Has anyone watched the videos that say the the 9/11 attack was a conspiracy?

I went to You Tube to watch the video of President Bush at the school in Florida (I think it was Florida) when he was told by an aide of the trade center events in 2001.
There were a series of videos with nationally televised scientist and others, that gave viable reasons why the events of 9/11 are not the way we all may think they were.

Has anyone watched any of those videos, and interviews of those persons, by national TV anshors?

If so, I'd like to discuss a few points in the theories.
LVL 25
Who is Participating?
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndConnect With a Mentor Commented:
I'll have to look for it now, there's a lot to choose from. People who think that America deliberately fired a missile at the pentagon to make the terrorists look bad, the towers came down because of a controlled demolition etc. Probably some that think it was all a hoax like the moon landings, although I remember those and they were definitely real as it would have cost too much to do it at Hollywood, the real thing was easier.

Was this it?

I can believe that people will fudge films after the event and extract wonky evidence from them to get their 15 minute of fame, but I can't believe that they mysteriously 'disappeared' all the passengers who were supposed to be on those planes just to cover up a possible mistake by someone in a military plane.

'the plane wouldn't fit through that hole' - it wasn't a completely intact plane that went through the hole, it was a plane flying at several hundred miles an hour crashing into a concrete and steel building. Bits of the plane went through and some of it twisted, bent and exploded.
Showing a clear picture of a military plane, and a shadow of one that is crashing are not evidence, nor is asking someone if they saw any windows in a pane that just crashed into a building. I can't remember the last time I noticed windows in a plane, but if I had been in New York that day I would remember the screams, the smoke and general fear that there were still more planes up there. Remembering not seeing windows on a plane that was in sight for about 2 seconds is not something anybody could be certain of afterwards.
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
I haven't watched the videos. I don't have much time for conspiracy theories that make the suggestion that the cover up was more complicated than the events. To cover up something on that scale would need the involvement of hundreds of people and with that many people involved there would always be slip ups. Not necessarily deliberate, just the nature of trying to organise that many people to do something. A simple timing issue, somebody not quite understanding the instructions, or the more likely chance event that hadn't been planned for. Even getting five people to meet at a restaurant at the same time and agree on how much of the bill they share after they have finished is almost impossible, so hundreds of people involved with something that is an internationally known event could not be organised to make things different.
I wonder why anybody thinks it is a good idea to make up stories about something where so many people died in terrifying ways.
nickg5Author Commented:
I understand your feelings.

A video shows the underside of one of the aircraft that struck one of the towers. Taken from the videos, frame by frame. It was not consistent with a commercial airliner.

A scientist testified that no commercial airliner could have penetrated completely through the 2nd tower. The videos clearly show it went all the way through to the opposite side.

Free Tool: IP Lookup

Get more info about an IP address or domain name, such as organization, abuse contacts and geolocation.

One of a set of tools we are providing to everyone as a way of saying thank you for being a part of the community.

Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:

This one tries to 'prove' that by some magic an explosion happened at exactly the point that the plane was going to be just a fraction of a second before it hit the building. Whilst someone could probably steer that plane with such pinpoint accuracy as to hit the window where the bomb was about to go off, it seems a very strange thing to suggest.
My suggestion is that they look very hard at that camera, wave a few bright lights in front of it and see if there is any sort of persistance of vision when something moves from bright light into shadow. Perhaps the camera has some anti-shake circuitry, that would have to distort the way a moving image appears or it wouldn't be able to work. I'm far from expert in these things, but I would think that a shadow moving quickly over a very short apparent distance in bright sunlight could easily be distorted over the space of only two or three frames, enough to show what the presenter of that video is trying to demonstrate. Similar with the flash of his proposed bomb, one frame either side of when it actually occurred could be put down to image stabilising circuitry. If it can keep faces in focus while the camera is hand held and the photographer is moving then it must be able to distort what image it actually sees so quite a great extent.

The easier explanation is that a plane was flown into the building, spewed hot, burning, exploding fuel around while it was still breaking up and smashing parts of the building.
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
This one goes on about the flash preceding the collision and is taken from the same piece of film as the previous one.

He suggests looking at the width of the flash compared to the width of the fuselage of the plane.
If you take your eyes away from the impact and look at the edges of the buildings you will see that they are so blurry that at around 0:50 when he zooms into the already distorted picture you can't even see the separation between the two towers. I wouldn't expect any accurate measuring of plane widths or flashes of light when you can't even see the gap between two huge buildings.

It is also possible that the piece of film is suffering from an effect that I have forgotten the name of but is easily demonstrated. Hold your hand between you and the computer screen to get a light behind. Slowly move your finger and thumb together, you will see them touch while they are still about about 1 millimeter apart. The light has been bent as it travels through the narrow gap between finger and thumb. On a much larger scale and at such a distance as the camera was from those buildings it is not accurate at all to begin taking measurements.
nickg5Author Commented:
I think El Al airlines in Isreal could have suspected something, possibly before the events. They are considered the airline with the best security in the world.

The two planes that left N.Y. for the west coast, at about the same departure time, had passengers who's last names matched. Not to mention nationality.

Why would the brother, etc. of someone flying to the same destination, fly on a different airline?
I'd have to research if both planes were full, with no empty seats.

Someone looking at the two passenger lists for those two flights, could have noticed the common last names, and become curious if there was a connection between them, being on different planes, to the same destination.

I wish all flights and passenger lists could be sorted, or searched, by a fast computer program, to reveal any curiosities like same names, same destinations, different planes, same departure times. Anything unusual looking, an airline agent boards the plane, and questions or detains the persons, the computer thinks could be connected in some way.

As far as the conspiracy, you can not explain away the people, who have been named as being on the 4 aircraft.

If the planes that hit the trade centers were empty military planes flown by automatic pilots, you lose the evidence of any passengers in the fire and debri of the disaster and the collapse of the buildings.

That still leaves the plane in Pa. and the one that hit the Pentagon.

You cannot compare Israel to the USA.  The country with 1 international airport 7mil people and 310mil people with a dozen airports in each state.  Country where army is mandatory to everyone and everyone can smell the terror from a mile away.  Country where you will get beat up even before you think to get off you sear in the airplane.  This is how they leave to prepare to terrorism every second.  So this is completely off the topic but just apples and oranges to me..
Also, keep in mind that a lot of scientists are freaking crazy.  They have lots of theories and zero data to back them up.

We all witnessed life size proof of what will happen if you fly a fully loaded commercial size Airliner into the upper floors of the World Trade Towers.

We saw what actually happened, you can do all the calculations you want, but it happened and we all unfortunately had to witness it over and over.

Do you really doubt what you saw on Tape?

Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
>The two planes that left N.Y. for the west coast, at about the same departure time, had passengers who's last names matched. Not to mention nationality.

That is a question that may be asked since those events, but before that aircraft travel was a way of getting around and not a potential weapon. There would have been no need to ask that question, and if they did begin to ask it would be easy enough to send two people who weren't related. They do have a lot of checks, and after those attacks there aren't many people that would sit in a plane and not try to tear the limbs off anyone who tried that again.

If we do suppose that those were empty military planes an that it wasn't an act of terrorism but something that was planned in such detail that a plane had to hit a tower full of people at the exact same moment as a bomb went off inside the building, combined with terrified news reports all around the world and the vast amount of actors to pretend to be interviewed (and who still haven't let on even 10 years later) it doesn't even make a good movie story. What do these crazy people who appear in those things on Youtube think was actually happening?

We know what happened, if there is any doubt about what appears in some shakey bits of film or in some people's distant memories then it is those that should be investigated, not the circumstances.

The suggestion that the loss of all those people can be written off as part of a conspiracy worries me. The correct response is to show some respect and try hard to make sure nothing like that happens again.

There was a court case recently in Europe where a teacher was accused of denying the holocaust. I never knew it was an offence, but if it is then perhaps those people on in the youtube clips can be charged with denying 9/11.
Bravo Robin!!!
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
hmm, I think I came on a bit strong there. I'm not usually like that.Something must have touched a nerve somewhere.

>I'd like to discuss a few points in the theories.
Sorry Nick, I sort of ran away with myself.
What were the points you wanted to discuss?
nickg5Author Commented:
This was one video I watched carefully.
25 minutes.

Numerous professionals.

They were concentrating on molten steel at the Trade Centers, and then the lack of airplane parts at the Pentagon.


Yes, Isreal is a small place with little air traffic.
It's their level of security that needs to be adopted at all airports worldwide.
Tiras25Connect With a Mentor Commented:
Steel collapses at under 800F.  That's all you need to know.
Largely debunked.  Nothing credible ever came from those ideas and accusations.  Many of those videos date back to the first few months to a couple of years after 9/11.

The odds that a conspiracy will be unmasked, increases with the number of people involved in that conspiracy.

Take a lesson from Watergate.  Very few core conspirators, no mass death, no major wars as a result, yet in less than a year one person could not bear the moral guilt of his actions and spilled his guts.
If demolitions were used in either Tower or in #7, they had to be placed there by demolition experts.  Those experts do not live in a vacuum and MUST be aware that their actions murdered thousands of people.  Why then, hasn't even ONE of them come forward and admitted "Yeah, I helped put the charges there.  My crew and I didn't know what they were for, but we had this contract and just did our job.  Now I see what damage our actions have done and I have to fess up."

As for Israel (check spell).  You cannot just 'adopt' their security.  Just as orange doesn't taste as apple.  
nickg5Author Commented:
Our TSA had applauded El Al's "methods" (they have a unique way of catching liars, etc.)

There was an article in the news yesterday, about how the pilots that went to shoot down flight 93, if needed, had no weapons. They had to leave immediately to get to the plane in time. Both pilots had a pre-arranged plan. One would dive into the cockpit and the other the tail section. They had no weapons to shoot the aircraft down, so they were on a suicide mission of sorts. The passengers of that flight, actually, may have saved the lives of those two pilots as well.
They were going to try to eject at impact but they discussed how the timing was going to be very difficult.

What are your thoughts on the content of the above video, if you have time to watch all of it, as it deals with the Pentagon only, not the Towers?
(16 foot wide hole, planes can not fly that fast 10 feet off the ground, dozens of cameras but only one video released by the FBI, and much more)

I'll open some new questions later next week.
Topic #1 will be Jack Ruby, if you are young enough to know the name.
Topic #2 will be The Moon
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
I've watched 13 minutes of that so far, with admittedly a very sceptical attitude. Back to planes not fitting through holes at the moment and a brief mention that a certain gentleman doesn't believe it is possible for a complete amateur to have flown a plane into the Pentagon. I've seen the Pentagon from a hotel across the road and it is big. I've also flown flight simulator programs and found it very easy to get a plane to skim along just above the ground but very hard to get the speed slow enough for landing. So I don't believe that flying low and in one direction would be hard at all if you don't care much where it lands or if you die at the end of it. It must be as easy to fly the plane into a wall as it is to drive your car there at top speed. What would make it hard to imagine is the certain death and this is probably why the older gentleman couldn't imagine it being possible. Showing wing patterns in the towers which were made of glass is not much of a comparison to the Pentagon which is probably built of very thick reinforced concrete. An aircraft wing might not even scratch it, but the wing itself all full of high explosive fuel would definitely suffer some damage and perhaps almost disappear. Smashing a hot spinning engine into the same cold, solid, reinforced wall would probably create a lot of small parts - there was only hearsay evidence given in the video and people who 'didn't believe it was possible'. If they want to prove it properly they should try to reproduce the event under controlled conditions. Guessing and stating that it used to be his job to investigate things like this only throws his entire career into doubt instead of strengthening his case for a conspiracy here.
If you had a wall of reinforced concrete, say 4 feet thick and flew an aircraft into it that managed to pierce the wall, it is likely that there would be a single point of fracture surrounded by a widening hole as the edges broke in and the width of the hole increased during the impact. With the plane travelling fast it would distort and be squeezed through the hole like toothpaste out of a tube. I can't see why any expert in the field would think that you would get a neat aeroplane shaped hole in the wall. I dispute these people's qualifications.
The steel couldn't have melted because it wasn't hot enough? The steel had melted therefore it was hot enough. I doubt that anyone bothered to take a temperature reading while it was all burning and collapsing, they were too busy trying to get out or watching the sky to see if there were any more planes coming. How can he make an assumption that it wouldn't have been that temperature and then talk about the molten steel that must have been at the higher temperature? I would expect to find impurities in the steel after it has been further contaminated by having a building the size of a small town fall on it, been eventually dug out by people with all kinds of cutting equipment and probably thrown to one side exposed to the weather because they were more concerned with finding survivors than melted lumps of metal. Aircraft fuel contains sulphur, and another metal they mentioned, calcium?, is present in bones. If it was hot enough to melt the metal then probably a few bodies got burned as well.
Another spoke about the common way that buildings are carefully demolished by a ring of charges and because some people said they had heard loud explosions all around them and felt the building shaking decided that it must have been a controlled demolition. That isn't really enough evidence is it?
"I heard a bang", "ooh yes I heard a bang as well so it must be exactly the same cause"
It reminds me of the old story about the three blind men describing the elephant, one touched it's leg and decided an elephant is like a tree, one touched the trunk and said and elephant is like a snake and the other touched its ear and said an elephant was huge and leathery like a bat.
These are a collection of people who may be good in their own field, but are giving their opinions based only within their specialist knowledge. If they were asked if that's the way they thought it did happen I hope they would give a different answer.

I saw one video suggesting it wasn't terrorists at all. I suppose it depends on your definition, but if someone in the government decided to murder 30,000 people it is an act of terrorism, I don't care who's side they are on. Yes 30,000,  nobody knew how many would escape. If bringing down those buildings was the plan then that's how many people they were trying to kill. I heard that the plan was to hijack the planes and crash them into the towers. The expected deaths would have been the plane passengers plus the occupants of a couple of floors of a building, they couldn't have predicted the fires. There were pictures of people celebrating in the streets in whatever country claimed credit for the attacks when they heard that not only had the attack been a success, but the two tall towers had collapsed completely - much more than they hoped for.
nickg5Author Commented:
The one thing about that video is the lack of evidence that a plane even hit the Pentagon. No engine parts, no nothing. One guy mentioned, the almost impossible melting, of an airline engine.

Well you avoided the question of whether you are old enough to know the name Jack Ruby, without looking him up. (ha ha) I am old enough.

If you want one of the rope chain saws, Northern Tool has them on closeout price of $20.99. About 30% off, as they will only sell the 48" going forward.
Handy item.
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
I spent so long typing that I missed your post.
I did part of the video above.

>only one video released by the FBI

I was surprised that I could see it from the hotel I was in. Not sure if taking pictures was allowed. Is it a good idea to release pictures of your very important highly secure building? Especially those that show the thickness of the walls and possibly some other potential vulnerabilities?
Rumour says that the inside of the Pentagon is a maze and that nobody knows their way around it, just the bits that they work in, and this is all part of the security plan. I can't see why releasing a set of video from all different angles would be a good idea.
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
I'll have to look him up, I do remember the moon though.

Not sure if I can qualify for that saw deal as I am in the UK, but thanks that looks a really good price.
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
thermate?  a better sounding explanation and some information on the 'expert witness'

hdhondtConnect With a Mentor Commented:
There are so many claims about 9/11 - almost as many as about the moon landing hoax. The conspiracy theorists will come up with any minor point that has not been explained to "prove" that it was a conspiracy (but not by Al Qaeda). If you single out the Pentagon, does that mean that Al Qaeda and others CIA, Israel, you name it) just happened to pick the same date and the same method? Or were the all in cahoots?

This link has a good rebuttal of the major conspiracy points:

Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
>Or were the all in cahoots?

eeek! don't suggest that to them or we'll have another decade of fairy stories.

I do agree with questioning and testing of reporrted events, but not the attempts at bending the truth with pretend scientific arguements and untested claims.
nickg5Author Commented:
I did not know you were in UK.

Then current (or former) employees of government agencies, mentioned in that video that:

The Pentagon was the world's most secure building with multiple radar systems and undergound missles read to launch.

"No civilian aircraft should have gotten anywhere close to that building, impossible."
But it did.
How? Why?
(Since the trade center planes had already struck and the alert was out on a military and government level, to guard the entirety of Washington.
Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
>How? Why?
Guessing, but not many people would like to have to make the choice of shooting down a plane full of civillians to protect a strongly reinforced military building. It's probably best the way it did turn out, at least all the people had a little more chance.
With 'experts' saying a plane can't fly that close to the ground even after the event, they mighht have been advised that the building was safe.
Nick, you're falling back to the conspiracist's way of thinking: find any minor fact that has not been conclusively explained away, and bingo, we've proven a conspiracy.

In this case it's the fact that "no plane should have got close to the building". Who made that comment, and what evidence is it based on? And if it is indeed correct, do you really expect the military to give you all the reasons why the plane was not shot down?  Would you give orders to shoot it out of the sky?
nickg5Author Commented:
watch this video when you have time.
from above: 36517280

I watched a one hour program last night about 9/11.
The military and the government watched the Pentagon plane.
Boston to Washington is a short trip, 47 minutes.
The plane was in the hour close an hour, or longer.
It went in circles waiting on the right timing, angle, etc.
The plane was being tracked. I did not record the 9/11 special last night, from
8-9pm, and I would not have the knowledge how to post the video here.

So, other than the U.S. agency employess in that video above that explain why the Pentagon is off limits within a 15 mile radius, I can not show the program that was viewed last night.

That video above also makes reference to the size hole in the Pentagon as compared to the wing span of a plane.
There were no visible debri to even show a plane crashed there.

There are two ways to explain it and it can not be both ways.
1. The was no debri of plane parts after the crash, because the entire plane went into the buiding and was burned or vaporized. If it went into the building, then why was the hole not wide enough to accomodate the wings? If you look at the ABC-NBC-CBS-FOX videos of the planes that entered the Trade Centers you see the wings entered the buildings, and you can see the place where they entered.
2. Ok, if you want to go the other way, and say the small hole in the Pentagon was because when the plane hit the building the wings separated from the plane. Therefore there should be pieces of airplane outside the building.

So, if it is believed the entire plane went into the building to explain why there are no plane parts left outside, then must justify how a 60-70 foot wing span plane went in the small hole.

If you believe the plane did go into the small hole, then people have to explain why no wing parts, engine parts, were on the ground.

Thibault St john Cholmondeley-ffeatherstonehaugh the 2ndCommented:
The piece of film I saw was taken after the crash (obviously) and showed a lot of people and vehicles. They didn't say how long since the crash, but probably some of the debris had been cleared up. Especially any aircraft parts as the accident investigators like to collect these.
I don't think an aircraft wing would damage concrete, it is only a hollow piece of aluminium.

nickg5Author Commented:
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.