doomed to failure.

I was hoping to avoid speculation, but rather than the million-man conspiracy theory I find it considerably more likely that United 93 was indeed hijacked, but was immediately landed and it's passengers forced to read from scripts at gunpoint possibly under the initial pretense they were being ransomed and their captors hoped to confuse and frighten athorities as to their location, identities, and intentions. You may be aware that it's a well known phenomenon for terrorists to force someone to read a statement under threat, and poor terrified victims will continue to read even what they realize is their own death sentence? If they were on the ground it would explain the perfect signals and if they were reading from scripts it would explain why several passengers sound like they're, well, reading from scripts. Will try to find audio later.

Like the Pentagon, the 'crash' site of United 93 is missing a considerable amount of the plane. Unlike the Pentagon, I'm told there were actual bodies recovered a considerable distance from the rest of the wreckage which was spread out over 8 miles. The interesting thing though? While there's impact craters from individual pieces hitting the ground there is no indication of the main body of the plane ever hitting. It would have dug a hell of a trench otherwise. The hole in the ground we're supposed to believe the plane made can be seen in geographical survey photos taken in 1994.

That indicates the plane was already in pieces when it came down. I'm guessing the parts were dumped from the back of a cargo carrier to simulate a crash and the bodies were dumped last.

As to why in God's name anyone would go though that trouble I am at a total loss. There's no reasonable answer. But then again expecting murderers to be reasonable is a madman's errand.

My responses will be sporadic over the next few weeks. Work scheduling. Just in case you think I'm running away from the issue.

10/4/2012 3:32:09 PM

Jeff D.

@Passerby:

The "hull" is aluminum, not titanium. It's a civilian personal transport and cargo plane, not a military aircraft.

Also, water does not "feed" fuel fires. It does tend to spread them around because the fuel will float on the water. The water can still smother the flames (which is how it extinguishes any fire, smothering, not some magical idea about fire and water being opposites), but it takes a hell of a lot of doing.

10/4/2012 7:02:36 PM

BrianX

Passerby:

Just one point: the towers did not collapse into their own footprint. I didn't see the video live (I was at work and most of what I knew at the time came from rumors) but I did see one of the collapses on tape not long after I got out, and the tower clearly fell outward. In fact, I remember it quite distinctly looking like a lily blossom.

10/7/2012 3:41:08 PM

one time

To passerby.

"As to why in God's name anyone would go though that trouble I am at a total loss. There's no reasonable answer. But then again expecting murderers to be reasonable is a madman's errand."

Basically you're saying you think your explanation is unbelievable? How about you come up with something believable then? Also i believe with crimes (like murder) usually a means, motive and opportunity is needed for conviction, so saying it's a folly to understand the motive isn't really in the spirit of getting down to the truth (more a case of it doesn't fit so i'll ignore it).

The very fact that it's such a twisted and odd situation that draws attention to itself in unfavourable ways only decreases the chances of it actually being a conspiracy. They not only made it harder on themselves to implement the plan they've also made it harder to believe because they've made it harder than it needs to be they've made it harder than it needs to for the sake of it.

Crashing the plane into the field vs landing the plane,forcing passengers to read from a script, killing all passengers/crew and cutting them up and then sprinkling/burying wreckage and body parts over the "crash site" (but not in a way that makes obvious sense) Just so passengers could make phone calls saying "we've been hijacked" (something the cockpit voice recorder did anyway).

Which honestly seems more likely for someone to do considering the aimed effect was "hijackers crashed plane into a field, everyone died".

Also they put a lot of effort into making sure plane fuel doesn't catch fire when they don't want it to, partly why its flash point is higher then car fuel, tell me how often do high speed car crashes result in burnt out cars?

Um what is with that "Check here" box what am i Checking?

10/10/2012 10:45:03 AM

Passerby

Finally found some time to sit back down.

While I was mistaken about the hull composition of a 747 titanium is a significant material in the plane's construction. I mentioned titanium specifically for it's high resistance to extreme temperature but that's ultimately beside the point. The point I was trying to make was that any metal: steel, aluminum, tin, or titanium, doesn't just evaporate when it reaches it's melting point. There'd be lumps of slag equal in mass to melted plane parts if a plane were ever at the Pentagon. There is no such wreckage at the exterior of the building and the only things seen taken out of the wreck were bits and pieces light enough to be carried by hand that should have been too hot to touch if they'd been in an inferno so recently.

If we're going to pick apart semantics, saying water would 'feed' a fuel fire is clumsy. I suppose I should have said 'make things considerably worse by spreading the burning chemicals outward violently, counteracting attempts at containment' or something to that effect. That said, I'd like to reiterate that despite Fox News' claims, I could see no measures taken in the footage they aired that suggested firefighters took any containment measures beyond the standard approach to a typical tenement fire: Hose it down.

@ BrianX

I never said anything about the building's footprint, the OP did. I don't know enough about the term to validate or deny the statement itself but I assume it refers to the fall pattern of the debris.

A building that collapses due to fire, or any damage to it's supports will buckle and topple from the damaged area, or in the event several supports are damaged it may cave in on itself. This I can say with confidence: What I observed was not a building toppling from fire damage.

The twin towers simply turned to dust and crumbled into a pile from the very tip, several floors above the blaze, to it's foundations more than a hundred floors below in an instant. If all the supports on the affected floors had given way at once the floors above would have crashed down but would still have been supported on top of the unaffected floors or they would have slid off at an angle, falling to street level intact. But no supports buckled, no single section caved in, instead every single support in the building went out at once - including those far away from the burning fuel - and the concrete they held together crumbled to chunks no bigger than a car. It all took place in a matter of seconds. They didn't burn down, they were obliterated. The pattern you describe implies that debris was thrown outward by either air being forced out from between floors as they collapse in perfect sequence of the building or an explosion. Considering all of the above, the total lack of resistance and instantaneous nature of collapse, I'm leaning towards the latter. The base of the towers were dust almost before the chunks that fell from the roof hit ground level.

The towers are far from the first skyscrapers to be gutted by fire or even hit by jets, but they are the first and only such buildings to have been reduced to rubble from it.

@ one time

The Manson Family's "Helter Skelter" conspiracy was intricate, needlessly complicated, expertly executed and motivated by an insanity I'm glad I'll never understand. It was also terrifyingly real. Discounting physical evidence because it points to an illogical or downright absurd series of events and motivations only leaves the crime unsolved. I'm going by physical evidence, and comparing it to the lack thereof.

Whether or not you believe my interpretation of the facts is accurate, don't discount the facts entirely. It is impossible for events to have unfolded as the official reports conclude and I've yet to see any evidence to properly convince me otherwise. That points to conspiracy by my deductions so far, but for all I know the Bush Administration threw an obviously bogus report together just to keep from looking incompetent and toothless in the wake of an even more horrifying attack. Hell, if it turned out that an unknown, larger, more organized terrorist cell rigged the towers with bombs un-noticed while using planes to draw international attention before blowing them and then hit the Pentagon with a goddamned missile there would have been panic in the streets instead of directed bloodlust towards a convenient scapegoat weak enough to pound on. In that case a cover story downplaying the capabilities and resources available to the attackers would be a vaugely justifiable attempt at damage control. (Though it wouldn't explain United 93.)

All of this is possible, though far-fetched. All I want is for the questions I have to be answered in a satisfactory manner. The simple fact that many of the supposed highjackers are still alive is enough to warrant a full re-investigation don't you think?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/1559151.stm

The FBI simply patched together a bunch of names and histories from known or suspected Al-Qaida associates and fed a line of crap to the public with wild stories about mischecked luggage, fireproof paper, and one particularly stupid yarn about a group of suspects at a titty bar waving their ID's around and generally calling as much attention to themselves as possible. Doing that is kind of retarded if you've got plans to commit murder/suicide tomorrow that would be thrown off by a night in the drunk tank for disordly conduct.

10/10/2012 3:34:25 PM

Passerby

No other questions then? Okay, good run. Guess that could have gotten uglier, but I'm pleased to see the greater portion of you chose to look for points to try and refute instead of dropping an insult or screaming "it couldn't happen that way" and sulking off. I am a little miffed that a few of you tried to put words in my mouth, though.

10/20/2012 12:54:42 AM

Zim!

It's not that we don't have any other questions, we just know it's not worth our time.

10/24/2012 6:18:37 AM
1 2