View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Scepcop » 02 Apr 2010, 00:00

After researching the whole 9/11 debate for a long time now, and seeing almost every film out there about it, I've come to realize that there are many anomalies, gaping holes and mysteries on both sides that make no sense.

This is the mark of "true skepticism", the ability to apply critical thinking to both sides of an issue, including your own.

Here are some examples from each side - the official story and the inside job hypothesis.

Why the official 9/11 story doesn't make sense:

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, three skyscrapers collapsed completely from fire, the WTC towers and Building 7. Yet no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. There is no scientific scenario that allows a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed from fire. None at all.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, large airliners have crashed into structures and grounds and left no debris. No large airliner has ever crashed and left no debris. Yet on 9/11, it happened to four airliners.
- On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report otherwise).
- So you see, there are just way too many "firsts" on 9/11 to buy. It would require a huge gigantic leap of faith to believe in all of them. It is too implausible for a reasonable person to buy.
- The flight that hit the Pentagon made maneuvers that are virtually impossible on a 757, even for an expert pilot. Yet the hijacker that allegedly flew the airliner was said to be a bad pilot who could not even fly a small plane well. This is impossible to explain away. Flight 77 made a 270 degree turn into a downward spiral at around 500mph, descending at such a rate as to guarantee crashing into the ground. Then it flew 6 feet above the ground at 500mph before hitting the Pentagon, yet it is aerodynamically impossible for an aircraft to move at that speed so close to the ground.
- The five meter hole in the Pentagon does not fit the size of a 757, which left no debris and its wings which supposed had sheared off, also vanished.
- Flight 93 also left no debris and looked like just a hole in the ground. The FBI changed their explanation why several times. First they said the plane was disintegrated by the speed of the impact. Then they said the debris was scattered over miles. Finally they said the debris was all underground. Yet it was never shown to the public.
- Building 7, the third tower to collapse on 9/11, was not even hit by a plane, yet it collapsed at near free fall speed symmetrically into its own footprint. Fire cannot explain this and never has. Neither could the 9/11 Commission. NIST also failed to account for all the features. Only controlled demolition could account for this collapse, scientifically speaking. Even the top demolition expert in Europe, Danny Jowenko, said after viewing the video of the Building 7 collapse that it was absolutely the result of controlled demolition without a doubt.
- NORAD failed to intercept four airliners off course on 9/11, which was impossible according to their standard 24/7 procedures. Therefore, it would appear that they were ordered to stand down. Additionally, there were war games on 9/11 that confused NORAD as to which of the hijackers were real and which were simulated. Dick Cheney is also reportedly said to have taken control of NORAD and ordered a stand down.
- Many eyewitnesses report underground sub-basement explosions in the WTC that occurred at different times from the airline hits. William Rodriguez for instance reported an explosion from below that pushed him UPWARD. This contradicts the official story or leaves it incomplete. Yet the 9/11 commission ignored this testimony cause it didn't fit into what they were assigned to find.
- Hundreds of people heard and felt explosions and bombs going off before the WTC collapse, including members of the mainstream media. This is well documented and featured in CNN interviews. Abundant video footage of these hundreds of witnesses can be viewed online and in 9/11 documentaries, one of which is "9/11 Revisited: Were explosives used?" which you can see on YouTube and Google Video (http://video.google.com).
- Thermite or thermate evidence was found in the WTC dust and debris by scientists, and so was molten metal, which suggests that explosives were used. Scientific papers have been published on this by Dr. Steven Jones and others.
- There is not enough force from the jet fuel fires or the top portions of the WTC to pulverize all the concrete to dust and fine powder like that. Where did all that unexplained energy come from?
- All the ten key features of the WTC and Building 7 collapse fit that of a controlled demolition and NONE of them fit that of the fire induced collapse of the official story. This is outlined at AE911Truth.org and in their flowcharts and superb 2 hour film presentation "9/11 Blueprint for Truth" which you can watch on YouTube or Google Video (http://video.google.com). Therefore, since the official explanation of the collapses are ZERO for 10, it would appear to be conclusively and scientifically ruled out. Nothing could be more concrete and scientific than that.
- None of the hijacked airliner pilots punched in their emergency code to signal a hijacking in progress, as they were trained to do.
- Airline pilots do not usually give up the cockpit controls to hijackers. That is the last thing they would do, as their first priority is the safety of the passengers. They usually will fly hijackers to wherever they want to go, but will not give up the cockpit, especially to hijackers with only knives and box cutters. And besides, cockpit doors are usually not open for people to get into.
- The BBC and CNN reported the collapse of Building 7 about 20 minutes before it happened, indicating foreknowledge or that they were scripted. Of course, they claim that it was just a mix up, but what else do you expect them to say? "Oops you got me?!"
- Before 9/11, there were put options on airline stocks far above normal, around 600 percent some say, which suggests that there was foreknowledge of the event.
- The FBI admitted that there was no hard evidence linking Osama Bin Laden to 9/11 and that's why he is not wanted for 9/11 on their home page. Yet the Bush Administration and the mainstream media treats it as Gospel Truth.

So far, all attempts from defenders of the official story to explain away the mysteries, gaping holes and scientific impossibilities above have failed. They usually consist of cop outs and obfuscation attempts that do not address the heart of the matter. Either that, or they ridicule any questioning and critical thinking about the official story. Objectivity does not seem to be the motivators of the defenders of the official story.

However, if we take the inside job hypothesis that 9/11 was a staged false flag event designed to bring us into war in the Middle East, which explains many of the mysteries above, that side also leaves many unanswered questions and anomalies that make no sense as well. Here are some examples.

Why the inside job hypothesis doesn't make sense:

- Why would the perpetrators of 9/11 leave so many suspicious smoking guns? If I were staging a false flag event, I would be trying to leave as little inconsistencies and anomalies as possible to prevent suspicion and exposure. Wouldn't smart criminals and conspiracists make sure not to leave suspicious contradictory evidence behind?
- Why would the perpetrators destroy Building 7 and collapse it like a controlled demolition even though it had not been hit by a plane? Why leave such an obvious smoking gun in public that would lead to the exposing of the fraud?
- If they needed to destroy incriminating documents or data in Building 7, such as the ENRON scandal case files, why not simply shred the documents or erase them from the computer hard drives? And besides, wouldn't all key data uploaded to some internet server in cyberspace as backup anyway? Why destroy the whole building and leave incriminating evidence for all to see?
- If a 757 didn't crash into the Pentagon, but it was a missile or something else, why would they stage this event knowing full well that there would be a high risk that people outside would see that it was a missle and not a 757, which would ruin the whole lie? It seems like a reckless hoax that isn't even worth the risk.
- In fact, the WTC collapses alone would have been sufficient for carrying out the false flag attack to get us into war. So why stage another highly elaborate incident like the Pentagon Crash when it wouldn't have been necessary and would leave the plot open for further exposure? It would have been a huge unnecessary risk in the plot. (Maybe, perhaps, since the Pentagon is in the shape of the Star of David, it was some form of occult ritual?)
- Why crash Flight 93 into the ground? For what purpose? And why leave no debris which made it look suspicious? If I were staging a crash, I'd at least leave some debris to make it look believable.
- If the hijackers were CIA agents or working with the US government, how would they be able to find hijackers willing to sacrifice their lives for this plot? What would they get out of it? And why would Muslim hijackers want to comply with a US government plot anyway?
- But if the hijackers acted alone, masterminded by Osama Bin Laden, then how could they fly 757's with no experience, get the pilots to give up the cockpits, and have NORAD stand down, as outlined in the section above?
- Or, if there were no real hijackers on those flights (some are reportedly still alive) then who was flying those planes that hit the WTC? Were they remote controlled? If so, what happened to the passengers and crews of those flights? Were they knocked out by tear gas, as Alex Jones hypothesized?
- If Flight 77 didn't hit the Pentagon and Flight 93 didn't make that hole in the ground in Shanksville, PA, then what happened to the passengers and crews of those flights? How would they get rid of them? If they were taken somewhere and shot, how could you be sure that your military ops people would follow through with such a horrific thing? If the passengers are fictitious, wouldn't investigators find out? Either way seems too improbable.
- Larry Silverstein's infamous "pull it" statement regarding Building 7 in a PBS interview makes no sense either way. He says he was referring to the fire fighters. However, before Building 7's collapse, there there no firefighters there as they had been evacuated from it five hours prior. And plus, he said "pull it" not "pull them", and people are referred to as "them" not "it" of course. But if he had been involved in a conspiracy, why leave such an incriminating clue on national television?
- If this was an inside job, the way they carried out this plot seems way too risky and complicated for any intelligent person to expect to succeed. So many hundreds of things could have gone wrong that would have foiled the plot or exposed it. It would have involved hundreds of events that would have had to be timed just right, and on the first try too. And it would have involved many people who would have to be expected to all follow through on the plan to the point where one foul up could ruin the whole thing.

I'm sure there are more anomalies, but you get the idea...

So you see, as with the JFK Assassination, no hypothesis seems to explain all the data (unless you go for the fantastic ones). That's why the 9/11 issue is perhaps the biggest mystery and conspiracy of all.

So what then can we conclude? Well I don't know. Obviously something is not being told here, especially since there's never been a real unbiased independent investigation. And that's why there needs to be one.

Who knows? We can't rule out the possibility that the whole 9/11 event was intended to be disputed and ambiguous for whatever diabolical reason. Perhaps it is a diversion from something else? After all, serious people who stage something do not leave so many gaping holes and incriminating evidence behind. So perhaps it was deliberately set up this way?

We may never know. But I hope we will.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29






Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby ProfWag » 02 Apr 2010, 02:39

I'm so tired of this subject it makes me sick and I don't think I even want to begin to take the time to explain how your thoughts on this subject are invalid.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Eteponge » 02 Apr 2010, 03:46

ProfWag wrote:I'm so tired of this subject it makes me sick and I don't think I even want to begin to take the time to explain how your thoughts on this subject are invalid.

What are the official skeptic responses to each of those points?

I'm not very familiar with 9/11 conspiracy theories, never delved into it, not my area of research.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby ProfWag » 02 Apr 2010, 04:06

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:I'm so tired of this subject it makes me sick and I don't think I even want to begin to take the time to explain how your thoughts on this subject are invalid.

What are the official skeptic responses to each of those points?

I'm not very familiar with 9/11 conspiracy theories, never delved into it, not my area of research.

There's no such thing as an "official skeptical response."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 05:34

- Fire from jet fuels were not hot enough to melt the steel of the WTC, nor weaken it. But even if it were, that does not explain the virtual free fall speed of the WTC collapse and pulverization of the concrete. No fire scenario at all, no matter what the temperature, can scientifically result in such a collapse.


Let's take item 1. Steel was not melted. I have looked all over the place for melted steel and all I can find is a comment here or there that there was tones of melted steel. No photos have ever been presented of melted steel. Could the fires weaken steel. Sure. That's a well known danger with steel. That's why there was fire proofing on the WTC. A fire that's not that hot can severely weaken steel. The virtual free fall speed of the collapse is a well known falsehood. The collapse was slower than free fall. The claims of pulverization of concrete is also bunk. The dust clouds were mainly gypsum. The claim that no fire, no matter the temperature can't collapse a building is so weird to claim. So a million degrees wouldn't weaken the steel? What about 1/2 million degrees? What about 2000 degrees? The fire scenario has been scientifically demonstrated by simulations done by NIST and universities using detailed computer simulations.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 05:49

On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, large airliners have crashed into structures and grounds and left no debris. No large airliner has ever crashed and left no debris. Yet on 9/11, it happened to four airliners.


This claim is so amazingly false that it amazes me. There are thousands of photos taken that day by the news and individuals that showed debris spread over a large area. For those that want to see videos of WWII smaller aircraft punching through steel plates of aircraft carriers watch the following video.



This video was posted here: http://911debunkers.blogspot.com/2009/07/debunking-september-clues-and-no-plane.html
It was titled: 911 'No-Planes' Conspirators Seek To Sabotage Truth

Here are lots of photos of aircraft debris in NYC. http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/aircraftpartsnyc911

The least amount of debris I am aware of from a big plane crash s that of the ValuJet crash in the Everglades. Not only do I want to discredit the claim of no debris, but I also want to discredit the claim that no airliner has ever crashed and left no debris.

From http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/11/plane.crash/6p/index.html
Rescue teams found a scorched area in the Everglades and scattered debris, possibly from the plane.

"The wreckage looked like if you take your garbage and throw it on the ground."

Aerial pictures showed what appeared to be debris strewn over a marshy region of the Everglades. The pictures showed no signs of a fuselage or larger aircraft pieces.


This is very typical of 9/11 claims.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 06:00

On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report otherwise).


This is wrong since we know that the Pentagon black box was recovered and the evidence has been investigated by the public and even posted here by Scepcop. The PA crash box was recovered.

As to the claim of always found - not true. The Air France flight that was shredded by storms did not have its black box recovered. KAL MD-11 crashed and its black box was destroyed in 1999. Also in 1999 a helicopter went down in Harlingen, TX and its FDR was destroyed. In 2004 a plane crashed near Halifax and its FDR was destroyed.

So not only is the claim of no recovery completely false, the claim that they are always recovered in also false.

This is the typical situation with the CTers. The evidence is false and their claims about other incidents is false.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 06:04

So you see, there are just way too many "firsts" on 9/11 to buy. It would require a huge gigantic leap of faith to believe in all of them. It is too implausible for a reasonable person to buy.


So what we find is that the so-called "firsts" are in fact false. It takes a leap of faith to believe anything supplied by the CTers. It becomes an unreasonable effort to do the research to show that time and time and time again the CT claims are wrong, not just in what they say about 9/11, but also about the claims made about other events.

If the CTers would stop posting false information and deceptive statements it would make the task of finding or identifying interesting information a lot easier. The fluff and nonsense makes wading through this quagmire of disinformation difficult.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Eteponge » 02 Apr 2010, 06:05

ProfWag wrote:There's no such thing as an "official skeptical response."

What I mean is, when a 9/11 Truther says X, what do the Skeptic Websites / Magazines / Sources / Etc retort with as Y in response? What are the common skeptical responses given to each of the points? It's not that hard to get what I'm asking.

Nostradamus has at least started posting responses.
"I think Eteponge's Blog is a pretty cool guy. eh debates Skeptics and doesnt afraid of anything."
User avatar
Eteponge
 
Posts: 300
Joined: 06 Jun 2009, 13:26

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 06:12

On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, three skyscrapers collapsed completely from fire, the WTC towers and Building 7. Yet no steel skyscraper has ever collapsed from fire before or after 9/11. There is no scientific scenario that allows a skyscraper to collapse at near free fall speed from fire. None at all.


Rats, I missed another annoying claim. The WTC towers are the only structures ever built as they were. The buildings actually withstood the impacts as they were designed. What failed in the buildings was the steel when heated. All 3 buildings were steel structures that were not protected by concrete. The NIST simulations and simulations done by MIT and other places showed that the fires did cause the failures. The scientific claim is a rubbish claim from those that refuse to admit the research done in many parts of the globe. None of the 3 buildings have working sprinkler systems, an integral part of protecting the buildings.

The near free fall claims is the stuff of junk science. The claims are based on really, really, bad numbers produced by people that can't understand how to measure collapse.

The lessons learned from 9/11 have changed the building codes in NYC and other places. The new high towers in other cities have been built to codes that improve the resistance to fire damage.

All of this is the typical claims of CTers that hide their heads in the sand and refuse to look at what happened.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 02 Apr 2010, 06:17

Basically, the 9/11 truth movement is not based on truth. It's based on a distrust of government. It's based on making claims that are often lacking in substance.

The only thing that should puzzle anyone is the collapse of WTC7. The biggest impacts on that building were from the WTC towers. I forget now if it was debris from 1 or 2. Regardless of which tower did it the building was set on fire across multiple floors. No water flowed into the building, therefore no firefighting. The building was empty. After the first 2 towers were hit the place was evacuated. What makes the story compelling is that one side looked normal. That's the face the truthers love to show. The other side was engulfed in flames and looking bad. Guess what? Never shown on a truther, or rarely shown by truthers. So what do the truthers have to hide if they don't want to show people the truth?
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby ProfWag » 02 Apr 2010, 20:49

Eteponge wrote:
ProfWag wrote:There's no such thing as an "official skeptical response."

What I mean is, when a 9/11 Truther says X, what do the Skeptic Websites / Magazines / Sources / Etc retort with as Y in response? What are the common skeptical responses given to each of the points? It's not that hard to get what I'm asking.

Nostradamus has at least started posting responses.

Actually, in the case of 9/11, the "Truthers" are the ones that are being skeptical of the 9/11 Commission's report. 9/11 conspiracy theories have been debunked and debunked on this site and thousands others so many times that it's very boring and useless to continue to post responses to nonsense. Nothing new has come out for years now and if there was something new, I'd certainly investigate it. If you're curious as to my position on everything that Scepcop has posted here, feel free to browse through my previous posts. Every point he made has already been discussed and, unless something new is discovered, this is a dead issue in my mind.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby NucleicAcid » 07 Apr 2010, 00:16

Nostradamus wrote:Basically, the 9/11 truth movement is not based on truth. It's based on a distrust of government. It's based on making claims that are often lacking in substance.

The only thing that should puzzle anyone is the collapse of WTC7. The biggest impacts on that building were from the WTC towers. I forget now if it was debris from 1 or 2. Regardless of which tower did it the building was set on fire across multiple floors. No water flowed into the building, therefore no firefighting. The building was empty. After the first 2 towers were hit the place was evacuated. What makes the story compelling is that one side looked normal. That's the face the truthers love to show. The other side was engulfed in flames and looking bad. Guess what? Never shown on a truther, or rarely shown by truthers. So what do the truthers have to hide if they don't want to show people the truth?


Thanks for clearing that up for me, Nos. I didn't really have much doubt about the collapse of the first 2 towers (I go to an engineering school, the notion that heat causes steel fatigue is like saying 2 + 2 = 4), but WTC7 was puzzling because it went down as if it were demolished, yet it showed no apparent damage. But if you had flashover due to lack of firefighting, that would definitely weaken all the internals while leaving the exterior mostly untouched.

Also, at one point I thought it was a little odd that there wasn't that much smoke or debris in the PA field crash, but then looking again at how fast that jet was going when it hit the WTC, yeah, that would pretty much metaphorically vaporize the airliner.
Hey, you there. Yes, you. Read more journal articles.

If what I say sounds like the teacher from Charlie Brown (Wah wahh woohh wuh waah), then you should try college. It's fun, and only costs you your soul and several tens of thousands of dollars. :)

“I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven“ - Richard Wiseman

Let's make directional hypotheses, test them repeatedly, replicate experiments, and publish results! Yay, science!
User avatar
NucleicAcid
 
Posts: 169
Joined: 26 Mar 2010, 04:20

Re: Anomalies and Mysteries on both sides of the 9/11 Debate

Postby Nostradamus » 07 Apr 2010, 00:51

What happened with WTC7 is that a number of interior verticals became weakened. One of them, I think #61, fails. That allowed the penthouse containing hundreds of tons of equipment to fall through the building. That left the exterior walls which collapse shortly afterward. The truthers would have the building failure begin when the exterior walls begin to move. But, the building has in fact been collapsing well before that time. Unsupported walls fall fast as the videos show. Another problem is that truthers love to show the south face. It did not look bad. They don't show the huge fires on the north face. Go figure right? Why show what really happened, when it can be conveniently hidden.

The impact in Shanksville, PA is shown close up. Sweeping shots from helicopters show a wide swath of debris. I can't recall the plane part, but a piece was found hundreds of yards away. The plane came down vertically at high speed. But what's incredible is that the black box was located:
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/s_12969.html

So this claim is not true.
On 9/11, for the FIRST time in history, the black boxes in crashed airliners disintegrated and were never found. In airline crashes, the black box is always recovered. Crash investigators will tell you that. They are virtually indestructible and made of a bright orange/pink color, so they are always found. Yet on 9/11, all four black boxes from the four flights were said to have disintegrated (contrary to testimonies that report otherwise).
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08


Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests