-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
9/11 conspiracy theories, anyone?
- Thread starter MIMIC
- Start date
- Status
Well, as it turns out, I DO know a thing or two about Global Hawk from work. That's about all I'm going to say.Loki said:
More to the point -- the article was written with a comedic hysteria about "Global Hawk technology" being used to take over things...as if it's some chip that can be snuck into a computer that will completely take it over. As it turns out, if you want to make a passenger plane fly by itself, you don't need any special technology, since IT ALREADY EXISTS. It's called an autopilot, and virtually all passenger jets are flown on autopilot between takeoff and landing. As someone else pointed out, you could certainly imagine a scenario where the autopilot was programmed to hit the tower and was sabotaged to prevent override.
With that being said -- I think that the planes really were hijacked and flown into their targets. Doth Togo's comment is interesting, since I've always assumed that particular plane was shot down, though I had no evidence.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
ANYONE who actually believes the Pentagon wasn't hit by American Airlines flight 77 is a FUCKING IDIOT.
If you want to complain about events leading up to the hijackings, fine. If you want to complain about the lack of air defense that allowed the plane to hit, fine. But the FACT is, the plane hit. Many people saw it -- it flew right over a busy highway, even clipping some light poles on the way. And then there's the whole problem that was mentioned earlier -- if Flight 77 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, where's the plane? Where are the passengers?
Oh, and by the way, it was a 757, not a 747 -- much smaller. And it came in at an extremely shallow angle -- it didn't dive headlong into the ground, rather it pretty much plowed straight into the wall of the Pentagon, at about 460 miles per hour.
The 757 is about 155 to 178 feet long with a 124 foot wingspan and can hold 238 or 289 passengers depending on the variant. A 747 on the other hand is 231 feet long with a 211 foot wingspan and can hold up to 524 passengers. In other words, a 757 is one of the smaller airliners in the fleet. There were 64 people on board flight 77.
The major failing of all these conspiracy theories regarding WTC and the Pentagon is that every single one of them underestimates what happens to a shell of aluminum when it collides at hundreds of miles per hour with concrete & steel, and what happens to metals when they are subjected to the intense heat of a jet fuel fire. The Pentagon is basically a fort -- it is highly reinforced concrete & steel. That's why the plane didn't seem to do as much damage. The WTC towers collapsed because the intense heat of the jet fuel fires severely weakened the steel support columns until the weight of the floors above pancaked down onto the floors below, setting of chain reactions that brought each tower down.
Folks, this stuff happened. Enough with the bullshit already.
If you want to complain about events leading up to the hijackings, fine. If you want to complain about the lack of air defense that allowed the plane to hit, fine. But the FACT is, the plane hit. Many people saw it -- it flew right over a busy highway, even clipping some light poles on the way. And then there's the whole problem that was mentioned earlier -- if Flight 77 DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, where's the plane? Where are the passengers?
Oh, and by the way, it was a 757, not a 747 -- much smaller. And it came in at an extremely shallow angle -- it didn't dive headlong into the ground, rather it pretty much plowed straight into the wall of the Pentagon, at about 460 miles per hour.
The 757 is about 155 to 178 feet long with a 124 foot wingspan and can hold 238 or 289 passengers depending on the variant. A 747 on the other hand is 231 feet long with a 211 foot wingspan and can hold up to 524 passengers. In other words, a 757 is one of the smaller airliners in the fleet. There were 64 people on board flight 77.
The major failing of all these conspiracy theories regarding WTC and the Pentagon is that every single one of them underestimates what happens to a shell of aluminum when it collides at hundreds of miles per hour with concrete & steel, and what happens to metals when they are subjected to the intense heat of a jet fuel fire. The Pentagon is basically a fort -- it is highly reinforced concrete & steel. That's why the plane didn't seem to do as much damage. The WTC towers collapsed because the intense heat of the jet fuel fires severely weakened the steel support columns until the weight of the floors above pancaked down onto the floors below, setting of chain reactions that brought each tower down.
Folks, this stuff happened. Enough with the bullshit already.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
Mimic: can you pm the bit torrent link of that video?
-jinx- said:
Cool.
I won't (fruitlessly, I'm sure ) prod you to divulge any of our nat'l security secrets, though. As for Doth Togo's post-- if you follow some of the links in the articles I posted, they also state that the plane over Pennsylvania (I forget the flight #) was shot down, and that this fact made it into both the television and print media, complete with interviews with witnesses etc., before being deep-sixed during the following days. For what it's worth, I can distinctly recall hearing the "shot down" story being reported on numerous stations that first day.
Particle Physicist
between a quark and a baryon
wait.. so people actually believe that a plane filled with passengers disappeared from the sky.. and the pentagon explosion was faked???
or that plane never existed and the people who lost family members on the planes arent real either?
or that plane never existed and the people who lost family members on the planes arent real either?
OK...I was thinking at work that what I was defending WAS pretty doubtful (after taking into consideration the origins of the plane, the correspondence of air traffic controllers, the radar, etc). I'm willing to concede that Flight 77 did actually smash into the Pentagon, despite NUMEROUS abnormalities and anomalies related to the crash.
OK...I'm willing to move on to something more concrete:
What the fuck is that?
OK...I'm willing to move on to something more concrete:
What the fuck is that?
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
MIMIC said:OK...I was thinking at work that what I was defending WAS pretty doubtful (after taking into consideration the origins of the plane, the correspondence of air traffic controllers, the radar, etc). I'm willing to concede that Flight 77 did actually smash into the Pentagon, despite NUMEROUS abnormalities and anomalies related to the crash.
OK...I'm willing to move on to something more concrete:
What the fuck is that?
An artifact resulting from zooming in a great deal on a fairly low-quality video source?
Ninja Scooter
Member
MIMIC said:OK...I was thinking at work that what I was defending WAS pretty doubtful (after taking into consideration the origins of the plane, the correspondence of air traffic controllers, the radar, etc). I'm willing to concede that Flight 77 did actually smash into the Pentagon, despite NUMEROUS abnormalities and anomalies related to the crash.
OK...I'm willing to move on to something more concrete:
What the fuck is that?
an airplane?
Ninja Scooter
Member
MIMIC said:
oh that? Thats the remote transmitter that allows Dick Cheney to control the airplane from his hidden bunker 600 feet under the earth's surface using an arcade joystick, like Raul Julia in the street fighter movie.
Ninja Scooter said:
LOL
But you lose some points for actually having sat through the SF movie in its entirety.
In keeping with the thread's tenor, you should start the "plausible deniability" ball rolling by stating that there were ropes, handcuffs, and various multi-pronged implements involved in forcing you to watch the flick. And just to add more question marks to the conspiracy:
Why does EACH plane (Flight 175 and Flight 11) emit a "spark" just before they slam into their respective towers?
With Flight 175, the spark is visible in MULTIPLE videos (again, I suggest you download the videos to confirm these facts for yourself), and with Flight 11, which doesn't even look like a commercial airliner at ALL (even at the distance at which it was recorded), an explosion occurs within the tower RIGHT BEFORE THE PLANE IMPACTS.
Was something shooting at the towers?
Why does EACH plane (Flight 175 and Flight 11) emit a "spark" just before they slam into their respective towers?
With Flight 175, the spark is visible in MULTIPLE videos (again, I suggest you download the videos to confirm these facts for yourself), and with Flight 11, which doesn't even look like a commercial airliner at ALL (even at the distance at which it was recorded), an explosion occurs within the tower RIGHT BEFORE THE PLANE IMPACTS.
Was something shooting at the towers?
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
MIMIC said:
If it's not a video artifact, it's a trick of the light. No matter what theories people want to concoct, the FACT is that UA Flight 175, a Boeing 767 with 65 people on board crashed into the south tower of the World Trade Center.
Just as it is a FACT that AA Flight 11, another Boeing 767 with 92 people on board crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center.
There's no way these things didn't happen. There is NO valid explanation for the disappearanc e of ANY of the four airliners (or their passengers or crew) involved in the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks other than crashing into the WTC, Pentagon, or a field in Pennsylvania. It's not a cover up or hoax. Don't give the government that much credit.
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
MIMIC said:
Either that, or the sun was reflecting off windows and other features of nearby buildings. Aw, but that's too boring.
Cauliflower of Love
Banned
http://www.policestate21.com/911trailer.html
Disregard the commentary, and the sinister music score.
http://www.policestate21.com/flight175anomalies_video.wvx
Disregard the commentary, and the sinister music score.
http://www.policestate21.com/flight175anomalies_video.wvx
SteveMeister
Hang out with Steve.
MIMIC said:
It's clearly the sun shining at a particular angle on the plane producing a shadow. That WOULD be seen from multiple angles.
Oh my God!!!1!!1! Aliens in cahoots with bin Laden! Alien craft attaches itself to the bottom of airliner and is so powerful that it redirects the plane's trajectory! Alien ship fires lasers at building while diving the aircraft!!!!1!!! The incident at Roswell was a training exercise! It all makes sense now!
This thread is hilarious.
This thread is hilarious.
I've never seen this type of denial before.
It's like, "I see it there, but what happens if I acknowledge it?"
It's like, "I see it there, but what happens if I acknowledge it?"
D
Deleted member 1159
Unconfirmed Member
So you don't expect any kind of spark at all as the plane impacts the building? Holy crap, talk about grasping for straws.
And you should at least provide another image of that particular plane type's underbelly so we can compare, even if someone believes there's something there.
And you should at least provide another image of that particular plane type's underbelly so we can compare, even if someone believes there's something there.
Thaedolus said:
You'd have a point, but the spark appears BEFORE--I repeat, BEFORE--the plane strikes the building.
Download here
I did...in a previous post.
LakeEarth said:
And MIMIC said:
You'd have a point, but the spark appears BEFORE--I repeat, BEFORE--the plane strikes the building.
Download here
Ninja Scooter
Member
"Game over, world trade center towers. Game over indeed."
- Status