4 ms·

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understan

I find it really fascinating that they've gone to such lengths to literally recreate a large portion of the plane from the wreckage in order to better understand what happened. I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see how a "real" crash investigation is done, as opposed to what we've been told about 9-11.

panarky 11y ago
Some airplane wreckage was discovered lodged between two buildings in New York. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22344949 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22344949
SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
I see I'm being downvoted for this. I didn't mean to be controversial, just making an observation about the stark difference between the amount and quality of information that is being disseminated to the public.
- stvswn 11y ago
  You're not being controversial, because there isn't a controversy. There was lots and lots of information disseminated to the public. What do you think was withheld?
stvswn 11y ago
I see you're interested in the history of the 9/11 attacks! Here's a 600 page report with over 100 pages of footnotes. The first chapter deals with the hijackings. You can start your research there! http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf In later chapters, there's a lot of discussion about the terrorist group that planned the hijackings, and not much discussion on missile ballistics. That's because the former happened as a matter of fact, the latter is pure fantasy.
- SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
  Thanks, I've read much of the report of course. What you notice about the report is that there's a tremendous focus on the build up to the attacks, the context and the aftermath, but it's very light on the technical analysis of the actual event that you would normally see in an air crash investigation - such as what we're now seeing with MH17. Admittedly the two events are hardly comparable, but I stand by my observation that there's a distinct disparity between the amount & quality of information that's being disseminated. There may be perfectly good reasons for that.
  - stvswn 11y ago
    In other air crash investigations, the technical analysis is the most important part -- because a technical component failed, or because the type of missile needs to be deduced, etc. In the 9/11 attacks, people intentionally flew the planes into buildings. There is not much to talk about, technically -- the control systems worked as intended, and the technology used by the attackers only got as sophisticated as box cutters. So what would you like to see? A detailed analysis of all of the ways the plane did exactly what you'd expect? Do you think the onus is on the investigators to disprove conspiracy theories? It's like you want a report called "Why it wasn't a missile: a detailed report on how Flight 93 looks like what you'd expect if terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the ground." You're asking others to disprove your hypothesis, for which there's no evidence in the positive, while ignoring competing evidence. This is the hallmark of bad conspiracy theories.

panarky 11y ago

Some airplane wreckage was discovered lodged between two buildings in New York. http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22344949 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-22344949

SuddsMcDuff 11y ago

I see I'm being downvoted for this. I didn't mean to be controversial, just making an observation about the stark difference between the amount and quality of information that is being disseminated to the public.

stvswn 11y ago
You're not being controversial, because there isn't a controversy. There was lots and lots of information disseminated to the public. What do you think was withheld?

stvswn 11y ago

I see you're interested in the history of the 9/11 attacks! Here's a 600 page report with over 100 pages of footnotes. The first chapter deals with the hijackings. You can start your research there! http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf In later chapters, there's a lot of discussion about the terrorist group that planned the hijackings, and not much discussion on missile ballistics. That's because the former happened as a matter of fact, the latter is pure fantasy.

SuddsMcDuff 11y ago
Thanks, I've read much of the report of course. What you notice about the report is that there's a tremendous focus on the build up to the attacks, the context and the aftermath, but it's very light on the technical analysis of the actual event that you would normally see in an air crash investigation - such as what we're now seeing with MH17. Admittedly the two events are hardly comparable, but I stand by my observation that there's a distinct disparity between the amount & quality of information that's being disseminated. There may be perfectly good reasons for that.
- stvswn 11y ago
  In other air crash investigations, the technical analysis is the most important part -- because a technical component failed, or because the type of missile needs to be deduced, etc. In the 9/11 attacks, people intentionally flew the planes into buildings. There is not much to talk about, technically -- the control systems worked as intended, and the technology used by the attackers only got as sophisticated as box cutters. So what would you like to see? A detailed analysis of all of the ways the plane did exactly what you'd expect? Do you think the onus is on the investigators to disprove conspiracy theories? It's like you want a report called "Why it wasn't a missile: a detailed report on how Flight 93 looks like what you'd expect if terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the ground." You're asking others to disprove your hypothesis, for which there's no evidence in the positive, while ignoring competing evidence. This is the hallmark of bad conspiracy theories.