Conspiracy or Accident? Piece of 9/11 Airliner found by planned Islamic Center in NY

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/us/new-york-9-11-plane-part/index.html


image-1-1328546_zps843740e1.jpg

Conspiracy theories begin immediately:
A story to watch.
 

Drew

Active Member
Damn you're good. Beat me to posting, Mick.


A quote from the NY Times write-up: [EX=https://www.metabunk.org/threads/1471-Conspiracy-or-Accident-Piece-of-9-11-Airliner-found-near-planned-Islamic-Center-in-NY]
The landing gear component is about 3 feet high, 3 feet wide and about 18 inches deep, Mr. Browne said. It was wedged between the two buildings, where it remained “out of sight and out of mind for over a decade,” he said.“The odds of it entering that space at exactly that angle that would permit it to squeeze in there,” he added, “it had to come in at almost precisely the right angle to end up being wedged there.”
[/EX]

The guy doesn't do himself any favors in dispelling conspiracist thinking by phrasing it that way. With this and the Park-51 angle, the conspiracists are going to have a field day.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

joelb79

Active Member
The guy doesn't do himself any favors in dispelling conspiracist thinking by phrasing it that way. With this and the Park-51 angle, the conspiracists are going to have a field day.

Of course for anybody who has a monological belief system centered deeply in CT's this will validate every theory they personally hold on 9/11. The leap will be that only the government will have been able to place that landing gear there; when the reality of the situation is that there were missing aircraft parts that were never recovered and specifically the landing gear. Also landing gear from flight 175 was found on a building three blocks away to the north from the towers, as was a piece of landing gear from Flight 11 was found on West St five blocks south of the towers.

It will be interesting how this spins..
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Of course for anybody who has a monological belief system centered deeply in CT's this will validate every theory they personally hold on 9/11. The leap will be that only the government will have been able to place that landing gear there; when the reality of the situation is that there were missing aircraft parts that were never recovered and specifically the landing gear. Also landing gear from flight 175 was found on a building three blocks away to the north from the towers, as was a piece of landing gear from Flight 11 was found on West St five blocks south of the towers.

It will be interesting how this spins..
Interesting this was not found before. . .
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Look at the dates again. One f the reasons for wanting to deny this mosque was a find like this-or was it the same?
?????
http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/26/us/new-york-9-11-plane-part/index.html

 

F4Jock

Senior Member.

Drew

Active Member
Look at the dates again. If I remember one of the original reasons for wanting to deny this mosque was a find like this on the roof - was this from the same piece?

Of course for anybody who has a monological belief system centered deeply in CT's this will validate every theory they personally hold on 9/11. The leap will be that only the government will have been able to place that landing gear there; when the reality of the situation is that there were missing aircraft parts that were never recovered and specifically the landing gear. Also landing gear from flight 175 was found on a building three blocks away to the north from the towers, as was a piece of landing gear from Flight 11 was found on West St five blocks south of the towers.

It will be interesting how this spins..

Essentially, yes. My reading of this is that previous landing gear components had already been recovered at 51 Park Pl. and that was a part of the argument that Cordoba House shouldn't be built.

cf. the svg image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg



The impression is that this appears to be a further piece of the already recovered gear that had somehow escaped notice for 11.5 years due to its location in an inaccessible area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Of course for anybody who has a monological belief system centered deeply in CT's this will validate every theory they personally hold on 9/11. The leap will be that only the government will have been able to place that landing gear there; when the reality of the situation is that there were missing aircraft parts that were never recovered and specifically the landing gear. Also landing gear from flight 175 was found on a building three blocks away to the north from the towers, as was a piece of landing gear from Flight 11 was found on West St five blocks south of the towers.

It will be interesting how this spins..

Anyone know the actual distance involved?
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Essentially, yes. My reading of this is that previous landing gear components had already been recovered at 51 Park Pl. and that was a part of the argument that Cordoba House shouldn't be built.

cf. the svg image here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_Trade_Center,_NY_-_2001-09-11_-_Debris_Impact_Areas.svg

The impression is that this appears to be a further piece of the already recovered gear that had somehow escaped notice for 11.5 years due to its location in an inaccessible area.

Some of the buildings in NYC are separated by inches. Is that the case here? What are the exact dimensions of the piece vs where it was found?
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Three blocks, maybe 200-300 meters from the site. The image I linked to above gives an idea. I'm stepping out, so I didn't have time to convert it to a friendly format.

K. Thanks. Need more facts before I can comment.
 

Drew

Active Member
Some of the buildings in NYC are separated by inches. Is that the case here? What are the exact dimensions of the piece vs where it was found?

The Times said 3'x3'x18".

I know the area well, having worked down there in '06-08 and lately because I attend church near there. It is very densely built neighborhood, but it is peripheral to a lot of the more office-space oriented buildings in the Financial District. There are lots of vacant, disused, and run-down storefronts in the area around 51 Park. Pl, and it doesn't see as much traffic and use as adjacent blocks.

It would not surprise me for something like this to go unnoticed.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
The Times said 3'x3'x18".

I know the area well, having worked down there in '06-08 and lately because I attend church near there. It is very densely built neighborhood, but it is peripheral to a lot of the more office-space oriented buildings in the Financial District. There are lots of vacant, disused, and run-down storefronts in the area around 51 Park. Pl, and it doesn't see as much traffic and use as adjacent blocks.

It would not surprise me for something like this to go unnoticed.

Considering that, if this turns out to be located where I think it is, a piece of a Boeing had already been found there long ago, I don't see the significance of this find at all. Proves nothing. Changes nothing.
 

JRBids

Senior Member.
The Times said 3'x3'x18".

I know the area well, having worked down there in '06-08 and lately because I attend church near there. It is very densely built neighborhood, but it is peripheral to a lot of the more office-space oriented buildings in the Financial District. There are lots of vacant, disused, and run-down storefronts in the area around 51 Park. Pl, and it doesn't see as much traffic and use as adjacent blocks.

It would not surprise me for something like this to go unnoticed.

DOes not surprise me either. Or probably anyone who has ever lived or worked in that area or any other very old part of the city. I've been in buildings where you look out a window and the next building is a foot or two away.
 

joelb79

Active Member
Last edited by a moderator:

JRBids

Senior Member.
Oh what a surprise! A news story and someone thinks it's a HOAX! How strange. LOL. I'll consider it a news flash when a story comes out that no one thinks is a hoax nowadays.
 

joelb79

Active Member
Oh what a surprise! A news story and someone thinks it's a HOAX! How strange. LOL. I'll consider it a news flash when a story comes out that no one thinks is a hoax nowadays.

LOL fair enough. I'm cracking up at your comment. :)
 

Drew

Active Member
So yes. All we have learned is that a further piece of landing gear was found Wednesday near where other pieces of landing gear were found years ago.

And by weird coincidence, it is right by the building where Park-51 used to want to build the so-called "Victory Mosque". (They're looking next-door now at 43 Park for a $7-million mortgage).

And thereby there's a fun intersection of 9/11 Truther conspiracy and far-right Islamophobe conspiracy. Lots of interestingly stupid things are about to happen.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
Congratulations on your lack of monological belief system.

Lol that was evidence of a monological belief system:cool:...
However; seems that there is some people thinking this news story is a hoax.

Seems like a non monological attitude to at least examine whether it could be.

Ok, I concluded it is likely a hoax :)
 

joelb79

Active Member
Lol that was evidence of a monological belief system:cool:...

Seems like a non monological attitude to at least examine whether it could be.

Ok, I concluded it is likely a hoax :)

So exactly how is it that you decide that this news story is a hoax, and anybody who disagrees has a monological belief system? I urge you to get a better understanding of a monological world view because you just demonstrated it to a T. And I guess that I'm missing the humor in this no matter how many smiles you put on it.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
So exactly how is it that you decide that this news story is a hoax, and anybody who disagrees has a monological belief system? I urge you to get a better understanding of a monological world view because you just demonstrated it to a T. And I guess that I'm missing the humor in this no matter how many smiles you put on it.

It seems obvious that. given past events and discoveries of similar material in this area, no one has anything to gain from this find. It thus seems obvious that a hoax is unlikely.
 

Adam

Member
It seems obvious that. given past events and discoveries of similar material in this area, no one has anything to gain from this find. It thus seems obvious that a hoax is unlikely.

Can we start from the position of assuming that it is not a hoax until there is some sort of evidence available that shows that it is? Jumping to conclusions about it being a hoax based on no evidence whatsoever is evidence of nothing more than wishful thinking or a lack of an open mind.

At this point we know that parts from an aeroplane were found wedged between buildings very close to where other parts were found before. And I believe the police are investigating it. I say we take it at face value.
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
So exactly how is it that you decide that this news story is a hoax,

I think it likely a hoax based on the lack of damaged to the walls, the bit of old rope which is attached looks incongruous and may well have been used to place the article, the fact that it has remained undiscovered for 12 years and a number of other things


and anybody who disagrees has a monological belief system? I urge you to get a better understanding of a monological world view because you just demonstrated it to a T. And I guess that I'm missing the humor in this no matter how many smiles you put on it.

Well lets look at it logically.... mono = one.... logic = method of reasoning. This suggests 'simply looking at something from one methodology'. Anyone who simply accepts what they are told without question is looking at things monologically. :cool:

Someone who questions and looks at things from different perspectives is looking 'multilogically' :cool:
 

joelb79

Active Member
Well lets look at it logically.... mono = one.... logic = method of reasoning. This suggests 'simply looking at something from one methodology'. Anyone who simply accepts what they are told without question is looking at things monologically. :cool:

Someone who questions and looks at things from different perspectives is looking 'multilogically' :cool:

I do NOT accept everything I am told, again you staw man my position from your own ignorance of myself. I really do not have time for this argument anymore. When you toss out good evidence and spew Hoax this Hoax that you are the one who is trying to make everything fit your own view and not the other way around. you are the one arguing that this and that of good empirical evidence is wrong in leu of your own conspiratory view of everything. That is a monological belief system. I tend to take each and every fact and weigh them against the totality of evidence. That is logical thinking, not monological thinking. Stop telling me about myself when you have no clue about me or my beliefs.

Mick headsup this is going nowhere fast and will quickly become a name calling match here.

pee+wee.png
I know you are but what am I? HA HA!
 

Oxymoron

Banned
Banned
I do NOT accept everything I am told, again you staw man my position from your own ignorance of myself. I really do not have time for this argument anymore. When you toss out good evidence and spew Hoax this Hoax that you are the one who is trying to make everything fit your own view and not the other way around. you are the one arguing that this and that of good empirical evidence is wrong in leu of your own conspiratory view of everything. That is a monological belief system. I tend to take each and every fact and weigh them against the totality of evidence. That is logical thinking, not monological thinking. Stop telling me about myself when you have no clue about me or my beliefs.

Well ok, perhaps it is a dumb and insulting word to apply to anyone... so let's agree to simply use conspiracist and debunker etc to denote our relevent idealogical viewpoints... How about that?
 

joelb79

Active Member
Well ok, perhaps it is a dumb and insulting word to apply to anyone... so let's agree to simply use conspiracist and debunker etc to denote our relevent idealogical viewpoints... How about that?

I think in this case it my point about that could not be clearer; but I'll just refrain from commenting on it if you'll stop the pee-wee herman stuff in reply as well.
 

Drew

Active Member
Here's the thing. I'm not trying to claim that living in New York gives me a special perspective, but there's a basic understanding of urban architecture and geography that needs to happen.

Not to get too anecdotal, but I can illustrate a point. I live in an apartment in a 140-year-old, 5-story townhouse in Brooklyn. Our kitchen ventilates through a narrow window into a roughly 5'x5' vertical air shaft that was constructed through all five floors when the building was remodeled in the 1920s. Ground-floor-level access to the bottom of the air-shaft was never accommodated, and it's a weird architectural no man's land right here in my building. I can peek in on space upon which no one has trod since before the Great Depression. If something were to fall down there (besides my cigarette ash) it may not be seen again for decades.

My point being: New York is full of things like this -- especially downtown in lower Manhattan. A century's worth of confused/contradictory building codes and architectural compromises are involved, and there are all kinds of weird air shafts, alleyways, and crevices. That a chunk of landing gear was found in just such a weird place next to where another chunk of landing gear was found is not at all improbable.

That people would claim that "hoaxer" authorities would plant and then dig up a piece of debris 11.5 years after the fact for some kind of agenda makes no sense to me whatsoever. What would even be the point of such a hoax? What would it prove? Why even bother?
 

Adam

Member
Anyone can sit in his room and dream up fantastic scenarios or back stories to "explain" the presence of a piece landing gear in this tiny alleyway. But in the absence of any evidence or corroboration of any sort, they're pure fantasy. They aren't theories, because theories (as I understand the term) are generally grounded in observation and evidence.

And besides, there's one very nice, neat theory that covers exactly why that piece of landing gear is between those buildings: there was a massive plane crash about two blocks away a decade earlier. It seems pretty bleeding obvious.

Now, maybe someone planted the piece of landing gear in that alleyway. I cannot prove that didn't happen. And if some evidence comes to light that shows that might be the case, I will happily consider it - as I am certain the police, FBI, etc will if they uncover any such evidence during their investigation. But for now, the simplest and most logical explanation is the 'official' one.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Can some one tell me what would possibly be gained by planting this piece of an aircraft where it was found . . . is it special? Does it prove something which has been lacking from the Official Story . . .?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Can some one tell me what would possibly be gained by planting this piece of an aircraft where it was found . . . is it special? Does it prove something which has been lacking from the Official Story . . .?

I think the theory is that it was planted to re-galvanize opposition to the Islamic center.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
I think the theory is that it was planted to re-galvanize opposition to the Islamic center.
What say you on that possibility . . .? Where in the world would they get a piece of the 911 aircrafts except through the authorities . . . not a reasonable assumption in my mind . . . what would the authorities gain from that skulduggery . . . ?
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
What say you on that possibility . . .? Where in the world would they get a piece of the 911 aircrafts except through the authorities . . . not a reasonable assumption in my mind . . . what would the authorities gain from that skulduggery . . . ?

It does not sound very likely to me. And it would seem like a rather tricky thing to do without anyone noticing. Seems way more likely the piece just fell in there on 9/11. We'll see.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Per usual the CT'ers have established a conclusion and then work backwards to establish it as true,

First, is that rope as someone assumed, or a twisted braided steel cable that would possibly be part of the assembly?
Second, In order to pull this off pieces of the wreckage would have to have been squirreled away for use on a rainy day. Highly Improbable. No one had to "get" a piece of wreckage; it landed there, close to other pieces of wreckage found earlier.
Third, no one has confirmed or denied any scarring on the buildings as a result of this piece falling between them.

The entire hoax premise is ridiculous and illustrates the length to which CT advocates go to validate their claims.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
Anyone can sit in his room and dream up fantastic scenarios or back stories to "explain" the presence of a piece landing gear in this tiny alleyway. But in the absence of any evidence or corroboration of any sort, they're pure fantasy. They aren't theories, because theories (as I understand the term) are generally grounded in observation and evidence.

And besides, there's one very nice, neat theory that covers exactly why that piece of landing gear is between those buildings: there was a massive plane crash about two blocks away a decade earlier. It seems pretty bleeding obvious.

Now, maybe someone planted the piece of landing gear in that alleyway. I cannot prove that didn't happen. And if some evidence comes to light that shows that might be the case, I will happily consider it - as I am certain the police, FBI, etc will if they uncover any such evidence during their investigation. But for now, the simplest and most logical explanation is the 'official' one.

There is only one problem with your last paragraph above: You depend on the authorities you referenced to tell the truth. The CT'ers don't trust them so any information they provide is, by definition, considered false. This distrust is the root cause of Conspiracy Theories and the mantra upon which the "logic" of true conspiracy believers is based. Every mistake and misstep of the government is used to reinforce this belief. Nothing in which the government is involved can be anything less than conspiratorial.

In order to introduce reason into both sides of the debate one will have to change this belief. Hard to do.
 

George B

Extinct but not forgotten Staff Member
Per usual the CT'ers have established a conclusion and then work backwards to establish it as true,

First, is that rope as someone assumed, or a twisted braided steel cable that would possibly be part of the assembly?
Second, In order to pull this off pieces of the wreckage would have to have been squirreled away for use on a rainy day. Highly Improbable. No one had to "get" a piece of wreckage; it landed there, close to other pieces of wreckage found earlier.
Third, no one has confirmed or denied any scarring on the buildings as a result of this piece falling between them.

The entire hoax premise is ridiculous and illustrates the length to which CT advocates go to validate their claims.
I don't disagree but the rope is a problem if it does exist. . . but then again . . . if I were planting evidence I wouldn't be also stupid enough to leave a rope to invalidate the discovery unless I wanted it to appear as though someone wanted it to appear as a hoax . . . my head hurts . . . :)
 

Adam

Member
I did read (link below) that the rope might be from a pulley system on the roof of the building and could be evidence that the piece was found 10 years ago and a failed attempt to remove it was made then. I guess the assumption is that in that case, the piece was forgotten over time.

That seems more logical than someone being able to get his hands on the landing gear of one of the planes at some point after the fact and surreptitiously lower it into the alleyway (unseen), leaving it to be discovered later.

But we'll see what the investigation reveals.

http://www.newsday.com/911-annivers...ors-have-yet-to-determine-which-one-1.5153640
 

Adam

Member
There is only one problem with your last paragraph above: You depend on the authorities you referenced to tell the truth. The CT'ers don't trust them so any information they provide is, by definition, considered false. This distrust is the root cause of Conspiracy Theories and the mantra upon which the "logic" of true conspiracy believers is based. Every mistake and misstep of the government is used to reinforce this belief. Nothing in which the government is involved can be anything less than conspiratorial.

In order to introduce reason into both sides of the debate one will have to change this belief. Hard to do.

That's a good point. I suppose if you automatically discount one side of the equation from day one, you can always 'refute' any evidence provided. And any evidence provided is further 'evidence' of a conspiracy, actually. Which is maddening.
 

F4Jock

Senior Member.
I did read (link below) that the rope might be from a pulley system on the roof of the building and could be evidence that the piece was found 10 years ago and a failed attempt to remove it was made then. I guess the assumption is that in that case, the piece was forgotten over time.

That seems more logical than someone being able to get his hands on the landing gear of one of the planes at some point after the fact and surreptitiously lower it into the alleyway (unseen), leaving it to be discovered later.

But we'll see what the investigation reveals.

http://www.newsday.com/911-annivers...ors-have-yet-to-determine-which-one-1.5153640

I wonder. Could the piece have originally been on the roof and been dropped there in the process of removal? Could Someone then, considering its location and what else was happening, have said "Screw it. We'll come back for it later." And then either forgot about it or deliberately ignored it?

I also like George's observation. Seems really stupid to plant a piece where it will engender controversy and leave the means there to point out how it was done......unless.....How about this: The piece was planted by the CT bunch and the means of so doing was left there purposely to......start a CT! Just as logical a piece of backward reasoning don't you think?
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
L Is there an updated or expanded version of the conspiracy theory spectrum? Practical Debunking 2
Rory "Escaping the anti-vax conspiracy rabbit hole" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 0
Rory TFTRH #50 - raised by conspiracy theorists Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 1
Mendel Poll Finds Many Believe QAnon And Other Conspiracy Theories General Discussion 13
Mick West Conspiracy Theories about Senator Kelly Loeffler's Campaign Staffer, 20, Killed in Car Crash. Election 2020 2
Mick West Burst Pipe Conspiracy Theories, Fulton County's State Farm Arena, Georgia Election 2020 20
Mick West Debunks: The Dominion-Venezuela-Smartmatic Vote Theft Conspiracy Theory Election 2020 4
JFDee New York Times: Talking to family members fallen for conspiracy beliefs Practical Debunking 5
T Is it less rational to believe in several conspiracy theories than only one? Conspiracy Theories 31
C Iran promotes anti-semetic conspiracy theories via American Herald Tribune Conspiracy Theories 0
GeorginaB Twitter is banning accounts linked to QAnon conspiracy Conspiracy Theories 1
Agent K Ghislaine Maxwell was arrested in New Hampshire Current Events 11
A Why 9/11 Truthers Are Wrong About The Facts | (Part 1 w/ Mick West) 9/11 1
Mick West Discussing 5G EMF Concerns, Theories, and Conspiracy Theories 5G and Other EMF Health Concerns 15
JFDee 9/11 Conspiracy Idea Slipped into Academic Course Material (France) 9/11 8
Mick West TFTRH #33 – Anthony Magnabosco: Street Epistemology and Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Mick West TFTRH #31: Professor Elizabeth Loftus – Memory and Conspiracy Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 6
Mick West TFTRH #15: Brad - Math vs. Conspiracy Theories Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 21
Mick West TFTRH #13: Professor David Keith – Geoengineering Research and the Chemtrails Conspiracy Theory Tales From the Rabbit Hole Podcast 2
Marin B Facebook moderators believing in conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 4
Critical Thinker Russia's role in promoting conspiracy theories General Discussion 20
Rory The Conspiracy Theory Spectrum Practical Debunking 16
Mick West Conspiracy Theory or "Devil Theory" of Politics Conspiracy Theories 0
Mick West Alex Jones Deplatforming and Related Conspiracy Theories Current Events 49
Mick West Paper: How paranoid are conspiracy believers? Practical Debunking 21
Mick West Eruption of Kilauea Volcano in Hawaii – Conspiracies and Science Current Events 34
Mick West Perspective on the popularity of conspiracy theories. Practical Debunking 23
Leifer The Where's Waldo game, and the Conspiracy version. General Discussion 15
qed Roy Moore yearbook signature faked? Conspiracy Theories 111
M Bornong Can Belief in Chemtrails and/or other Conspiracy Theories Lead to Violence? Contrails and Chemtrails 4
G Applications of Game Theory to Assessing the Plausibility of Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 1
skephu Solar geoengineering and the chemtrails conspiracy on social media Contrails and Chemtrails 3
DannyBoy2k Are There Any Professional Groups Rebutting 9/11 Conspiracy Theories? 9/11 13
Mick West Explained: Unburned trees next to burned down structures as evidence of secret "energy weapons" Wildfires 122
Cube Radio What British Muslims think about 9/11 Conspiracy Theories 9/11 26
ZoomBubba Las Vegas Massacre - Surveillance Footage? Conspiracy Theories 115
Mick West Debunked: Hurricane Harvey, Project Stormfury, Conspiracy Theories Current Events 40
Mick West Dylan Avery - Director of the 9/11 Conspiracy Film "Loose Change" Escaping The Rabbit Hole 2
Mick West Hurricane Harvey. Cat 4. Major flooding. Conspiracy Theories. Current Events 10
Mick West Consensus Messaging vs. Message Targeting in Science Communication Practical Debunking 16
Mick West 2016 Berlin Truck Attack Conspiracy Theories Current Events 13
Mick West Current Events Forum Guidelines Current Events 0
skephu Changing Conspiracy Beliefs through Rationality and Ridiculing Practical Debunking 25
Marin B Garrett Graff : "Bungling" is a more likely explanation for government conspiracy theories Conspiracy Theories 7
Dick Holman How many people follow multiple conspiracy theories? Practical Debunking 12
Jay Reynolds New Dutch paper Analyzes how Conspiracy Theorists see themselves Conspiracy Theories 3
Mick West Conspiracy? Trump Repeating Falsely Attributed Quote from Russian Media. Conspiracy Theories 26
txt29 Conspiracy Theory: No blood on truck in Nice Conspiracy Theories 34
qed On Skeptoid's definition of Conspiracy Theory General Discussion 15
Mick West When Absence of Evidence is Evidence of Absence in Conspiracy Theories Practical Debunking 35
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top