| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:9/11/Archive1
Contents
- 1 It was
- 2 Argh!!
- 3 Cultural left and 9/11?
- 4 Failure to mention unusual anomalies, unexplained events and related phenomena which are a matter of public record....
- 5 Title
- 6 9 11 in the Muslim calendar
- 7 Asbestos and Andrew Schafly
- 8 EvC forums
- 9 Voidghost
- 10 nanothermite
- 11 "Designed to survive a plane impact" theory
- 12 Physics
- 13 Individual jets of air rushing through windows and flying fabric
- 14 9/11 Report Thing
- 15 Military planes theories
- 16 Plane evaporated?
- 17 Take a look at this
- 18 This website has actual interviews with Pentagon witnesses and proves the witnesses describe a flight path that is not consistent with the official story.
- 19 9/11's plane phases through building
- 20 The "need" to recover the bodies of the dead?
- 21 Early warning radar for the Pentagon
It was[edit]
Actually it was a conspiracy. Just not "Teh guvment did it" one. User talk:0.0.0.0 04:46 24 September 2007
- Nice sig, Crack. Now I have to range block every IP in existence. humanbe in 16:36, 24 September 2007 (EDT)
Those palastinians you mentioned were real dicks, cheering for the death of innocent people. — Unsigned, by: 68.197.172.92 / talk / contribs
It's obvious the Great Khan and the Mongols were behind 9/11 the planes were holograms for giant exploding arrows.Why will you not let me explain the truth!? — Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs
- Wait a second here. Why AREN'T you explaining this thrilling connection?!

01:11, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Haven't read the article but I presume it's about commemorating the death of Dylan Thomas (9 November1953). Truly worth mention. This message brought to you by:
respondand honey 01:20, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- F'ing drunk, there was no "milk" under his wood. ħuman
02:58, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
- Their watchin us as we speak they have flying horse archers. — Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs
- Yup! ħuman
07:06, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
- Yup! ħuman
- Their watchin us as we speak they have flying horse archers. — Unsigned, by: 96.42.214.127 / talk / contribs
- F'ing drunk, there was no "milk" under his wood. ħuman
- Haven't read the article but I presume it's about commemorating the death of Dylan Thomas (9 November1953). Truly worth mention. This message brought to you by:
Dirty libral comi scum did it --Asfly (I'm not realy)
I bet that slash in 9/11 creates several technical problems. JXZ would like you to have a delightful chat! 00:38, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Argh!![edit]
Ok, I need somebody's help here. It's my own fault, I know, but I've just watched In Plane Sight and damn me if I don't agree with them. Simple question - where's the wreckage at the Pentagon and at the crash site in the field? Looking at footage of the Pentagon before the section collapsed, there's just no way that a big huge plane caused that damage - the area is too small. And where's the wreckage? Not a wheel, not an engine, not a tail section? Nothing. Ditto the crash site - just a long scar in the ground? Planes don't vaporize on impact. Not to mention 2 planes burn hot enough to bring down the towers, while the pentagon smoulders a bit, leaving PCs and a wooden table untouched next to the impact site?
Somebody clever needs to point me in the direction of something that clearly shows how two planes can crash and vanish. And how can the tail section not damage the upper part of the pentagon, and yet mysteriously vanish? Something's cooky here. --PsyGremlinTala! 17:03, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- From what I remember, the plane didn't vaporise, it liquefied (effectively). There was debris all over the ground outside the pentagon - there's a famous refutation in some magazine or another of all the truther myths from a few years ago that includes pictures of the stuff. The wings sheared off, but the body of the plane basically punched a hole into the building, and the landing gear another hole below that. With the towers, unlike the pentagon, fire that traveled upwards would still have been in the building, causing a larger volume of burning to weaken the tower. And as for the 'long scar in the ground', look up 'erebus crash' in google images for a bit of a comparason (it's a crash on a snow-covered mountatin in Antarctica if you don't know). I get the impression that plane crashes don't look all that like what people envision. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:30, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was Popular Mechanics, now I come to look. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok Mount Erebus crash pics. Flight 93 crash pics. I can't believe a plane flying into the side of a mountain leaves more wreckage than a plane crashing in a field. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Erebus is on a white background, so you can see it better. And the 93 debris went quite a way. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 20:05, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Ok Mount Erebus crash pics. Flight 93 crash pics. I can't believe a plane flying into the side of a mountain leaves more wreckage than a plane crashing in a field. --PsyGremlinParla! 19:59, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- It was Popular Mechanics, now I come to look. Peter Monomorium antarcticum 19:35, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- There's a somewhat simpler answer -- most of the Pentagon wreckage was inside the crash site. There was plenty on the lawn, but the plane crashed above ground level directly into the building, so that's where the bulk of the debris wound up. EVDebs (talk) 23:23, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
- Google Images, my friend. Engine components, a landing gear, body parts, and other fragments of the plane were found at the site. Did you expect the No Planers to leave in all the pictures of the crash site? Even other troofers think the No Planers are cranks, or plants covering up the conspiracy by our true overlords! Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
In different parts of the page, the death toll is 'established at 2996' and 'over 3000' - clarify? 31.220.243.61 (talk) 20:07, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Cultural left and 9/11?[edit]
Despite seeing 2 or 3 small vlogs on the subject, I'm having severe trouble dragging up sources about people blaming the cultural left for 9/11 for its filthy, evil decadent concepts like "Not being in an ass-backwards theocracy". I'd be tempted to have a section on it, but I don't think "the cultural left and its responsibility for 9/11 is a recommended result on Google" constitutes an argument.
- I don't think you'll see much of that written in the last five years or so. Trutherism seems to be largely a province of the batshit wing of the Right these days, particularly Ron Paul's base. There are a few lefties who are still on the bandwagon (Charlie Sheen comes to mind) but they're either misguided or suffering from abject bugfuckery. EVDebs (talk) 03:32, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
[edit]
The article is not impartial and fails to rebut the arguments of those who question the official story or mention unusual anomalies, unexplained events and related phenomena which are a matter of public record, including:
The most glaring inconsistency with the official story; building 7, one of the major buildings destroyed that day, and not even mentioned in this article, it fell hours after the towers, falling into its own footprint perfectly, just like a demolition job, and from minimal damage.
The fact that all jet fighters in america just happened to be on a training exercises, for that very scenario that very day.
the fact that explosions were heard in the basement by fire fighters, on public record, and that blast damage was witnessed at ground floor level that same day.
The fact that many of the pilots apparently involved in 911 are alive and well, (public record, look it up, BBC) The fact that all though none of the black boxes from the plains could be located, a passport and other documents were conveniently found relatively unharmed.
The fact that nano thermite was found in dust samples by independent researchers.
The fact that the evidence was not properly examined by the authorities.
If this site were truly rational, it would consider all of the possibilities, and make a rational and reasoned argument. This article displays an emotive, irrational, inability to examine all of the facts, or consider scenarios other than the official version, based on a fear, I suspect, of acknowledging that such corruption could exist within your own country, at such high levels. Of course there is no rational reason not to at least consider this very real possibility. In fact it would be rational to examine the circumstances of all relevant events to make sure that corruption does not flourish unexamined.
This is irrational, you guys can have a mutual back slapping session if you like, personally I can't be sure what happened one way or the other, but, before you get all impressed with yourselves and your supposed rationality, perhaps you'd like to examine the evidence and at least attempt to explain the anomalies mentioned above, or rebut the arguments of those who question the official version, some of whom lost family in the tragic events of that day.
It is now accepted that Iraq did not have WMD and was not connected to Al queda, no such organisation existed, the muslims who fought the "yer fer us or agin coalition of the willing against the axis of evil" were actually backed and organised by saudi salafists.
It follows that if these official stories have been shown to be untrue, then other official interpretations may also be untrue, and should at least be examined.
Otherwise, many of the commentators here are pretty much full of it, and themselves obviously, claiming to be something they are not, and the sites claims to rationality are discredited. Enjoy your irrational delusion, research bias and logical fallacy.
- Can you format that better please? Also a fee citations from truly unbiased sources would be nice, and signing up to the site would be nice as well. I will say that it's good you took to the talk page, as opposed to just changing the article. If you talk softly we will listen. The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:10, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- And I just thought you might be better off creating an essay page as well.The Invisible ManI spoke to Him 11:27, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- All those points are addressed here. Prodigal (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it was supposed to be RATIONALwiki! DRINK!!! Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- "But I thought this was supposed to be RATIONALWiki!" Drink! Prodigal (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it was supposed to be RATIONALwiki! DRINK!!! Polite Timesplitter Let's move on to some other area of sodomy! 11:34, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
- All those points are addressed here. Prodigal (talk) 11:31, 5 April 2013 (UTC)
Title[edit]
I understand that this article's title is 9/11 (obviously), but I believe a better title would be September 11th attacks. I think that we should all have a formal vote to see what the title should be. All reliable sites like Wikipedia have their title as September 11th attacks and even thought we should have some snark on here, it seems we should have a more sophisticated title. Votes can go below. Leoesb1032 (talk) 03:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Yes:
- The first bolded text in the article is *September 11, 2001, not 9/11. I think snark and humor is awesome, but as I explianed, it would reflect better on this site to have a better title. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- No:
- "9/11" has entered the vernacular— also, this is not Wikipedia. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 03:36, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- What he said. PowderSmokeAndLeather: Say something once, why say it again?.
03:45, 31 July 2013 (UTC) - Secret Squirrel (talk) 13:35, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
- Goat:
- How delightful; a goat option from a person who has only just signed up to the wiki - we assimilate well here. Tielec01 (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
- Comment- Although I just joined this wiki but I had been on Wikipedia for a while now and I switched because I wanted to have a chance on a more fun wiki. The point is that I know that little techy things and Wiki markups. So in reality I have about 5 month experience overall. Leoesb1032 (talk) 12:44, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
9 11 in the Muslim calendar[edit]
As radical Muslims (and all attackers were certainly that) usually don't care and sometimes don't even know the Christian date of a given event, it may be worthwhile to find out the date of 9/11 in the Muslim calendar and whether it was an anniversary of something in the Muslim calendar. Avengerofthe BoN (talk) 18:01, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Asbestos and Andrew Schafly[edit]
Schafly isn't the one who thought up the idea that asbestos would have prevented 9/11. He parroted what he heard from the likes of Steve "second-hand smoke did nothing wrong" Milloy. I'm going to work Milloy's role in the idea into the article, but I don't know what to do with the Schafly mention so I'll leave it there for now. —ShapeshiftingLizard ~▲~ hear me roar ~▲~ 05:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
- But the towers had asbestos, and it led to 9/11 survivors suffering asbestos-related illnesses (along with illnesses from other building materials). http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/09/14-years-later-heres-what-we-know-about-911-and-cancer/403888/ Frederick♠♣♥♦ 19:22, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
EvC forums[edit]
They no like the section on Operation Northwoods. Any valid criticism? FᴜᴢᴢʏCᴀᴛPᴏᴛᴀᴛᴏ, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 02:20, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Voidghost[edit]
Is this voidghost allusion to The Elder Scrolls? Voidghost (talk) 08:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
nanothermite[edit]
The statement:
> This criticism has been "answered" by claiming that the unreacted "nanothermite" is indeed merely a trace residue. But this would require attaching some 100 metric tons[21] of thermite to the WTC buildings' structure
The footnote does not mention nanothermite at all, and the link provided only says "Nano-thermite has been talked about but its uses fall far short of cutting these massive columns. It's in its research stage." The counter-argument for nanothermite could be described better, withe better sources. Lots of people claim nanothermite was used, at http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/646-faq-8-what-is-nanothermite-could-it-have-been-used-to-demolish-the-wtc-skyscrapers.html— Unsigned, by: 192.173.144.3 / talk / contribs
- Ok, so they found nanothermite at Manhattan near the tower site. What does that prove? Pbfreespace3 (talk) 02:09, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
"Designed to survive a plane impact" theory[edit]
There is a commonly-cited "fact" that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact of a Boeing 707, and therefore should not have been destroyed by a 747. There are many good sources debunking this, such as: http://www.911myths.com/drg_nist_review_1_1.pdf . If anyone better at writing than me could add this section, It would be very useful. — Unsigned, by: Raditex / talk / contribs
- I thought we already covered this? If not, it's time we do so! Thanks, Raditex. Feel free to edit the article yourself, btw. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 09:57, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Physics[edit]
One word: Nincompoops. You people are inept nincompoops - or just plain shills. Here's another word: Physics. — Unsigned, by: 84.211.246.11 / talk / contribs
- Here's two words: [citation needed] Mʀ. Wʜɪsᴋᴇʀs, Esϙᴜɪʀᴇ (talk/stalk) 16:27, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- Here's three: Where's my paycheck? If we are shilling show us the voided checks since I am not getting them and I need to hire a handyman. :-) -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 16:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
One word: Jet fuel can't melt steel beams.Petey Plane (talk) 18:37, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Since 9/11, to bring down a building, the accepted method is to fly an aircraft into it.
What about [1]? 82.44.143.26 (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2016 (UTC)
Individual jets of air rushing through windows and flying fabric[edit]
Without diving into sloppy explanations and rebuttals in the article, there are some details left unexplained, which I consider important. For example, there are a few zoomed-in videos where you can clearly see a jet of air and smoke rushing through the window, taking a black rag-like object with it. Such as this one: http://www.citylab.com/politics/2015/09/14-years-later-heres-what-we-know-about-911-and-cancer/403888/
This is very similar to geotextile fabric used by demolition crews to cover the explosive charges (i.e. wrap it around a column or cover a wall) in order to contain the flying explosive debris and shrapnel. If you've seen any building demolition process, you would also see flying black rags carried by the expanding gases.
I'd rather not say what I think about the "exploding water tanks and soda-cans because of jet fuel heat" theory mentioned in the article, but truth be told, individual jets of smoke below the burning zone, before the towers begin to collapse, are not explained anywhere in the article, so I think the article deserves an update. Please take everything in account, and especially the fact that this happened two stories below fire and smoke. Theinsider (talk) 13:24, 31 August 2016 (UTC)
9/11 Report Thing[edit]
What do you think?
http://www.europhysicsnews.org/articles/epn/pdf/2016/04/epn2016474p21.pdf— Unsigned, by: The Unwritten / talk / contribs
- Took one glance at the cover and saw that noted pseudoscientist Steven Jones
is a lead author (the speciality of whom is fusion and solar energy, not structural physics) alongside two old engineers and a guy with a degree in public policy who writes truther books.
- Regarding the site "europhysicsnews.org", they allow anyone to self-publish material via their site. They have a guide for doing so, which states;
Reviewing procedure
All articles are read by members of the Editorial Board
who may recommend clarifications, changes, etc.
Comments are occasionally sought elsewhere. Papers will
be sub-edited for obvious problems of language (UK English)
but we do not rewrite.
- This means that the material published via them is not peer-reviewed in any meaningful way whatsoever. Europhysics News is not listed among the recognized journals of the European Physical Society, for one. Even Europhysics News also state clearly that, quote: "Most contributors to Europhysics News are volunteers...". That's, most contributors to the magazine. As in; the people who provide the content, like for the "report thingy" you just linked.
- And as sciencey as this might look when accessed via Google Scholar, the fact is that Europhysics News publishes all sorts of random stuff via the exact same format. Examples include overt opinion pieces and even letters to the editor. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 17:45, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
- You wrote, "Europhysics News is not listed among the recognized journals of the European Physical Society, for one," as if to suggest that the EPS doesn't endorse what they publish. But I guess you missed that "Europhysics News is the magazine of the European physics community. It is owned by the European Physical Society and produced in cooperation with EDP Sciences." [emph. added] Klortho (talk) 06:24, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- It doesn't show up in the "recognized journals" because it's not a primary-research journal; it is a magazine. That's why they publish "all sorts of random stuff"; but that does not mean that the content hasn't been reviewed and vetted for scientific merit. The editorial board most certainly does review content. On the other hand, they explicitly state that the content they select is intended to provide a "balanced overview of the scientific and organizational aspects of physics and related disciplines".
- In other words, they are open to ideas that perhaps challenge the mainstream accepted dogma.
- In other words, they support free exchange of ideas.
- In other words, their minds are open.
- That's too much to ask from a site called "RationalWiki", though. Klortho (talk) 06:33, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have a question for you, @Reverend Black Percy: Did you even read any of it? It's well sourced, and many of the points the authors make are devastating to the official story, and to the existing write-up on this page. Klortho (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read the disclaimer at the start which says "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors." Not exactly a full endorsement by the editorial staff. Annquin (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- Template:Ping:Annquin: Absolutely, that's endorsement enough for it to be included as a source in this article, and for its assertions to be considered credible. If those editors find it "sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication", why don't you consider it sufficiently technical and interesting to read? Klortho (talk) 11:18, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
- Did you read the disclaimer at the start which says "This feature is somewhat different from our usual purely scientific articles, in that it contains some speculation. However, given the timing and the importance of the issue, we consider that this feature is sufficiently technical and interesting to merit publication for our readers. Obviously, the content of this article is the responsibility of the authors." Not exactly a full endorsement by the editorial staff. Annquin (talk) 09:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
- I have a question for you, @Reverend Black Percy: Did you even read any of it? It's well sourced, and many of the points the authors make are devastating to the official story, and to the existing write-up on this page. Klortho (talk) 06:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Military planes theories[edit]
I've heard it bandied around that the 9/11 planes were military, not civilian. The first piece of "evidence" is the photographs, which purportedly show anomalous markings or components. I believe this was sufficiently debunked in the Popular Mechanics article. The second is the claim that a Rolls-Royce spokesman said that a small engine found in the Pentagon wreckage did not belong to the company (see here at 00:18:35 for a sample quote). Should the article be edited to reflect these claims and their rebuttals?
104.200.153.81 (talk) 10:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
- Sure — any crank claims that can be refuted with good sources belong in the article. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:16, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Plane evaporated?[edit]
Okay, so few days ago I saw Zeitgeist. It talks about how no plane was found in one of the building and the officials explained it away saying that it "evaporated". The movie also says that officials were able to find "DNA" of the terrorist pilots and able to identify them. "Plane evaporated but the pilot didn't?". Is this true? Why isn't this already covered in this article.
NOTE: I am not a conspiracy theories. I just mean to imply that this article is "incomplete". P.S: Why are there so many conspiracy theories in US. I have never heard one from other countries. Rational1 (talk) 16:02, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
Take a look at this[edit]
I dont care about conspiracies, but there are very strong arguments in this video favoring the controlled demolition theory. [2] — Unsigned, by: 37.135.106.133 / talk
- Don't care to respond, just for archiving. Zero (talk - contributions) 22:05, 21 September 2017 (UTC)
This website has actual interviews with Pentagon witnesses and proves the witnesses describe a flight path that is not consistent with the official story.[edit]
Here is a link directly to the interviews: http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/official-interviews
Here's a link to their video: http://citizeninvestigationteam.com/videos/national-security-alert
This is independent, verifiable research that shows every single Pentaqon witness describes the plane traveling in a path that is not consistent with the official story - the official story says light poles were knocked down as a result of the plane, but the path that all witness describe is not in the path of those light poles. The exact path of the plane that supposedly hit the Pentagon has been released by the government, but that path does not match up with any witnesses.
Here's an extremely detailed post with info on nearly every Pentagon witness.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=1863
Here's a debunking of attempted debunking of the CIT claims.
http://z3.invisionfree.com/CIT/index.php?showtopic=959
This is verifiable evidence of a coverup at the Pentagon. I don't know how to do wiki write-ups, but it seems like the part of the article on flight 77 should be changed. 97.70.1.221 (talk) 21:04, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- What I'm wondering is what ship the cruise missile was launched from that hit the Pentagon. Is there anything on that?Roo (talk) 16:28, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
- Easy, it was a spaceship like this one.They couldn't see it because the invisible mode was activated. Anir (talk) 11:34, 22 September 2017 (UTC)
9/11's plane phases through building[edit]
- This discussion was moved here from Saloon bar.
Absolutely _no one_ was ever able to explain why that is. It doesnt crash into the building at all. It phases through, as if it isnt even there, but edited in. The "plane" is on the layer behind the tower. Only when you see the nose of the plane do you ACTUALLY SEE THE EXPLOSION. Honestly, this cognitive dissonance is rediculous. No one can even explain this, just brand me off as a nut. Explain it for once.— Unsigned, by: 172.223.212.195 / talk / contribs
- Didn't you forget something?Ariel31459 (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure next after we explain why (Even if I dont know why right off the bat) you're gonna ask why most non-news footage has the camera panning of losing focus when the planes actually to hit, despite the fact that people pointed out the plane? Not a lot of people are in the mood for your holier-than-thou attitude because you believe in this drivel, so any discussion you want to have, watch your temper--Spoony (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- you come in here with a ridiculous claim that the plane was edited in without even a video or an explanation about the thousands of people who saw it happen, you're just asserting and before anyone would even try to debate you you have to give at least some sort of evidence to back yourself upVorarchivist (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Oh, yes. Care to explain what does happen with the too-many-to-count witnesses plus their recordings (and that in 2001, when smartphones were still nearly Sci-Fi tech and digital cameras were still both expensive and not very good) of the two planes crashing against the WTC towers?. Now do TPTB have highly advanced holographic technology, that however fails just during impact as you say or what? Panzerfaust (talk) 14:01, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I especially like the serendipitous misspelling of "passes" for "phases". Phasing could be a cool new scifi-ish conspiracy theory, i.e. the plane phased through the building using a highly secret quantum technology. Leuders (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- Don't forget the families of passengers who booked flight on the second plane and still have receipts to show it, waiting for their loved ones to arrive. nobsAloha Snackbar 03:56, 30 July 2017 (UTC)
- I especially like the serendipitous misspelling of "passes" for "phases". Phasing could be a cool new scifi-ish conspiracy theory, i.e. the plane phased through the building using a highly secret quantum technology. Leuders (talk) 15:10, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- I'm sure next after we explain why (Even if I dont know why right off the bat) you're gonna ask why most non-news footage has the camera panning of losing focus when the planes actually to hit, despite the fact that people pointed out the plane? Not a lot of people are in the mood for your holier-than-thou attitude because you believe in this drivel, so any discussion you want to have, watch your temper--Spoony (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
- Magic: the GatheringTM cards with the phasing ability were all published in either 1996 or 1997, and were basically out of circulation by September 2001. For this reason, your theory sounds implausible. ikanreed 🐐Bleat at me 15:22, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
- And there's more. What about the remains of the two planes that were found among the debris of the WTC, as well as Flight 11 and Flight 175 themselves after take-off and before crashing?. More ruses from TPTB? Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
So the planes have Kitty Pryde's powers?-💠💿☝️ (talk) 02:28, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
- More like Vision's, in this case. RoninMacbeth (talk) 12:57, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
- And there's more. What about the remains of the two planes that were found among the debris of the WTC, as well as Flight 11 and Flight 175 themselves after take-off and before crashing?. More ruses from TPTB? Panzerfaust (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2017 (UTC)
The "need" to recover the bodies of the dead?[edit]
Was someone going to die if the bodies weren't recovered, or did the author mean desire instead of need? — Unsigned, by: 101.164.233.212 / talk / contribs
- On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button:
on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:31, 2 August 2017 (UTC)
Early warning radar for the Pentagon[edit]
Here's a new one I just heard. The Pentagon has early warning radar that was turned off hours before the attack. Anyone got info on this nonsense? Zero (talk - contributions) 19:34, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- What, its own air defence radar? What would it do with that? We know now that the reason they had problems with Flight 77 was that they were looking for Flight 11, which had been misidentified as not having crashed into the WTC and they thought was heading to DC. This meant that when radar detected Flight 77 near DC, the planes that had been scrambled were 150 miles away looking for a contact that didn't exist. Nog Bogmire (talk) 21:46, 11 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. As in its own defense radar. I know that radar installations aren't trivial things to have on hand and fairly obvious to see with a telescope. Some things like this come through to me to which I can usually just say "Uh...?" since I don't have answers. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
- One radar automatically means they're wrong, any half-decent AA system needs two (search and targeting). Ask them where it's located, what type it is, and what it could possibly task to protect the building. Also point out the US military's main light short-range SAM is Stinger, which is an IR / UV seeker that would in no way benefit from radar. Nog Bogmire (talk) 04:51, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
- Yeah. As in its own defense radar. I know that radar installations aren't trivial things to have on hand and fairly obvious to see with a telescope. Some things like this come through to me to which I can usually just say "Uh...?" since I don't have answers. Zero (talk - contributions) 20:31, 13 September 2017 (UTC)