9-11/wtc/pentagon conspiricies

[Lump]

i regard most regular users on here to be level headed & intelligent.
some bloke on another forum i visit started a thread about this topic heading & my thoughts on the matter are very different to his, the result so far is 9 pages..

i dont believe any of the conspiricy theories, what do people on here think really happened??

[SSICK]

was the yanks for sure.

they never landed on the moon first either.

[mr_mike]

i didnt really believe much then i watched Loose Change and yeh definetly got me thinkin.
The thing i liked about loose change is they included alot of stuff that was either a coincidence or had to have some planning, like all the gold bein moved out of the basements of twin towers a couple days b4 the plane hit.
Plus they backed up all there arguments about both the Twin Towers and the Pentagon with scientific fact, as well as comparisons to other similar situations.
But then again that is the whole point of a conspiacy theory, to word and present facts in such a way that ppl do believe them.

[Lump]

But then again that is the whole point of a conspiacy theory, to word and present facts in such a way that ppl do believe them.
spot on.

[Skitzo]

Loose change was awesome. I dont know what to believe.

[Miggy]

Terrorists imo, when ever something big happens there are always conspiracy's like everyone saying 2 pac and Bruce Lee both faked there death, man landing on the moon ect.

[Lump]

im done debating this, this other thread has been hard work..

i do agree with what wikipedia says about it all tho (& snopes.com).
i know im setting myself up for a flaming to even mention those sites, but for what its worth i think their version is the right one.

[esky]

terrorists did it. but they were allowed to do it.

bumps up defense spending, starts new wars, new anti-hoon laws, anti-terror laws etc etc.




yanks have never walked on the moon

[mr_mike]

if u look into the background of the companies that benifited from the "War on Terrorism" you find that a hell of alot of them have strong political, family and social connections to members of the white house and US Senators.

Plus well known fact Osama was trained by the CIA

[titmeat]

ive seen alot of docos and done alot of reading up about this
http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf getting there ..

it seems that there is alot of things werent answered by the gov

i find it hard to believe that the bush gov organised the whole thing..but wouldnt be suprised if they knew about it and ignored it for their own political/greed purposes ..
saw a interesting doco last month about it on history channel ..when i remember the name ill post it up

need a 3rd poll option maybe for both?

[schnoods]

I dunno.

Why would the Govt do it when the rest of the middle east would accept it as their own, then go over there just to start a sh*tfight.

Sure Osama was trained by the CIA (fact) and then did the double cross and got back at the americans...

Its like saying the aussie govt was behind the Bali Bombings, its so far fetched it could be the perfect crime, but at the same time its so stupid and unpatriotic to even contemplate let alone do such a thing.

I do beleive it was conviniently timed, as it also timed well for Iraq too, it bought bush another term he never deserved.

But yeah, he cant even organise his own speech let alone orchestrate a conspiracy that would have to have involved paying off several hundred people, then watch as his economy of his own country reach new lows, levels of uncertainty, then go to War for what gain?

Just because a few Of his bum chums ( Cheney is a big player in Halliburton)as well as himself are into oil, doesnt allways point to a war for oil started by a conspiracy for a reason.

[JBAE]

theres a movie that was posted up on here a while back called zeitgeist (spelling)which was quite good with the whole conspiracy thing also covers religion 9/11 obviously and the banks of america and the think its called the RHF chips, there was also a good doco on it 2-3 weeks back late one night on foxtel which i was suprised was even on tv

[Wuked]

I saw a special from a controlled demolitions expert which sold me on how the towers coming down was not from a plane hit but carefully placed explosives in the understructure.

+ the fact that every after shot of the pentagon showed it looked like it was a small missile not a huge 747 that hit (no plane body of wheel impact on the ground compared to impact, size of the impact whole was missile not 747, "missing" security camera videos that would show what it actually was).

While I or course believe terrorists could have WANTED to do this, I think it was engineered otherwise.

And how convient it also proved for the US's waiting in camp armed forces doing nothing to suddenly have a great job to do.

As Bush said, he is "a war president".

That also said, I think the precision with which it was carried out and the lack of "knowledge" and response points to at least knowledge of both sides if not participation of both sides.

[Steppo_GT]

i think it was the government.

The planes that got hijacked were usually full of people, but the ones that were hijacked only had about half or a third of the people they usually had.

Mr mike saying about the gold being moved out.

Missile hitting the Pentagon.

America needing a reason to go and try to contol the oil in Iraq.

Why didn't they go for the White House etc etc...

In my opinion it was definently an inside government job.

[peter_piper]

Two words:


Zeitgeist.

[Lump]

I saw a special from a controlled demolitions expert which sold me on how the towers coming down was not from a plane hit but carefully placed explosives in the understructure.

the massive fire weakened the steel & reo bar & then gravity did the rest. in all the excellent quality videos no explosive or bomb blasts can be seen at all. - this is a critical issue that is ignored by people that try to put this theory over. it was just a weakened structure not be able to support the levels above it.



+ the fact that every after shot of the pentagon showed it looked like it was a small missile not a huge 747 that hit (no plane body of wheel impact on the ground compared to impact, size of the impact whole was missile not 747, "missing" security camera videos that would show what it actually was).

wiki says all availiable footage has been released, the gas station & hotel footage showed nothing new.

here is the frame from the pentagon vid just before the explosion (its on wiki in full)
. red circle is where the plane comes in just infront of the explosion
.purple circle is the dust/dirt from the plane
.green circle is the tail fin (it disapeers in the next frame as the explosion goes off)
of course like any vid it could be a fabrication.
heaps of wreckage was found of a 757 at the site according to wiki & its references.
the smaller holes were caused by the landing gear when it seperated from the plane at impact


http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s6/andyevo/aaaaaaaaaa.jpg
this foto looks like a plane hit it to me
http://i148.photobucket.com/albums/s6/andyevo/nonce.jpg

While I or course believe terrorists could have WANTED to do this, I think it was engineered otherwise.
im still looking for any scrap of evidence to support this

And how convient it also proved for the US's waiting in camp armed forces doing nothing to suddenly have a great job to do.

meh still not a reason for them to do this imo

As Bush said, he is "a war president".


That also said, I think the precision with which it was carried out and the lack of "knowledge" and response points to at least knowledge of both sides if not participation of both sides.
most countries have very little knowledge when it comes to terroist acts, & their emergency responses are sometimes poor, i cant see how you can assume the govt had knowlege or even helped them from this issue
..

[Lump]

i think it was the government.

The planes that got hijacked were usually full of people, but the ones that were hijacked only had about half or a third of the people they usually had.
Hardly a reason, it happens all the time

Mr mike saying about the gold being moved out.
dont know about that, another side issue imo

Missile hitting the Pentagon.
absolutly nothing to back this up anywhere

America needing a reason to go and try to contol the oil in Iraq.

they allready had their own reason to go there (gulf war, sanctions, wmd's etc), they went to afghanistan because of 911

Why didn't they go for the White House etc etc...
the plane that crashed near indian lake could have been going there, again another side issue.

In my opinion it was definently an inside government job.
..

[Lump]

I dunno.

Why would the Govt do it when the rest of the middle east would accept it as their own, then go over there just to start a sh*tfight.

Sure Osama was trained by the CIA (fact) and then did the double cross and got back at the americans...

Its like saying the aussie govt was behind the Bali Bombings, its so far fetched it could be the perfect crime, but at the same time its so stupid and unpatriotic to even contemplate let alone do such a thing.

I do beleive it was conviniently timed, as it also timed well for Iraq too, it bought bush another term he never deserved.
bush hadnt been in long when it happened & they were determined to back to iraq anyway.
it might have helped him get in again, but i cant see them putting all this on for that reason


But yeah, he cant even organise his own speech let alone orchestrate a conspiracy that would have to have involved paying off several hundred people, then watch as his economy of his own country reach new lows, levels of uncertainty, then go to War for what gain?

Just because a few Of his bum chums ( Cheney is a big player in Halliburton)as well as himself are into oil, doesnt allways point to a war for oil started by a conspiracy for a reason.
correct
..

[mr_mike]

Have you watched Loose Change Andy? I know its a conspiracy theory movie but it does bring forward some intresting facts.

[Lump]

no i havent.
i did see one called '911 conspiricies' america under attack or something along those lines. i watched it twice & saw nothing that couldnt be explained in a far more reasonable way than the questions they were trying to elude to.

people forget the wtc was bombed by terrorists with truck bombs in 1993, but i havent heard other theories on that one.
seems to me the proponents to these theories allways have a book or movie to sell or are trying to link this event with other theories (the new world order-what ever that is..)

as much as i hate to give these terrorists credit, their suicide plan was very simple & highly effective.

[Volatile Rob]

Great... not only do we have the WA Govt on our backs over hoon laws, but after this thread, now we're lighting brown bags of dog poo and ringing the door bell of the CIA, NSA, FBI & possibly ASIO if they ever come off smoko...

In light of that, I for one welcome our new overlords and wholeheartedly believe that it was the terrorists known as Bin Laden, W'ya Bush & Cheney (also known as hip hop star Chingy after some camo makeup)

Rob

[Lump]

believe me just because i dont think bush/us govt had anything to do with 911 does not make me his supporter.
he is a total goose of that there is no doubt & i am a labour voter too for that matter

[DRKWRX]

Terrorists did it, Conspiracy people just like the exitement of stories that it was an inside job etc, not saying That Bushes family isnt dodgey though lol, and the people who dont believe man walked on the moon watch the mythbusters ep they did on it not long ago, prety good ep.

[mr_mike]

no i havent.
i did see one called '911 conspiricies' america under attack or something along those lines. i watched it twice & saw nothing that couldnt be explained in a far more reasonable way than the questions they were trying to elude to.



Yeh i have seen that one as well and didnt think much of it, i'd recommend d/l Loose Change of a torrent site. It does give alot of facts that end of the day u cant argue with.
Did the US government or the ppl the US government answer to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks? i dont know but i do think they would b more than capable of doing it.
Plus the American government has always had the mentalty of "for good of the country"

[Wezz]

watched the first 15 mins of loose change and it struck me as being very biased...(computer crashed and i cbf'ed streaming it again)...
I didn't really see any facts which couldn't be counter argued.. (which they conveniently left he counter argument out for.)

I especially loved the voice recording of second hand account from the guy who he says spoke with the FBI guy which does the PR and apparently said that they have no link with osama and 9/11 ...

yay, second hand accounts, and getting facts from the people who do PR/websites about terrorists... im convinced.

[Lump]

Terrorists did it, Conspiracy people just like the exitement of stories that it was an inside job etc, not saying That Bushes family isnt dodgey though lol, and the people who dont believe man walked on the moon watch the mythbusters ep they did on it not long ago, prety good ep.

agree totally

[mr_mike]

After the 2nd plane hit the twin towers all flights in the US where grounded... except one and onboard that was all Osamas reletives.

[Lump]

Yeh i have seen that one as well and didnt think much of it, i'd recommend d/l Loose Change of a torrent site. It does give alot of facts that end of the day u cant argue with.
name one :)

Did the US government or the ppl the US government answer to orchestrate the 9/11 attacks? i dont know but i do think they would b more than capable of doing it.

Plus the American government has always had the mentalty of "for good of the country"

yes thats all well & good but its not enough for me to think they did it
..

[Lump]

After the 2nd plane hit the twin towers all flights in the US where grounded... except one and onboard that was all Osamas reletives.

ive heard that before but where does that info really come from?

what was the source of it? who said it first?

[Wezz]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

solved:lol:

[DRKWRX]

its on Fahrenheit 911, I got it prety good dvd, shows you the history of the Bushes and how they have done and are doing alot of business with saudis, and the Bin Laden family, also when George Bush got in power apparently he was given a file about Terrorism and how they were planning attacks but he went on holidays for like most the year and didnt read it lol, so I would say it was more then not looking at the terrorist threats then planning the whole thing.

[Wezz]

its on Fahrenheit 911, I got it prety good dvd, shows you the history of the Bushes and how they have done and are doing alot of business with saudis, and the Bin Laden family.

things like fahrenheit 911 are a business imo... they are made to make money off of people who believe in conspiracies... not to explain the truth

[Joe]

WTC 7 is the missing link in the whole theory.

I'm part of a Conspiracy Club, and we have a 9/11 dinner every year (funnily enough, held on the 11th September :D)

It was unanimously decided at the last meeting that the US Govt didn't directly perform the attacks i.e. hired terrorists did that, but they facilitated it and knew about it.

[DRKWRX]

They have prety much said that they knew they were planning a terrorist attacks? but how much did they know? I wouldnt be suprised if Bush knew but I dont believe in all this Controlled demolisions and missile business lol there was a show on tv about a month or so ago showing the steel from the twin towers and you could see the holes where the bolts went through were totally melted through and that the buildings fell from the heat and there own weight.

[Lump]

^if you have an open mind about wtc 7 look it up on wiki, there is no mystery there imo

[RICEY]

Very well planned terrorist attack.

The end.

[INSINR8R]

terrorists did it, the government knew it was inevitable.

Wuked saying the tower was brought down with explosives... How do you figure? Because as the tower was collapsing the floors below had puffs of smoke shoot out the windows? The tower collapsed downwards, not toppled over. With the pressure and weight from the floors above, all the smoke created by fires was pushed out the windows. That is the logical explanation for that.

Also, buildings are designed to collapse downwards instead of topple over. Watch any demolition of a building and you will see that even though they place the charges in specific places, the building never falls over.

Tower 7 was destroyed due to the amount of debris from both towers as they collapsed. Tower 7 was around the same area as the Twin Towers. Some of the other towers were damaged, but were far enough away not to be destroyed.

The pentagon was hit with a plane. It was too big to be a missile and too small to be a 747 (which it wasn't, was a smaller aircraft) They didn't find any wreckage from the planes in any of the places they came down except in Pennsylvania.

The thought that the Bush Administration was capable at planning such an elaborate attack is laughable. They went to Afghanistan before they went to Iraq. Also, something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein. He was a war criminal and one of the most evil dictators in recent history. The US did Iraq's people a favour by capturing him, but it was common knowledge that they had two agendas for invading Iraq. 1 - Eliminate Saddam Hussein and any possible threat to the US and 2 - Take over the oil reserves.

[Lump]

Very well planned terrorist attack.

The end.

agreed, one thing im not sure on is if they knew the wtc towers were suceptable to colapse from a massive fire.

im sure they did their homework so i suspect they did

[Ryan1080]

Yeh i have seen that one as well and didnt think much of it, i'd recommend d/l Loose Change of a torrent site. It does give alot of facts that end of the day u cant argue with.


LOL. Oh yes you can argue with those facts. Here are ALL the "facts" rebutted:

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

[Lump]

terrorists did it, the government knew it was inevitable.

Wuked saying the tower was brought down with explosives... How do you figure? Because as the tower was collapsing the floors below had puffs of smoke shoot out the windows? The tower collapsed downwards, not toppled over. With the pressure and weight from the floors above, all the smoke created by fires was pushed out the windows. That is the logical explanation for that.

Also, buildings are designed to collapse downwards instead of topple of. Watch any demolition of a building and you will see that even though they place the charges in specific places, the building never falls over.

Tower 7 was destroyed due to the amount of debris from both towers as they collapsed. Tower 7 was around the same area as the Twin Towers. Some of the other towers were damaged, but were far enough away not to be destroyed.

The pentagon was hit with a plane. It was too big to be a missile and too small to be a 747 (which it wasn't, was a smaller aircraft) They didn't find any wreckage from the planes in any of the places they came down except in Pennsylvania.
wrong, they found plenty of wreckage in all 4 crash sites

The thought that the Bush Administration was capable at planning such an elaborate attack is laughable. They went to Afghanistan before they went to Iraq. Also, something needed to be done about Saddam Hussein. He was a war criminal and one of the most evil dictators in recent history. The US did Iraq's people a favour by capturing him, but it was common knowledge that they had two agendas for invading Iraq. 1 - Eliminate Saddam Hussein and any possible threat to the US and 2 - Take over the oil reserves.
..

[RICEY]

agreed, one thing im not sure on is if they knew the wtc towers were suceptable to colapse from a massive fire.

im sure they did their homework so i suspect they did

Id say the shock value of simply flying two planes into the twin towers and killing all on board and those on the floors initially hit could have been the plan and the collapse was an added bonus, then again they have some very intelligent people in their ranks which could include structural engineers etc

[INSINR8R]

..

Really? According to a few tv shows they never found anything because they had disintegrated due to the heat and the amount of rubble that would've destroyed it.

[Ryan1080]

Terrorists did try to bring down WTC back in the 1993 bombing, so maybe that was always their intention, never know. Then again what other option did they have? They tried and failed in 1993, the can't exactly borrow a B52 bomber and bomb the WTC, so next best (and easiest) way would be to hijack an airliner, crash it, and hope for the best... I mean worst. But yeah, shock value would have been enough for them to call it success, especially with all 4 planes hitting random big targets all at once.

[ELUSIV]

Im in the both camp, i have objectively watched numerous videos that have been pro conspiracy theory and against conspiracy theory but there are some severe inconsistencies that defy the laws of physics if you take the commissions report of the 911 tragedy.
I dont think the US orchestrated it but i do believe they had some hand in it as it was a pretext for their war on terror, a war that was continuing the work of Bush's father a.k.a. the Gulf War.
The major problems come about how the twin towers actually collapsed in such a controlled manner, it is identical to a controlled demolition. If you watch the experts take down buildings they sometimes have problems with buildings tipping over that are a fraction of the size. The issue of the fuel which was cited as the cause of melting the support beams even though aviation fuel cannot burn hot enough to do so.
Why have the FBI not released footage of the cameras they seized that had a direct view of the Pentagon attack? Instead theyve released a craptacular one which u cant see anything conclusive, they could stop the consipracy theories in their track if they released footage from some of those 5 other cameras, the only reason i can see for them not to is that they are hiding something.
Id suggest everyone have a watch of the latest edition of Loose Change which raises a lot of questions, it is mildly biased but if you can keep an objective mind it will allow you to see that while there is no definitive yes or no answer to the conspiracy theories it does highlight some major physical inconsistencies that even though they cant confirm the conspiracy theories they also give evidence that makes the commission's report of the event seem physically impossible.

Long story short im a fence sitter :P

[Slip_]

Not even voting. I'll sit the fence with Elusiv.

Not to 'fence sit' is actually quite contradictory to the purpose of proposing train's of thoughts through a medium for many to contribute. If your "with a camp of thinkers"... your set in mind.

Ive seen all these Zeitgeist's (recent one released this month included), Loose Change, Esoteric agenda, 2012 the odessy, the great global warming swindle, etc etc etc... ive been scouring forums, been immersed in all the decent journalism (gotta know the dodge to recognise the decent) i've been able to access since i started caring... a good 7years or so now. Since 2001.
Dunno about you guys, but i just keep an open mind when i watch this shit, i ALWAYS take these doco's with a 500tonne sea container full of salt...

remember alot of these doco's are aimed at the dummies, and snare the interest of those clueless enough to believe first without doubt.

There's truth in those doco's... as with everything, but the conclusions some of those wanker narrator's draw FOR the viewer... is plain fucking insulting at times. Dummy's love that CT sh!t...

shortfalling being they're "Convinced Theorists"...

I got lots of opinions, ive got lots of theories... we all do. And thats the way to go. but we cant expect to all be on the same page...

Right now i'm involved in a ThinkTank group of 10 Strong. started at 6 people early july, now 10 as of august.

A Very Multicutural group, age's ranging from 21 - 28, we're all either very good mates, brothers of very good mates or people that used to train MMA togather.

To say what the purpose of a thinktank is... is wrong. chemisty of like minded thinkers, churning out highly rationalised emotional thought is a close description IMO. For those who have never heard of a ThinkTank... theres many types and sorts, numbers of members and organisational levels.

But i will say, bring the idea's you guys are discussing here for example... to a thinktank... the level of understanding and more... its powerful powerful shit.

last night just four of us caught up, enough to sate my thirst for conscious thought for a week.

It's the only thing i can recommmend for those that cant 'scratch that itch' so to say.

[Lump]

Really? According to a few tv shows they never found anything because they had disintegrated due to the heat and the amount of rubble that would've destroyed it.
landing gear was found on nyc streets blocks away from wtc.

this is only wiki (which some believe is totally wrong..) but this link has a pic of the landing gear that was found from flight 11

http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_11


flight 93 wreckage-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

flight 77 - aircraft wreckage n forground in american airlines colours
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77

flight 175 - piece of wreckage on top of wtc 5

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_175

[Ryan1080]

Im in the both camp, i have objectively watched numerous videos that have been pro conspiracy theory and against conspiracy theory but there are some severe inconsistencies that defy the laws of physics if you take the commissions report of the 911 tragedy.
I dont think the US orchestrated it but i do believe they had some hand in it as it was a pretext for their war on terror, a war that was continuing the work of Bush's father a.k.a. the Gulf War.
The major problems come about how the twin towers actually collapsed in such a controlled manner, it is identical to a controlled demolition. If you watch the experts take down buildings they sometimes have problems with buildings tipping over that are a fraction of the size. The issue of the fuel which was cited as the cause of melting the support beams even though aviation fuel cannot burn hot enough to do so.
Why have the FBI not released footage of the cameras they seized that had a direct view of the Pentagon attack? Instead theyve released a craptacular one which u cant see anything conclusive, they could stop the consipracy theories in their track if they released footage from some of those 5 other cameras, the only reason i can see for them not to is that they are hiding something.
Id suggest everyone have a watch of the latest edition of Loose Change which raises a lot of questions, it is mildly biased but if you can keep an objective mind it will allow you to see that while there is no definitive yes or no answer to the conspiracy theories it does highlight some major physical inconsistencies that even though they cant confirm the conspiracy theories they also give evidence that makes the commission's report of the event seem physically impossible.

Long story short im a fence sitter :P

Yes, you're right about aviation fuel not buring hot enough to melt steel suport beams, however it still burns hot enough to weaken the steel significantly enough, where the beams would not be able to hold up the weight of the building. And once all that weight starts falling down, it had enough momentum to collapse the floors below, even though they may have not been on fire at all. The clouds of smoke popping out of windows is merely all the air being pumped out of the floors by collapsing floors...

I don't really have an opinion about it, debating that won't solve anything. I have seen a lot of consipiracy theory movies about this topic, and to be honest, they lack credibility to me. Some of the things they mention are fair enough, like the footage not released etc etc. However when they mention the bullshit about controlled demolitions and how fuel wasn't hot enough etc etc. you really start to think that well, these people really don't know what they're talking about. If they are so wrong about certain issues, how can you be sure they are right about the other issues? I haven't yet seen one 911 doco that hasn't had at least a few bullshit claims that make no sense. Not one. Keep in mind all those documentaries are meant to have a strong bias. It's what excites people when they watch it, all the wild claims.

[DRKWRX]

like I said there was a show on T.V. showing the steel and they had Engineers showing you on computers how it happened.

[Lump]

Im in the both camp, i have objectively watched numerous videos that have been pro conspiracy theory and against conspiracy theory but there are some severe inconsistencies that defy the laws of physics such as?? if you take the commissions report of the 911 tragedy.
I dont think the US orchestrated it but i do believe they had some hand in it as it was a pretext for their war on terror, a war that was continuing the work of Bush's father a.k.a. the Gulf War.
The major problems come about how the twin towers actually collapsed in such a controlled manner, it is identical to a controlled demolition. If you watch the experts take down buildings they sometimes have problems with buildings tipping over that are a fraction of the size. The issue of the fuel which was cited as the cause of melting the support beams even though aviation fuel cannot burn hot enough to do so.

doesnt have to melt them just weaken them
Why have the FBI not released footage of the cameras they seized that had a direct view of the Pentagon attack? Instead theyve released a craptacular one which u cant see anything conclusive, they could stop the consipracy theories in their track if they released footage from some of those 5 other cameras, the only reason i can see for them not to is that they are hiding something.
the one i know about are the pentagon one in the link above & the gas station & hotel. all the last two showed nothing new

what do you think hit the pentagon?

Id suggest everyone have a watch of the latest edition of Loose Change which raises a lot of questions, it is mildly biased but if you can keep an objective mind it will allow you to see that while there is no definitive yes or no answer to the conspiracy theories it does highlight some major physical inconsistencies that even though they cant confirm the conspiracy theories they also give evidence that makes the commission's report of the event seem physically impossible. such as?

Long story short im a fence sitter :P

..

[Lump]

well said Ryan, i wrote mine before i saw yours.

[Slip_]

Bush's Brother.

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Burns_Stratesec.htm

Little food for thought.

[Slip_]

well said Ryan, i wrote mine before i saw yours.

Good to know...

[Slip_]

i regard most regular users on here to be level headed & intelligent.
some bloke on another forum i visit started a thread about this topic heading & my thoughts on the matter are very different to his, the result so far is 9 pages..

i dont believe any of the conspiricy theories, what do people on here think really happened??

Please post Link.

[Lump]

Please post Link.

might have to be a member tho??




http://www.evolutionoz.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=27479&st=0&start=0

[ELUSIV]

The major law of physics defied was the claim that the steel was weakened to a point in which it could no longer support the tower.
The steel was weakened, but not to a point where it could not sustain the tower. How so?
Most structural engineers agree that at half the melting point of steel (approx 1500 degrees celcius for structual steel) the steel has lost 3/4's of its strength. Which sounds like a lot and would make sense as there is no way it would be able to support itself given that loss of its integrity. Aviation fuel burns at a MAXIMUM of 825 degrees celcius in an atmosphere without pressurisation. Now take away the fact that the fires were diffuse and that they were oxygen starved which both have been proven to show that hydrocarbon fuel burns in a much cooler fashion due to both of those factors and there is no way it would have been burning at that temperature.
Need to also take into account that the 767-200ER had lost a massive amount of its fuel during the initial contact with the building so even though it was half laden (approx 10,000 gallons, has a max of 23,000 ish but had only 65-90 passengers on board the different flights) there would be no way that enough fuel was present to weaken 200,000 tons of steel. Thats where the physics simply does not add up. At best the steel may have been directly exposed to enough heat to reduce the strength of the steel by half AT the point of impact, but in order to heat enough of the 200,000 tons of steel you would need an exponential amount of heat to reach all the support beams. Considering the amount of concrete and other foundations in the building which help to furthermore diffuse the heat from the steel it simply isnt close to being possible.
There is a significant following of architects and structural engineers that also agree that the explanations provided cannot have been possible and have joined the so called 9/11 Truth Movement, there are experts that argue both sides of the coin.
At the end of the day for buildings that were specifically designed to withstand plane strikes and enormous wind speeds over a considerable number of years they came down extremely quick and have apparently remained the only three buildings to have done so due to internal fires.

At the end of the day there is sufficient evidence out there for those who will spend the time to objectively evaluate both sides of the argument to show that neither side is correct. There are considerable flaws in both the government's report and the conspiracy theorists so im not going to side with either.
It is worthy to note simple impossibilities can be seen even in the official 9/11 report stating that the planes that flew into the WTC buildings were going approximately 943km/h which is essentially their MAXIMUM cruising speed at 35,000 feet. Considering they had not been in the air long and the manuevering the pilots had to do there is no possible way they could have been doing that speed. Anyone who has a clue about physics would understand that very minimal banking could occur at that speed, the turns the terrrorists were doing would have ripped the wings of the plane.
The same is said for the Pentagon Flight 77 which performed a 330 degree turn...at 863km/h? Roughly, but still not in the realm of what is physically possible for a plane to achieve.
As to the Pentagon i believe it was a plane that flew into it, just not the one the report described due to incosnsitencies in eye witness reports, inconsistent parts found that may have not been from the 757 that was suggested to have crashed into the building and like i said before the FBI seizing the footage immediately then only releasing a few frames that show nothing conclusive?
If you were in court and had clear video evidence to prove your version of the story wouldnt you show it? Why would you hide something like that? That is what screams guilt.

[mr_mike]

lol the southpark episode about 9/11 conspiracy is on foxtel at the mo hahahaha

[peter_piper]

pt1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI
pt2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q
pt3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSW1x_h4Kfo
there's a 4th part somewhere

That's all I'm gonna say on this... everyone is too highly opinionated or closed minded to listen. Just watch those with an open mind.

[RICEY]

While argueing whether the fuel burns hot enough to cause structural failure you should take into account the fact a full size passenger plane flew into the building which in itself caused major structural damage on impact...

[kato]

Whilst Zeitgeist has got a lot of people talking, there is a lot of false evidence with no back up shown as proof in the movie.

You watch the movie and believe everything that is shown (which is the point of the movie), but you still need to remember there are always multiple sides to the story.

A good review and debunking of the movie is: http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

[peter_piper]

Very good site. While I dont believe 100% what was in Zeitgeist, there are certainly some very valid and scary points. I remember just after 9/11 happened I watched a film, I cant remember wtf it was called for the life of me, but it was basically just providing info about the towers being hit and also the pentagon being hit. It made me think anyway :)


Hehe just found Bush admitting to explosions planted in the buildings:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USnxe7hxP4I&NR=1

[Lump]

The major law of physics defied was the claim that the steel was weakened to a point in which it could no longer support the tower.
The steel was weakened, but not to a point where it could not sustain the tower. How so?
Most structural engineers agree that at half the melting point of steel (approx 1500 degrees celcius for structual steel) the steel has lost 3/4's of its strength. Which sounds like a lot and would make sense as there is no way it would be able to support itself given that loss of its integrity. Aviation fuel burns at a MAXIMUM of 825 degrees celcius in an atmosphere without pressurisation. Now take away the fact that the fires were diffuse and that they were oxygen starved which both have been proven to show that hydrocarbon fuel burns in a much cooler fashion due to both of those factors and there is no way it would have been burning at that temperature.
Need to also take into account that the 767-200ER had lost a massive amount of its fuel during the initial contact with the building so even though it was half laden (approx 10,000 gallons, has a max of 23,000 ish but had only 65-90 passengers on board the different flights) there would be no way that enough fuel was present to weaken 200,000 tons of steel.
200,000tonnes of steel? is that what was in 1 complete tower? because it only needed a few floors to give way.. the floors in the wtc were of a cantilevered design most of the srength was near the midde of the tower. the floors were cantilevered out from the centre to a very light steel structure at the external walls.
even tho the steel in most of the tower was not heat effected it had no chance to support the additional loads of the floors above it once the weakened areas colapsed.

Thats where the physics simply does not add up. At best the steel may have been directly exposed to enough heat to reduce the strength of the steel by half AT the point of impact, but in order to heat enough of the 200,000 tons of steel you would need an exponential amount of heat to reach all the support beams. Considering the amount of concrete and other foundations in the building which help to furthermore diffuse the heat from the steel it simply isnt close to being possible.

again are you talking about the whole structure needing to be heat effected, because that is not required for it too colapse.
a few floors colapsed & gravity did the rest

There is a significant following of architects and structural engineers that also agree that the explanations provided cannot have been possible and have joined the so called 9/11 Truth Movement, there are experts that argue both sides of the coin.

the main body of the society of civil engineers in the us agree the planes/fire caused the towers to colapse.

At the end of the day for buildings that were specifically designed to withstand plane strikes and enormous wind speeds over a considerable number of years they came down extremely quick and have apparently remained the only three buildings to have done so due to internal fires.

yes it was designed to withstand an impact & windloads but as we have seen the fire issue was not fully addressed.

At the end of the day there is sufficient evidence out there for those who will spend the time to objectively evaluate both sides of the argument to show that neither side is correct. There are considerable flaws in both the government's report and the conspiracy theorists so im not going to side with either.
It is worthy to note simple impossibilities can be seen even in the official 9/11 report stating that the planes that flew into the WTC buildings were going approximately 943km/h which is essentially their MAXIMUM cruising speed at 35,000 feet. Considering they had not been in the air long and the manuevering the pilots had to do there is no possible way they could have been doing that speed. Anyone who has a clue about physics would understand that very minimal banking could occur at that speed, the turns the terrrorists were doing would have ripped the wings of the plane. either way they obviously flew them & yes one traffic controller thaught he was looking at a jet on his radar due to the speed & radius u-turn one (or both) of the planes did - it wasnt typical jet airliner flight paths
The same is said for the Pentagon Flight 77 which performed a 330 degree turn...at 863km/h? Roughly, but still not in the realm of what is physically possible for a plane to achieve.
As to the Pentagon i believe it was a plane that flew into it, just not the one the report described due to incosnsitencies in eye witness reports, inconsistent parts found that may have not been from the 757 that was suggested to have crashed into the building and like i said before the FBI seizing the footage immediately then only releasing a few frames that show nothing conclusive?

there is ony a few frames because the plane was going so fast & security cameras are known not to be the best going around.

as i said those other films, from the hotel & gas station showed sfa.

If you were in court and had clear video evidence to prove your version of the story wouldnt you show it? Why would you hide something like that? That is what screams guilt.

it doesnt scream guilt to me, its just all they have. i can see how it would scream guilt if you believed all the other rumors/theories, but i am still looking for things that really dont add up & im having trouble finding them
..

[ELUSIV]

While argueing whether the fuel burns hot enough to cause structural failure you should take into account the fact a full size passenger plane flew into the building which in itself caused major structural damage on impact...

Yeh there is no doubt that it caused some structural damage as you can imagine a 767 travelling hundreds of km's per hour with its enormous weight has a fair amount of kinetic energy its not really huge when compared to the size and mass of the object it has struck. Each tower has an approximate weight of something like 500,000 tons and a 767 would be near to the 150 ton weight area. Its something worth taking into account and the fuel burning is physically impossible based on the evidence provided, if there is a reasonable conclusion as to why the steel failed other than the heat and distortions then im open to hearing it, but no other building in history has had problems before with internal fires.


Whilst Zeitgeist has got a lot of people talking, there is a lot of false evidence with no back up shown as proof in the movie.

You watch the movie and believe everything that is shown (which is the point of the movie), but you still need to remember there are always multiple sides to the story.

A good review and debunking of the movie is: http://conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/

There is debunking on the Loose Change movie as well which was done by Popular Mechanics, and theres a fair bit of debate footage on youtube. There is also debunking of the debunking. There is no clear answer really, just a hell of a lot of questions that arent being answered adequately. IF the government is sticking by their story they need to really work on how they are delivering it to the public so they can put a stop to the conspiracy theorists and once and for all provide closure on the subject.

Just watching a BBC doco about the third tower and both sides of the argument on that, will see what comes up :)

[peter_piper]

..

Hey what about the top guy that actually built the twin towers saying that they built those buildings to be able to take multiple hits of the boeing 707????

What about pancake theory? Funny though - the towers fell at nearly freefall speed. The only thing that would displace that amount of material for the building to actually fall that quickly is through demolition/detonators. Pancake theory? Where one floor fell on the next and soo on? That would have taken 20-25 seconds minimum, and at the end you'd still have the steel columns protruding in the air for several hundred feet, and at the bottom a bunch of building floors crumpled and piled up on each other. Each tower fell in under 10 seconds, which if you do the math at that height, is almost freefall speed.

Funny hey?


What about the thermite? What cut the centre core columns? What about the molten metal found up to 21 days later? Jet fuel doesnt burn that hot. It is impossible, whilst understanding our current model of physics, for jet fuel to burn hot enough to make steel phase change from solid into liquid. Simply not possible.


PS dude, have you watched those links from Zeitgeist I posted above? I reckon you'd get a real kick out of them. Take a look - i'd love to know what you reckon!

[DRKWRX]

argh wish I knew the name of this show I saw haha they talked about how the beams bent and you could see where the bolts go through the holes had just melted and failed and after that the whole thing just collapsed, they were the guys doing the investigation on why they collapsed, I watched the video you posted it is interesting but it just seems like others I have watched guys talking with no real proof just a few photos that seem to support there arguement, and the dust coming out the windows, of course that would happen when the building is collapsing on intself it would be pushing air downwards blowing dust out like that, I dont think it collapsed from the concrete seperating from the steel the steel failed and it fell under its own weight which is why it fell at free fall speeds.

[Lump]

pt1 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI
pt2 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECMJ2LBK90Q
pt3 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSW1x_h4Kfo
there's a 4th part somewhere

That's all I'm gonna say on this... everyone is too highly opinionated or closed minded to listen. Just watch those with an open mind.

i started to watch them but ive seen it before - in its proper context.

i will try to watch them in full later, but i can just see the same old theories commng out.

here is a vid of a controlled demolition. it looks nothing like the towers comming down imo

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TdEnb-ifIbU&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AB0Smw7CKLY&feature=related

you know what i noticed about these buildings comming down with explosions?

you hear lots of them going off well before anything happens... with the towers you only heard the floors crashing into each other once they were moving.
case closed.

[Lump]

Hey what about the top guy that actually built the twin towers saying that they built those buildings to be able to take multiple hits of the boeing 707????

What about pancake theory? Funny though - the towers fell at nearly freefall speed. The only thing that would displace that amount of material for the building to actually fall that quickly is through demolition/detonators. Pancake theory? Where one floor fell on the next and soo on? That would have taken 20-25 seconds minimum, and at the end you'd still have the steel columns protruding in the air for several hundred feet, and at the bottom a bunch of building floors crumpled and piled up on each other. Each tower fell in under 10 seconds, which if you do the math at that height, is almost freefall speed.

Funny hey?

its was a canlivered design - there were no major steel colums at the exterior walls.

as for the controlled demolition theory see my post above.


What about the thermite? What cut the centre core columns? What about the molten metal found up to 21 days later? Jet fuel doesnt burn that hot. It is impossible, whilst understanding our current model of physics, for jet fuel to burn hot enough to make steel phase change from solid into liquid. Simply not possible.


PS dude, have you watched those links from Zeitgeist I posted above? I reckon you'd get a real kick out of them. Take a look - i'd love to know what you reckon!

see post above

please explain to me how come with every other controlled demolition the charges/BLASTS go off well before anything moves??

that didnt happen with the towers now did it :)

[peter_piper]

i started to watch them but ive seen it before - in its proper context.

i will try to watch them in full later, but i can just see the same old theories commng out.

here is a vid of a controlled demolition. it looks nothing like the towers comming down imo

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=TdEnb-ifIbU&feature=related

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=AB0Smw7CKLY&feature=related

you know what i noticed about these buildings comming down with explosions?

you hear lots of them going off well before anything happens... with the towers you only heard the floors crashing into each other once they were moving.
case closed.

A couple of eye witness reports from firefighters who were actually at the scene beg to differ, the movie that I saw closer to 9/11 actually had footage from one of the firefighters running down the stairs in panic and you can clearly hear a whole bunch of explosions one after the other. I wonder if they put a hilux on the top of the wtc would it have survived as it did in Top Gear? ;D

Taking a look at your vids just now :)

[ELUSIV]

200,000tonnes of steel? is that what was in 1 complete tower? because it only needed a few floors to give way.. the floors in the wtc were of a cantilevered design most of the srength was near the midde of the tower. the floors were cantilevered out from the centre to a very light steel structure at the external walls.
even tho the steel in most of the tower was not heat effected it had no chance to support the additional loads of the floors above it once the weakened areas colapsed.


200,000 tonnes was just the steel content apparently. Can only go off the evidence i have found. That does not include the weight of concrete and other materials, the towers themselves were each though to weigh approximately 500,000 tonnes. The design of the WTC central beams are ones that form a central core and extend for the entirety of the building. IF the tower did start to come down as you have suggested the outsides would not have been able to support the weight, BUT the steel below being mainly unaffected should have been able to. It would have made more sense if the section above the point of impact fell away and then the outside portions of the tower leaving the central steel core. It collapsed in a very controlled manner, go watch some youtube videos on buildings that have been brought down in a controlled manner and then ones brought down by demoltions that have gone awy and you can see a major difference in how they fall. The WTC had an almost floor by floor failing, something that is essentially impossible using the commissions report of the evidence. Why has nobody thought that maybe terrorists had actually planted explosive devices in the towers to ensure they came down? Its another possibilitiy without blaming the government...



again are you talking about the whole structure needing to be heat effected, because that is not required for it too colapse.
a few floors colapsed & gravity did the rest


It would have been required for it to collapse in the manner it did. For a building to collapse in on itself without falling to a specific side it requires that the central supports of the building and the core are weakened momentarily after the other, otherwise portions of the building would topple over due to an uneven collapse. This is why so much time goes into planned demolitions, i dont think you grasp how hard it is to demolish a building perfectly, the experts spend a long time setting up charges to make it collapse on itself. If it was as easy as flying a plane into it why would they spend all the time and the effort? Why not just stick a bunch of fuel on one of the floors and set it on fire...because it doesnt work that way, the buildings fall over or dont collapse properly.



the main body of the society of civil engineers in the us agree the planes/fire caused the towers to colapse.


Evidence? You state the main body, according to who? You? The Government? A private society of civil engineers? There are enormous numbers of experts who agree and disagree, they know more than we do so how can we say who is right and wrong?




there is ony a few frames because the plane was going so fast & security cameras are known not to be the best going around.

as i said those other films, from the hotel & gas station showed sfa.


How do you know they show SFA? Have you watched the entirety of them, the ORIGINAL footage? If so care to share? :)



it doesnt scream guilt to me, its just all they have. i can see how it would scream guilt if you believed all the other rumors/theories, but i am still looking for things that really dont add up & im having trouble finding them


Not giving evidence that shows one is innocent leaves an assumption of guilt and that they have something to hide. The fact that a lot of the evidence has been shipped off before it could be analysed or was apparently "destroyed" does not bode well for showing their innocence...

There are plenty of discrepancies, YOU just do not want to SEE them. You are suffering from the same thing the conspiracy theorists are which is a confirmation bias. Any evidence that does not agree with YOUR opinion you choose to ignore, or like you so frequently do on this board you try to cut down anyone elses opinion that doesnt agree with yours, you blatantly agreed with people who agreed with you without questioning what they said but when someone says something you dont agree with you have a desire to push your opinion as fact.

Like i said before im going to remain sitting on the fence, i dont agree with the conspiracy theorists because a lot of their information is incorrect or incomplete and they jump to massive assumptions about a conspiracy. At the same time there is a severe lack of evidence coming from the government to put these theorists to rest, it has been going on for years and still nothing has been done to put people's mind at rest as to what really happened.

Go and watch Loose Change the final cut, Zeitgeist, and then watch some debates or read the debunking that Popular Mechanics did and the 9/11 truth movement.org debunking of what the Popular Mechanics said because at the moment you are just coming across completely one sided.

This debate has numerous parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

Note that the Popular Mechanics guy needs to talk down in order to prove he is more superior rather than giving factual evidence in rebuttal, theres a fair few parts to that too.

[peter_piper]

I just find it very interesting that both buildings died in the same way. Exactly the same way. I mean fair enough both buildings got hit by a plane and what not, but wouldnt randomness actually prevail and they fall in different - albeit similar ways?


PS what about them finding the centre columns cut at the floor in exactly the same way that they're cut with thermite in a controlled demolition scenario? (45 degree angle to sheer) What about the pools of MOLTEN METAL? You cant argue stress and or weight compressing metal into liquid, that's simply not possible for that heat to hang around a few weeks later too. Eye witness reports from dudes that had to clean up the mess said that it was like a foundry, streams of molten metal everywhere.


What about the compound Thermite found in the dust? you know those major white dust clouds that were billowing out of the towers? Supposedly jet fuel? Jet fuel burning leaves black smoke. Thermite / aluminium burning leaves white smoke. This white dust compound was full of thermite. This was even discussed on C-SPAN but no answer was given. WHAT THE FUCK WAS THERMITE DOING IN A BUILDING THAT WASNT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED.

[PAGZ]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=XY02Qkuc_f8
same shit just years later

[Lump]

A couple of eye witness reports from firefighters who were actually at the scene beg to differ, the movie that I saw closer to 9/11 actually had footage from one of the firefighters running down the stairs in panic and you can clearly hear a whole bunch of explosions one after the other. I wonder if they put a hilux on the top of the wtc would it have survived as it did in Top Gear? ;D

Taking a look at your vids just now :)

yes ive had this conversation with the person on the other forum, im still waiting for him to reply..

yes lots of people heard the loud bangs, i did as well n the tv. they happened exactly at the same time the tower was colapsing not well beforeas would have to have been the case if it was a controlled demolition or even a series of bombs.

[PAGZ]

WHAT THE FUCK WAS THERMITE DOING IN A BUILDING THAT WASNT SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEEN DEMOLISHED. win

[peter_piper]

yes ive had this conversation with the person on the other forum, im still waiting for him to reply..

yes lots of people heard the loud bangs, i did as well n the tv. they happened exactly at the same time the tower was colapsing not well beforeas would have to have been the case if it was a controlled demolition or even a series of bombs.

Your vids are interesting... but see this one thing I cant fathom. If pancake theory was correct, it would have taken a LOT longer for the building to collapse

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bdQh18kvpRU for instance

and some funny dude doing a thing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5QMSAsOkumI



Pancake theory is full of shit imho.

[RICEY]

Who said they found thermite?

[Lump]

200,000 tonnes was just the steel content apparently. Can only go off the evidence i have found. That does not include the weight of concrete and other materials, the towers themselves were each though to weigh approximately 500,000 tonnes. The design of the WTC central beams are ones that form a central core and extend for the entirety of the building. IF the tower did start to come down as you have suggested the outsides would not have been able to support the weight, BUT the steel below being mainly unaffected should have been able to. It would have made more sense if the section above the point of impact fell away and then the outside portions of the tower leaving the central steel core. It collapsed in a very controlled manner, go watch some youtube videos on buildings that have been brought down in a controlled manner and then ones brought down by demoltions that have gone awy and you can see a major difference in how they fall. The WTC had an almost floor by floor failing, something that is essentially impossible using the commissions report of the evidence. Why has nobody thought that maybe terrorists had actually planted explosive devices in the towers to ensure they came down? Its another possibilitiy without blaming the government...

i have just said that there needs to be a good delay in the noise of explosions in a demolition - in te towers there was none. - explain that



It would have been required for it to collapse in the manner it did. For a building to collapse in on itself without falling to a specific side it requires that the central supports of the building and the core are weakened momentarily after the other, otherwise portions of the building would topple over due to an uneven collapse. This is why so much time goes into planned demolitions, i dont think you grasp how hard it is to demolish a building perfectly, the experts spend a long time setting up charges to make it collapse on itself. If it was as easy as flying a plane into it why would they spend all the time and the effort? Why not just stick a bunch of fuel on one of the floors and set it on fire...because it doesnt work that way, the buildings fall over or dont collapse properly.

it came down & ive just proved it cant have been by explosive charges due to the absense of noise etc.



Evidence? You state the main body, according to who? You? The Government? A private society of civil engineers? There are enormous numbers of experts who agree and disagree, they know more than we do so how can we say who is right and wrong?
of course not me. wiki refers to this organisation.




How do you know they show SFA? Have you watched the entirety of them, the ORIGINAL footage? If so care to share? :)

again its on wiki - if you dont want to accept them & their legimate REFERENCES- the people that actually said/wrote it thats up to you



Not giving evidence that shows one is innocent leaves an assumption of guilt and that they have something to hide. The fact that a lot of the evidence has been shipped off before it could be analysed or was apparently "destroyed" does not bode well for showing their innocence...

meh - more what ifs?

There are plenty of discrepancies, YOU just do not want to SEE them. You are suffering from the same thing the conspiracy theorists are which is a confirmation bias. Any evidence that does not agree with YOUR opinion you choose to ignore, or like you so frequently do on this board you try to cut down anyone elses opinion that doesnt agree with yours, you blatantly agreed with people who agreed with you without questioning what they said but when someone says something you dont agree with you have a desire to push your opinion as fact.

i can back up what ive said here, please show me how im wrong on the controlled demolitio theory agree with me. i will glady agree with something new but so far i havent really seen it.

prove me wrong in what ive said & i will happliy change my mind

Like i said before im going to remain sitting on the fence, i dont agree with the conspiracy theorists because a lot of their information is incorrect or incomplete and they jump to massive assumptions about a conspiracy. At the same time there is a severe lack of evidence coming from the government to put these theorists to rest, it has been going on for years and still nothing has been done to put people's mind at rest as to what really happened.

Go and watch Loose Change the final cut, Zeitgeist, and then watch some debates or read the debunking that Popular Mechanics did and the 9/11 truth movement.org debunking of what the Popular Mechanics said because at the moment you are just coming across completely one sided.

This debate has numerous parts:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

Note that the Popular Mechanics guy needs to talk down in order to prove he is more superior rather than giving factual evidence in rebuttal, theres a fair few parts to that too.
..

[Lump]

Your vids are interesting... but see this one thing I cant fathom. If pancake theory was correct, it would have taken a LOT longer for the building to collapse

why? it would have sped up slightly the further down it colapsed due to the ever increasing load to be taken by each level below.


Pancake theory is full of shit imho.

demolition or explosive theory is full of shit imo

[peter_piper]

Who said they found thermite?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11zM-wraII0

:)


The quote I was actually directly looking for was when he went on C-SPAN and he gave evidence of what he had gathered from the dust etc.

[peter_piper]

demolition or explosive theory is full of shit imo

You didnt do physics at high school I take it then... lol.

PS watch the vids I just posted.
PPS I love how you refer to wikipedia as the ultimate say.

[ELUSIV]

Most demolitions do use explosives however there are chemical means that can achieve exactly what is desired. Watching the doco at the moment on the WTC7 collapse and they still havent released a report 7 years on. All of the steel was shipped off for melting but they did have a few pieces left and they noted that it looked as if it had been dissolved and that some of the steel was hollow inside...

Stop referring to Wiki as it makes you look even stupider. Ive been at university 4 years now and even if i had of used Wikipedia as a reference i would have received 0 for an assignment.
Wikipedia can be altered by anyone and ALL universities have a policy to not acknowledge any information from Wikipedia due to its notorious unreliability.

Go watch the videos ive suggested and i think you will find them a real eye opener if you take to them with an objective non-biased attitdude :)

[Lump]

You didnt do physics at high school I take it then... lol.

well explain to me how explosives took down the HUGE building when there is total silence until the floors start crashing into each other. just do that 1 thing.

i did physics in college not highschool
PS watch the vids I just posted.

which ones the zeiltergist ones? i said i might later especially if you rekon the building designer is on there.
PPS I love how you refer to wikipedia as the ultimate say. well i havent done much looking onthe net really, most of what i believe i read about not long after it happened.

wiki is a concise source of info & the MAIN thing about it is they provide excellent references to where they got info & seem to be unbiased. they dont take things out of context like the conspricy thorists do
..

[Lump]

Most demolitions do use explosives however there are chemical means that can achieve exactly what is desired.
chemical methods is something i know nothing about but you would have to admit ive proved they could not have used explosives or bombs...

Watching the doco at the moment on the WTC7 collapse and they still havent released a report 7 years on. All of the steel was shipped off for melting but they did have a few pieces left and they noted that it looked as if it had been dissolved and that some of the steel was hollow inside...

Stop referring to Wiki as it makes you look even stupider. Ive been at university 4 years now and even if i had of used Wikipedia as a reference i would have received 0 for an assignment.
Wikipedia can be altered by anyone and ALL universities have a policy to not acknowledge any information from Wikipedia due to its notorious unreliability.

wiki back up what they say with references - the exact same ones you would use.



Go watch the videos ive suggested and i think you will find them a real eye opener if you take to them with an objective non-biased attitdude :)

which one?
ditto if you had an objective non-baised attitude you would read those links to wiki i put up, look at the references.

its funny how wiki can be so useful for so many subjects but soon as its this subject they dont know squat




..

[peter_piper]

..

Not just explosions - what about the thermite that I Just suggested? Especially when molten metal was pouring out of parts of the building which has been shown time and time again on tv. Dont ignore the thermite evidence just because it throws a spanner in your assumptions. Tell me. What is the specific heat capacity of jet fuel? What is the specific heat capacity of the steel core columns?


And yep. Check the Zeitgeist bits I posted. If it isnt included in them somewhere, which I highly doubt, check out the second section of the movie (after the debunking of religion bit). I was going to watch this bit right now just for you so I can quote the shit, and find the name of the guy... but I have beer to drink :)


I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I am a realist. Wikipedia is not a proper factual information source. As is not the government "reports." Why? Because most people posting on wiki werent there. The government reports are simulations which could potentially have been doctored. The real sources of information should be the eyewitnesses there at the time. After all, we werent there - so do we really have a right to comment on something we have practically no idea about? Speculation can be very messy.

Now everything I have posted could be nonsense because I wasnt there. You cant argue with that. If you agree, then you MUST also take the viewpoint that everything you posted could be nonsense too. What I have done, just like you, is weigh up the information that I have been given and draw a logical conclusion. Pancake theory to me is simply not a logical conclusion. However, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

[Lump]

Not just explosions - what about the thermite that I Just suggested? Especially when molten metal was pouring out of parts of the building which has been shown time and time again on tv. Dont ignore the thermite evidence just because it throws a spanner in your assumptions. Tell me. What is the specific heat capacity of jet fuel? What is the specific heat capacity of the steel core columns?


And yep. Check the Zeitgeist bits I posted. If it isnt included in them somewhere, which I highly doubt, check out the second section of the movie (after the debunking of religion bit). I was going to watch this bit right now just for you so I can quote the shit, and find the name of the guy... but I have beer to drink :)


I'm not a conspiracy theorist, I am a realist. Wikipedia is not a proper factual information source. As is not the government "reports." Why? Because most people posting on wiki werent there. The government reports are simulations which could potentially have been doctored. The real sources of information should be the eyewitnesses there at the time. After all, we werent there - so do we really have a right to comment on something we have practically no idea about? Speculation can be very messy.

Now everything I have posted could be nonsense because I wasnt there. You cant argue with that. If you agree, then you MUST also take the viewpoint that everything you posted could be nonsense too. What I have done, just like you, is weigh up the information that I have been given and draw a logical conclusion. Pancake theory to me is simply not a logical conclusion. However, my opinion is just as valid as yours.

im happy to admit i know nothing of this themite.

i asked you about this "well explain to me how explosives took down the HUGE building when there is total silence until the floors start crashing into each other"

without me googling thermite how does it effect what ive described above?


wiki & its references are not an actual factual information piece? well you tell me what is & i will look there.

[ELUSIV]

chemical methods is something i know nothing about but you would have to admit ive proved they could not have used explosives or bombs...


You havent PROVEN anything at all. You just BELIEVE you have. There is many other ways of using explosive charges. Instead of using large devices that create enormous noise many smaller devices could have been used, which also may have accounted for why little to no evidence was found.
It may have not been a controlled demolition at all, but it doesnt mean that other theories can be ruled out, there are a lot of theories that explain what happened better than just a string of coincidental events. Like NORAD running practice operations so they couldnt scramble F16's, the Fire systems also under test with nothing being reported for 8 hours in which the attacks occurred, the list goes on, and for all three buildings to come down in a controlled way by means that no other building in history has? Three in a row, for the first time in history...come on there is only so far a coincidence can reach.




wiki back up what they say with references - the exact same ones you would use.


Wiki use unreliable references, most the time from internet based sites. Again Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if you want to look at my thesis i have more than 50 references and i think there may be one website in it? The rest are from peer-reviewed journals and books. Those last two are the only reliable sources that you will find in ANY disclipine on the face of the Earth. There is no point in arguing this as if you had a tertiary education you would know the reasons and importance of using reliable sources of information and why wikipedia clearly is not one of them



which one?
ditto if you had an objective non-baised attitude you would read those links to wiki i put up, look at the references.


Zeitgeist, Loose Change Final Cut. Then read the Popular Mechanic's rebuttle, then check the 9/11 truth movement's website for their rebutle. I also posted the first part to the debate between the Loose Change guys and the Popular Mechanics guy.
I am as objective as i can be, it is extremely hard not to be partially biased in some way, which i may be, but you are clearly not even willing to acknowledge the opions and the evidence provided by the "conspiracy theorists" which essentially makes you extremely biased. I will not waste my time going through garbage on Wikipedia, ive made my thoughts clear on this and have given evidence to why Wikipedia is unreliable.


its funny how wiki can be so useful for so many subjects but soon as its this subject they dont know squat

No, Wikipedia can be useless for a lot of subjects. It is merely a useful tool for getting the general jist of something, but using it to draw meaningful conclusions is impossible.

[peter_piper]

im happy to admit i know nothing of this themite.

i asked you about this "well explain to me how explosives took down the HUGE building when there is total silence until the floors start crashing into each other"

without me googling thermite how does it effect what ive described above?


wiki & its references are not an actual factual information piece? well you tell me what is & i will look there.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HsG2cCKVIxY

ps ELUSIV you have just become my new favourite open minded poster here on antilag.

[DRKWRX]

I think people are missing the point on how rediculous it would be in the first place, your telling me all these people that set this up (explosives in buildings) etc the airport the planes left from, the fighter pilots in the planes, there would be so many people involved in an organised thing like this and they have all kept secret and not told anyone, also they set up explosives in buildings knowing they would kill that many people? I think the whole thing is a joke, and I am open minded I just dont believe what some guy in a Documentary that is made to support there point of view says, its the same as the moon landing conspiracy lol considering the smallest things these Politicians do comes out in the media.

[Lump]

You havent PROVEN anything at all. You just BELIEVE you have. There is many other ways of using explosive charges. Instead of using large devices that create enormous noise many smaller devices could have been used, which also may have accounted for why little to no evidence was found.

thats how all controlled demolitions are done, thats why they are called that..


It may have not been a controlled demolition at all, but it doesnt mean that other theories can be ruled out,
im all for looking at other theories, you have provided one that i know nothing about & im not writing it off - a chemical demolition.

there are a lot of theories that explain what happened better than just a string of coincidental events. Like NORAD running practice operations so they couldnt scramble F16's, the Fire systems also under test with nothing being reported for 8 hours in which the attacks occurred, the list goes on, where are you getting this info? where are your references? and for all three buildings to come down in a controlled way by means that no other building in history has? Three in a row, for the first time in history...come on there is only so far a coincidence can reach.

well it is the first time something like this has happened.
you know, 2 of some of the biggest buildings of this design being hit at very similar times by practically the same thing & they damage a building below.
they seem related not really just coincidence..




Wiki use unreliable references, most the time from internet based sites big newspapers, legitmate organisations.

its very easy to discredit them because its normal for the theorists to not trust any information source ecept their own.

Again Wikipedia is not a reliable source, if you want to look at my thesis i have more than 50 references and i think there may be one website in it?

like i said they dont just use websites & if they do they are legitimate ones,The rest are from peer-reviewed journals and books. Those last two are the only reliable sources that you will find in ANY disclipine on the face of the Earth. There is no point in arguing this as if you had a tertiary education you would know the reasons and importance of using reliable sources of information and why wikipedia clearly is not one of them
then why do you refer to these movies below? i bet you dont refer to movies in your thesis? so why use this shit now?



Zeitgeist, Loose Change Final Cut. Then read the Popular Mechanic's rebuttle, then check the 9/11 truth movement's website for their rebutle. I also posted the first part to the debate between the Loose Change guys and the Popular Mechanics guy.
I am as objective as i can be, it is extremely hard not to be partially biased in some way, which i may be, but you are clearly not even willing to acknowledge the opions and the evidence provided by the "conspiracy theorists" which essentially makes you extremely biased. I will not waste my time going through garbage on Wikipedia, ive made my thoughts clear on this and have given evidence to why Wikipedia is unreliable.

well you tell me where to get the best information on this subject?



No, Wikipedia can be useless for a lot of subjects. It is merely a useful tool for getting the general jist of something, but using it to draw meaningful conclusions is impossible.

its the best ive found but i havent been looking long, where are you getting your info?

..

[peter_piper]

I think people are missing the point on how rediculous it would be in the first place, your telling me all these people that set this up (explosives in buildings) etc the airport the planes left from, the fighter pilots in the planes, there would be so many people involved in an organised thing like this and they have all kept secret and not told anyone, also they set up explosives in buildings knowing they would kill that many people? I think the whole thing is a joke, and I am open minded I just dont believe what some guy in a Documentary that is made to support there point of view says.


I'm open minded to either possibility. However it seems a lot more credible to me that the US govt staged a false flag scenario to wage war. Yet again.

Think about it too. Bush's popularity ratings were the worst at that time than any previous President had. What's a good way to rally your people together and get them focussed on a common enemy? Have a bad event happen like 9/11 and then blame a target - everyone gets angry cause 3000 people died and the Americans, as we all know, love revenge.... so they're quick to anger... and thus if focussed would be quick to rally into retaliatory measures. Bush says it was Afghanistan? Alright guys we're gonna fight there. Oh no it wasnt Afghanistan it was Iraq. We're still pissed off so we'll fight there too. PS THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL - you have to ask yourself Why?



If you look very closely at this 9/11 thing as being on the same page as when America joined the first and second world wars, AND VIETNAM.... some things start to make an insanely spooky kind of sense.

[DRKWRX]

yeah I wouldnt be suprised if Bush knew an attack was going to happen of some kind, But I doubt they would have a big play in organising it happening would be too risky and just couldnt see it happening.

[peter_piper]

yeah I wouldnt be suprised if Bush knew an attack was going to happen of some kind, But I doubt they would have a big play in organising it happening would be too risky and just couldnt see it happening.

That movie Zeitgeist really opened my eyes as to the explaination of war etc... not saying it's 100% credible but it does make some fucking good points.... take a look if you have the time free... it's pretty cool :)

[Lump]

I'm open minded to either possibility. However it seems a lot more credible to me that the US govt staged a false flag scenario to wage war. Yet again.

Think about it too. Bush's popularity ratings were the worst at that time than any previous President had he had just won an election so i dont know what you are talkng about there What's a good way to rally your people together and get them focussed on a common enemy? Have a bad event happen like 9/11 and then blame a target - everyone gets angry cause 3000 people died and the Americans, as we all know, love revenge.... so they're quick to anger... and thus if focussed would be quick to rally into retaliatory measures. Bush says it was Afghanistan? Alright guys we're gonna fight there. Oh no it wasnt Afghanistan it was Iraq. We're still pissed off so we'll fight there too. PS THIS IS A HYPOTHETICAL - you have to ask yourself Why?



If you look very closely at this 9/11 thing as being on the same page as when America joined the first and second world wars, AND VIETNAM.... some things start to make an insanely spooky kind of sense.

i know what your trying to hypothecise but it doesnt seem a reason to stage all of this imo.

the us didnt need a reason to go back to iraq, they had the un sanctions & their crap about wmd's.

yes they used 911 to go to afghanistan but i believe they were primed & allready going to iraq before 911.

[DRKWRX]

That movie Zeitgeist really opened my eyes as to the explaination of war etc... not saying it's 100% credible but it does make some fucking good points.... take a look if you have the time free... it's pretty cool :)

Yeah I watched the one that was posted just before, was interesting some of it was same as Farenheight 911, if your interested in America playing there own people you would like this vid, prety interesting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RjALf12PAWc

[ELUSIV]

LOL you believe information from the media is reliable?
Then you must believe that hoons are the worst drivers on the road...because thats what the media purports therefore it must be true?

These movies arent relevant to my thesis, i was merely citing an example of the importance of using reliable sources. They are however relevant to this discussion and provide some food for thought, that is all, and trying to show you that there are two sides of the coin.

To get access to journals you need to generally pay for a subscription, but Proquest and ScienceDirect are a couple who provide database searching functions. Alternatively Googles Scholar sometimes has peer-reviewed journals that are free, most arent going to be written in easy terms. I would struggle to understand a paper written on a subject to do with chemistry because they are written by professionals in that field, for professionals, so it would be beyond me. However they are the essentially the most reliable source of information in existence because all information is peer-reviewed.

For the people who are siding with the conspiracy theorists here are a few things to consider:

If it was a controlled demolotion how did they get the ordanance and the wiring/detonators into place in all the floors of 3 buildings with thousands of people working there?

Even though there is a lot of coincidences isnt it just possible a bad string of events occurred? No-one here hasnt had a string of coincidental events in one day that surprised them?

[peter_piper]

Coincidences:

No building so far has had inner metal structural failure by fire. Except three, which all occurred on the same day (9/11)
N.O.R.A.D. has had 100% success rate in interceptions to date. However they failed 3 times in one single day (9/11).

Coincidences hey. All this shit just happened to fall upon one single day and yet the majority of you just dismiss it as bullshit.


Go figure. No wonder we havent found an answer yet. Everyone is soo quick to believe what we're told by our Governments, who have always in the past, been soo quick to lie,cheat, steal and "ENGAGE IN DIS-INFORMATION" (Which is another term for a LIE).


A TRUE UNBIASED SCEPTIC IS ONE WHOM DEMANDS INFORMATION TO PROVE THEM WRONG. Not just jumping on a bandwagon against generally accepted beliefs or habitually accepted beliefs. A CORRECT sceptic is one who wants a source to prove them wrong with correct information.

I am therefore, a justified sceptic.

[TJ]

It was the Wu Tang Clan

[peter_piper]

I reckon it was Aliens. Cause like. They're green and all.

[DRKWRX]

Coincidences:

No building so far has had inner metal structural failure by fire. Except three, which all occurred on the same day (9/11)
N.O.R.A.D. has had 100% success rate in interceptions to date. However they failed 3 times in one single day (9/11).

Coincidences hey. All this shit just happened to fall upon one single day and yet the majority of you just dismiss it as bullshit.


Go figure. No wonder we havent found an answer yet. Everyone is soo quick to believe what we're told by our Governments, who have always in the past, been soo quick to lie,cheat, steal and "ENGAGE IN DIS-INFORMATION" (Which is another term for a LIE).


A TRUE UNBIASED SCEPTIC IS ONE WHOM DEMANDS INFORMATION TO PROVE THEM WRONG. Not just jumping on a bandwagon against generally accepted beliefs or habitually accepted beliefs. A CORRECT sceptic is one who wants a source to prove them wrong with correct information.

I am therefore, a justified sceptic.

But you are believing facts that are being told by people who themselves are biased towards The Conspiracy theorists who want to believe the government did it. Just because they said these things happened doesnt mean its true. I know some of what you say is fact though haha.

[peter_piper]

But you are believing facts that are being told by people who themselves are biased towards The Conspiracy theorists who want to believe the government did it. Just because they said these things happened doesnt mean its true. I know some of what you say is fact though haha.

Hehe. I have come to this conclusion as it seems right to me, I have sifted through hours and hours and hours of information but to me the conclusion I Have made is the just one for me. I am not saying I am correct and that most are incorrect... but this is what just sits right with me.

I am also an advocate of intuition - ie the first thought on something being the right one. When titmeat came into work on 9/11 out of uniform saying that America has been attacked, my first thought was "Bush staged this" it was a warped idea and I hadnt even thought any way at all into such conspiracy theories. But I let my open mind explore many possibilities and as such i've come back to my founding thought... that there was a reason for this and it wasnt as what we've been told.

BUT... and this is a BIG but. I really honestly wish that my opinions are wrong and that I can be shown evidence that will sway me in the opposite direction. I have always been a person of gathering my own opinion from every source, and to me it seems like there's a bunch of crap here that doesnt make sense.


We'll all know the truth in a couple of decades anyway.


EDIT: I dont know why I didnt start to argue the coincidences or "Facts" with you.


conspiracy wankers aside, those facts stand. To date, apart from what happened on 9/11, NO STEEL building has ever collapsed its foundation due to fire. To date, also, N.O.R.A.D. has had 100% interception rate. Yet they failed 3 times on this date.

This isnt conspiracy theorist bullshit. This is FUCKING FACT.

meow meow meow meow meow meow meow me-fucking-ow.

[Slip_]

It was the Wu Tang Clan

WU-FAMILIA never doubt!...Bung Bung God...

Most definately the collective clinical execution of Method aka 'The Iron Lung' aka 'Meth'Tical'...
The RZA aka 'Bobby digital'...
GZA aka 'Genius'...
Inspectah Deck aka 'Tha Bill Collectah' aka 'the Fifth brother' aka 'Rollie Finger'...
Killah Priest aka 'The Auto Pilot'...
Ghost face killah aka 'Tony Starks'...
Redman aka 'Funk Doctor Spock'...
Raekwon aka 'Lex Diamonds'...
Old Dirty Bastard aka 'Dirt McGirt' (Booga booga booga)...
Mastah Killah aka 'High chief' aka 'Noodles'...

and finally... U - God aka 'Golden Arms'...

Aint nothing to fuck with.

[peter_piper]

where my crack eh?

[Slip_]

WuTang...

Will survive.

[peter_piper]

Hey have any of you guys heard of Tesla before?

[MMM]

nikola tesla?

[Slip_]

Tesla?

Look up the Philadelphia project.

Einstein even said it... "im not the smartest man... Nikola Tesla is..."

[Slip_]

P.S...

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/Slip_87SX/wuhad.jpg

[TJ]

Diversify your bonds nigga

[Slip_]

Cash rules everything around me... Cream...

Get the money...

Dollar dollar bills ya'll...

[titmeat]

Buds rules everything around me
!!L:D

[Slip_]

Bung Bung!

[Lump]

LOL you believe information from the media is reliable?
some of it is yes.
Then you must believe that hoons are the worst drivers on the road...because thats what the media purports therefore it must be true?

These movies arent relevant to my thesis, i know they arent, i was showing you that you think its ok to rely on them for this topic but wiki is a joke.. i was merely citing an example of the importance of using reliable sources. They are however relevant to this discussion and provide some food for thought, that is all, and trying to show you that there are two sides of the coin.

wiki do not just refer to the media or random websites.
here are their references behnd their version of events for just one of the planes on 911.


^ "Brief of Accident". National Transportation Safety Board (2006-03-07). Retrieved on 2008-06-17.
^ a b c d e f g "Staff Report - "We Have Some Planes": The Four Flights — a Chronology" (PDF). National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States. Retrieved on 2008-06-17.
^ "United Airlines Flight 175". CNN (2001). Retrieved on 2008-06-17.
^ a b c "'We Have Some Planes'". National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (July 2004). Retrieved on 2008-06-17.
^ Glaberson, William (2001-09-13). "After the Attacks: United Flight 175; Second Plane to Strike World Trade Center Tower Took a Deliberate Path", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-06-17.
^ Ellison, Michael (2001-10-17). "'We have planes. Stay quiet' - Then silence", The Guardian. Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
^ Wald, Matthew L.; Kevin Sack (2001-10-16). "A Nation Challenged: The Tapes; 'We Have Some Planes,' Hijacker Said on Sept. 11", The New York Times. Retrieved on 2008-06-17.
^ a b "NTSB Report for Flight 175" (PDF). NTSB (2002-02-19). Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
^ "Report: hijacked plane nearly hit flight from Bradley". SouthCoastToday.com (2002-09-12). Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
^ a b "Flight 175: As the World Watched (TLC documentary)". The Learning Channel (December 2005).
^ a b c "Exhibit #P200018, United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui". United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia.
^ "The Four Flights - Staff Statement No. 4" (PDF). 9/11 Commission.
^ a b c d e f National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (2004). "Chapter 1", 9-11 Commission Report. Government Printing Office.
^ a b c d "Flight 175: As the World Watched (TLC documentary)". The Learning Channel (December 2005).
^ a b "NIST NCSTAR 1-5: Reconstruction of the Fires in the World Trade Center Towers" (PDF). National Institute of Standards and Technology (October 2005).
^ "Carmen Taylor, amateur photographer from Lavaca... She then took the photo of United Airlines Flight 175 as it hit the south tower".
^ "United Airlines provides further update on UA Flights 93 and 175". PR Newswire Europe Ltd. (2001-09-11). Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
^ "Logan Airport bears memory of its fateful role with silence". Boston Globe (2002-09-12). Retrieved on 2007-04-18.
^ "United Airlines Worldwide Timetable". Retrieved on 2007-09-18.




..

[titmeat]

..
post whore

[Lump]

Tesla?

Look up the Philadelphia project.

Einstein even said it... "im not the smartest man... Nikola Tesla is..."

interesting quote.

my recolection of the Philadelphia experiment (if thats what you mean by Philadepheia Project?) was that the british navy had just invented radar & the us navy tried experiments to render their ships invisible to it.

hollywood made a movie of the same name based very loosely on this in the 80's.

[ReaperSS]

I never thought US was behind it but after watchin many dvd's . Im 100% convinced.

Great way to demolish 2 old biuldings that was goint to cost millions to de-aspestos the whole fireproofing and all the money worth of insurance that the owne got that he made sure "terrorism" was coverd for only days before.

What about Silverstien saying "We will pull building 7" Pulling biuldings is a term in the demolition trade. So much more

[DRKWRX]

building 7 was hit by one of the falling towers, and in that video they show you the side with no damage the other side was well on fire.

[Wuked]

terrorists did it, the government knew it was inevitable.

Wuked saying the tower was brought down with explosives... How do you figure? Because as the tower was collapsing the floors below had puffs of smoke shoot out the windows? The tower collapsed downwards, not toppled over. With the pressure and weight from the floors above, all the smoke created by fires was pushed out the windows. That is the logical explanation for that.

Also, buildings are designed to collapse downwards instead of topple over. Watch any demolition of a building and you will see that even though they place the charges in specific places, the building never falls over.

Tower 7 was destroyed due to the amount of debris from both towers as they collapsed. Tower 7 was around the same area as the Twin Towers. Some of the other towers were damaged, but were far enough away not to be destroyed.



If you've got google video pm me and I'll send you the video :)

Btw amazed at the amount of interest this thread has generated and how quickly.

[Lump]

wuked, how do you explain the lack of noise etc from explosives that you would normally see & hear in a controlled demolition?

[Wuked]

wuked, how do you explain the lack of noise etc from explosives that you would normally see & hear in a controlled demolition?

You're spot on the money for what I thought when I first watched it. But having watched other videos/theories/docs etc on this, and other topics (eg
Fah 9/11 with no news shots of returning coffins from Iraq etc on US news etc) think that the videos that we have seen were kind of vetted by those involved.

After reading what has been posted I think there can be arguments either way and concerning a lot of arguments, but I believe the story that was told by the government has to many holes (or call them potential holes) to believe we've been told the truth.

[Lump]

not sure what you mean?
the point im making is when i see the close up vid of when the towers fall & you can hear the floors smashing into each other (this is what the firefighters are describing in a few videos ive seen).
controlled explosions dont sound that way.

they have a series of loud bangs/explosions, then there is a pause beforethe lot comes down.
with the towers there was silence then suddenly they dropped.

then the loud bangs start. its these loud bangs that some say is the controlled detonations, but they are too out of sync with what we see with the towers coming down.

[ReaperSS]

building 7 was hit by one of the falling towers, and in that video they show you the side with no damage the other side was well on fire.

Yep thats what they are telling everyone but there has never in history a building fully colaps due to fire except for 9/11. Building 7 had major top secret evidence stuff were inside there which was going to bust some govenment ass but woops the place just collapsed.

So many reasons for 9/11. As said before i was allways a beleiver that it was terrorists but when you look at the doco's there are way to many thing that make you say WTF???

Also there has never been a air crash in history where all of a aircraft has been totaly vaporised even a pacific crash in the 90's that nosed dived 30,000 feet strait into the ground. They even found wheels and loads of parts but nothing in the pentagon one.

Anyone doubting it, just get loose change or there are many more good ones.

There is so much behind 9/11 and wha the full plan is. Alot more to come trust me.

They are looking for a excuse to invade iran next.. watch and see

[ReaperSS]

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hi303peYU

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=d8LzLRU35CY

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

[DRKWRX]

Its just the scale of organising somthing that large that gets me, so they filled all these buildings with explosives with noone noticing? and saying that a buildings havnt collapsed like this before, I dont think there has been somthing of this scale happen before, I do agree with you though that America might be planning some dodgey things.

[Wezz]

elusiv, whoever else it was arguing that the towers were brought down by demolition...

have a read of this :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

seismic readings show clearly that the towers collapsed without the help of explosives.

[Wuked]

elusiv, whoever else it was arguing that the towers were brought down by demolition...

have a read of this :
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

seismic readings show clearly that the towers collapsed without the help of explosives.


You're right, seismic readings clearly show the US administration covered up their attack on the twin towers

:P lol

[1JZVL]

best answer.

"who knows"

all I know is, everything has gone to shit and theres all these wars going on and the price of living has "turned to shit" aswell :cry:

[ReaperSS]

Its just the scale of organising somthing that large that gets me, so they filled all these buildings with explosives with noone noticing? and saying that a buildings havnt collapsed like this before, I dont think there has been somthing of this scale happen before, I do agree with you though that America might be planning some dodgey things.

Yeah it is really hard to beleve but its not the first time a country attacked itself as a excuse to start war .

Also they say the fire melted the steel but any firefighter will tell you that a low temp fire or a fire starving for o2 will be bellowing smoke which the towers were and 90% of the jet fuel was burned up on the innitial blast

There is a dvd that i have seen that shows a manager of the banking section on the 90th level of the building saying that on the weekend just days before 9/11 thay shut the whole place down and he complained saying the servers had to stay on so he went in for that day and there were unuslual workers running around with rollls of cable etc and one level in particular was shut down. The next day was weird because there was a fine film of dust on all the window sills and over his desk floors away as if drilling had been going on.

You will never hear this stuff on the media.

Anyone who does try gets shutdown quick

[ReaperSS]

This is a good eg of the bombs

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw&feature=related

[peter_piper]

What about Silverstien saying "We will pull building 7" Pulling biuldings is a term in the demolition trade. So much more

Glad someone mentioned this.

[Wezz]

pulling is a pretty vague term..

they "pulled" wtc 6, which meant they used hydrolic cables to pull down the building which they believed was to heavily damaged

The damage to wtc 7 was massive, there was 20 story high holes in the building, and also many of the companies there had deisel generators.. With a 5th floor generator have a pressurised line to the basement, which could fuel a fire.

Here is some statements from firefighters working on wtc 7 before the collapse.
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

including a contradictary statement from Mr McQuillan, the person who Silverstein spoke with.
also , neither Mr McQuillan or Silverstein are demolition experts. so them quoting vague demolition slang is far fetched imo...

[ReaperSS]

Weird thing is why did the need to pull it?

I cant remember what exactly was in there but it was very important that it got destroyed and it did

[ReaperSS]

All pro's in demolition say building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition the way it falls in on itself.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=0gElTyejWs4

[ReaperSS]

End of the day though , even if its all the US government then what can we all do? F/all. Its all higher than bush.

We just have to go along with the ride.

[joshg123]

I just think that,

1. It seemed too strange that it was believed instantly that 'terrorists' did it, and osama was behind it. I mean we were talking hours after, no proper investigation was carried out Al-whoever were conveniently just labeled and that was the end of the story. All seemed a bit prepared to me

2. Terrorists killed americans, now of course patriotic americans want to get their own back on these people. Oh, terrorists also have 'weapons of mass destruction'.... Better invade Iraq hey? And now its been proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussain has been captured, convicted AND hung... Yet USA are still hanging around?

Im on the US doing it boat, they needed an excuse to go into Iraq or a middle eastern country. They cant survive without a war. What better way to get an excuse than have your patriotic population all for you killing the 'terrorists' that killed their brothers.

Clever, yet dumb at the same time.

[Wezz]

Weird thing is why did the need to pull it?

I cant remember what exactly was in there but it was very important that it got destroyed and it did

They didnt pull it!
I was using the expression of how vague the term is.

I even gave you the statement of the fire cheif that silverstein spoke with which directly contradicts his version.

In that link there was even collaborating evidence from firefighters in the building , that it was burning and had suffered huge damage from falling debris and they decided to pull out as they thought it would collapse.


All pro's in demolition say building 7 looks exactly like a controlled demolition the way it falls in on itself.

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=iEuJimaumW4

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=0gElTyejWs4

All pros? really :/

It may *look* like a demolition , but the evidence is there for how it really collapsed.

[ReaperSS]

Yep an its weird how it was the world biggest crime scene but yet the cleaned it up asap and destroyed all evidence.

I have a peice of world trade center. I will take a pic and post it up soon

[Wezz]

I just think that,

1. It seemed too strange that it was believed instantly that 'terrorists' did it, and osama was behind it. I mean we were talking hours after, no proper investigation was carried out Al-whoever were conveniently just labeled and that was the end of the story. All seemed a bit prepared to me


Where did you get this from ? got a reference?



2. Terrorists killed americans, now of course patriotic americans want to get their own back on these people. Oh, terrorists also have 'weapons of mass destruction'.... Better invade Iraq hey? And now its been proven that there were no weapons of mass destruction, Saddam Hussain has been captured, convicted AND hung... Yet USA are still hanging around?


Um... US declared was on iraq almost 2 and a half years after 9/11... with their major reason being Suddam Hussien had weapons of mass destruction which were a threat to western democracies.



Im on the US doing it boat, they needed an excuse to go into Iraq or a middle eastern country. They cant survive without a war. What better way to get an excuse than have your patriotic population all for you killing the 'terrorists' that killed their brothers.


Yeah, because invading Iraq and Afghanistan has made America really popular the world over? what a fantastic move!..
also going into the middle east for oil? yeah.. because de-stabilizing the most prominent oil producing region of the world, causing uncertainty and the price of oil to skyrocket has really helped America aswell...

[Wezz]

Yep an its weird how it was the world biggest crime scene but yet the cleaned it up asap and destroyed all evidence.


lol, really?

im pretty sure you'll find they moved alot of the wreckage of the wtc somewhere where they investigated the cause of the collapse. pretty sure they have alot of bits of it still aswell considering they were planning to re-use many peices in a sort of "tribute" to the buildings.

[joshg123]

Wezz, cool down that keyboard son, that shits gonna melt keys.

That is what i THINK, not what i know.

Im not an expert, nor am i trying to act like one.

[Lump]

i agree with wezz.

also some say there was not enough fuel or that the environment was oxygen starved in the towers or the fires not hot enough.
ive been reading the official NIST report on the fires (its 60meg/240pages) & i believe that point is a non issue as well.

[mr_mike]

im done debating this, this other thread has been hard work..



:poke:
From i think ur 3rd or 4th post in this thead Andy :P

hhehe

[Lump]

:poke:
From i think ur 3rd or 4th post in this thead Andy :P

hhehe
yeah i know i couldnt help myself when i saw that post from wuked

the reason the other thread wore me out was because im sure i was arguing with someone who said they were open to other ideas but really they had totally made their mind up.
the amount of times i had to repeat direct questions or ask him to clarify simple statements he made just got rediculous.
the quality of discussion on here is far better imo

[mr_mike]

yeh Antilag is full of nerds and intellects disguised as car hoons

[CyberNetiC]

Coincidences:

No building so far has had inner metal structural failure by fire. Except three, which all occurred on the same day (9/11)
N.O.R.A.D. has had 100% success rate in interceptions to date. However they failed 3 times in one single day (9/11).

Coincidences hey. All this shit just happened to fall upon one single day and yet the majority of you just dismiss it as bullshit.


Go figure. No wonder we havent found an answer yet. Everyone is soo quick to believe what we're told by our Governments, who have always in the past, been soo quick to lie,cheat, steal and "ENGAGE IN DIS-INFORMATION" (Which is another term for a LIE).


A TRUE UNBIASED SCEPTIC IS ONE WHOM DEMANDS INFORMATION TO PROVE THEM WRONG. Not just jumping on a bandwagon against generally accepted beliefs or habitually accepted beliefs. A CORRECT sceptic is one who wants a source to prove them wrong with correct information.

I am therefore, a justified sceptic.

he was a habitual line-stepper.

[Lump]

Coincidences:
N.O.R.A.D. has had 100% success rate in interceptions to date. However they failed 3 times in one single day (9/11).


where did you read or get this information?

i can remember when this cessna crashed into the white house in 1994 and also these other events ater 911

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html


http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/cessna182flewtooclosetothewhitehouse.htm#tooclose



http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/cessna182flewtooclosetothewhitehouse.htm#security

[hoony]

man, there has been so much said in this thread i don't know if anything i say would contribute at all but here goes...

just a few weeks ago i watched a documentary on TENHD and it was talking about 9/11 'facts' or something...

anyway, it went back to 1993 when the Twin Towers were attempted to have been bombed in the underground carpark but it didn't work out and then how some terror suspects made their own bombs and like all sorts of different government agencies knew of these suspects but didn't tell each other...

and if they did then the hijackings wouldn't have happened... ie. the terrorists that hijacked the two TT planes were considered 'terror suspects' one the CIA or FBI but the CIA and FBI didn't inform the Air agency or whatever... the one's that control the airports and stuff, and if the CIA or FBI did inform that agency the suspects wouldn't have been able to board ANY plane... so it was talking about how all the agencies didn't work together...

also how the Clinton government had many opportunities to take out Bin Laden but they didn't for reasons quite legitimate, after he left the White House he told George Bush that his biggest regret as President was not being able to take out Bin Laden... and that it should be one of Bush's top priorities... Bush didn't listen, after Bush started as President there was an urgent memo about suspicions on terror activity in the country and that it should be looked at urgently... Bush ignored it for about 9 months and it was 'apparently' in that time that Bin Laden was able to plan the 9/11 stuff...

really good documentary... a lot of first hand interviews with the first fighter pilots informed about the plane crashings into the TT too...

can't remember what doco it was, anyone have an idea? i think this show would open everyone's eyes on the topic, hope i didn't bore everyone to shit, just my2c

cheers, Andrew

[ReaperSS]

Here is my little peice of WTC. Not to sure if its legit or not but i snapped it up quick from the US. There were quite a few made for th victims and familys of 9/11

http://i38.tinypic.com/6p83s5.jpg

http://i37.tinypic.com/2s9p3k0.jpg

[Slip_]

Thread was a fail from the get go.

Good to see people interested and thinking, its the best place to start.

But really, fairly rubbish in terms of content. Nothing personal... but this is like watered down playground discussion.

Everyone trying to make 'points' when they think the person theyre replying too is just a short sighted fool...

Designated self appointed 'experts'... standard off topic CT debunking thread. Fail.

[coFF33]

Didnt see this thread emerge, but i wish i did ! as im obsessed with the 9-11 incident.

For those who have a opinion on it, thats great

but there are 2 things you must watch before you can definatly make an opinion on what happened.

a movie called "In Plane Sight" and a FREE movie which is obtainable via Torrent, or simply just going to the site..
its called "zeitgeist"

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

[Ryan1080]

Yeah I've seen "In Plane Sight", they make some good points there, and not too outrageous with their claims... worth watching anyway.

[Slip_]

Mate, not shooting you down. Ive watched them all and even the new Zeitgeist is quite questionable in the way they deliver thier accounts.

Good info, but they draw thier own conculsions for the viewer. Not what we should ascertain after our own logic/reasoning.

Its more productive to consider and dwell upon what YOU are willing to do about it all, knowing know what you do.

Forget the minor details, we all know somethings up in the US, we need to facilitate a change in society that is 'ready' or open minded in a sense.

This thread has many perfect examples of 'hurdles' leading towards a solution. Which is headspace. So many perfect examples of 'scared' individuals in the world. a few here have shown thier colours.

[Slip_]

Didnt see this thread emerge, but i wish i did ! as im obsessed with the 9-11 incident.

For those who have a opinion on it, thats great

but there are 2 things you must watch before you can definatly make an opinion on what happened.

a movie called "In Plane Sight" and a FREE movie which is obtainable via Torrent, or simply just going to the site..
its called "zeitgeist"

http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/

Mate, not shooting you down. Ive watched them all and even the new Zeitgeist is quite questionable in the way they deliver thier accounts.

Good info, but they draw thier own conculsions for the viewer. Not what we should ascertain after our own logic/reasoning.

Its more productive to consider and dwell upon what YOU are willing to do about it all, knowing know what you do.

Forget the minor details, we all know somethings up in the US, we need to facilitate a change in society that is 'ready' or open minded in a sense.

This thread has many perfect examples of 'hurdles' leading towards a solution. Which is headspace. So many perfect examples of 'scared' individuals in the world. a few here have shown thier colours.

[Mad_Aussie]

I still don't see why this is still called a conspiracy "theory", when you have the general manager of Boeing saying how he can't comprehend how when the supposed "plane" hit the pentagon, the fire was so hot as to melt the (near on indestructible) turbines made from titanium, but still able to leave sufficient fingerprints to identify passengers... Load of crap the US fed its people, and everyone believes it. Its just pathetic

[Slip_]

Its UNBELIEVABLE educated aussies bought into it.

[Wezz]

Its just pathetic

I think its pathetic people believe youtube video's made by people wearing tin foil hats that live in their basements... :wave:

[Lump]

I still don't see why this is still called a conspiracy "theory", when you have the general manager of Boeing saying how he can't comprehend how when the supposed "plane" hit the pentagon, the fire was so hot as to melt the (near on indestructible) turbines made from titanium,
how do you know they found melted turbine blades?

but still able to leave sufficient fingerprints to identify passengers...
where was this said/written & by who?

Load of crap the US fed its people, and everyone believes it. Its just pathetic
..

[Lump]

but still able to leave sufficient fingerprints to identify passengers... Load of crap the US fed its people, and everyone believes it. Its just pathetic
btw why would they even consider to use fingerprints for id?
i might have this wrong but i thought people only had their prints on record to match up with if they had been arrested or a criminal record?
i dont think it was a plane load of crims was it?
i thought dna/dental was the first method used for identification

[Mad_Aussie]

btw why would they even consider to use fingerprints for id?
i might have this wrong but i thought people only had their prints on record to match up with if they had been arrested or a criminal record?
i dont think it was a plane load of crims was it?
i thought dna/dental was the first method used for identification

You haven't read much into this to be doing your usual quote-someones-whole-post-and-arrogantly-correct-them-in-red shit. The "official" report that Washington gave states that victims were identified by DNA and fingerprints.

Personally I believe they wrapped a missile in pretty united airlines paintwork with the pentagon. Gives the government good reason to go back to the oilfields when you have "terrorists" attacking you. This whole thing is very Gulf of Tonkin and RMS Lusitania to me.

[Slip_]

If anyone looked into the link i posted a while back.

You'll shit bricks.

[Lump]

You haven't read much into this to be doing your usual quote-someones-whole-post-and-arrogantly-correct-them-in-red shit. the reason i do that is so i can address comments directly, its not meant to look arrogant..The "official" report that Washington gave states that victims were identified by DNA and fingerprints where can i find this report? is it known by a name i can search on? .

what about the melted turbine blade where did that info come from?

Personally I believe they wrapped a missile in pretty united airlines paintwork with the pentagon.

if they did that with the pentagon why not with the towers as well? it was american airlines paintwork too btw

Gives the government good reason to go back to the oilfields when you have "terrorists" attacking you. This whole thing is very Gulf of Tonkin and RMS Lusitania to me.

allready been stated they didnt need a new reason to go back to iraq & afghanistan has no oil
..

[Wezz]

You haven't read much into this to be doing your usual quote-someones-whole-post-and-arrogantly-correct-them-in-red shit. The "official" report that Washington gave states that victims were identified by DNA and fingerprints.

Personally I believe they wrapped a missile in pretty united airlines paintwork with the pentagon. Gives the government good reason to go back to the oilfields when you have "terrorists" attacking you. This whole thing is very Gulf of Tonkin and RMS Lusitania to me.

soo what about all the people that saw a twin engine passenger plane hit the building..?

what about the human remains that were disocovered there?

why would they launch a missle at the pentagon if there were already two planes going to hit the twin towers? surely that would be enough jusification to start a war...

[ReaperSS]

Was spunout watch one of the dvd'd and a pilot from american airelines was saying how it would be impossible that a plane could pull a manouver around the pentagon and hit it at that hight and angle it did

[Lump]

If anyone looked into the link i posted a while back.

You'll shit bricks.


was it this one about bush's brother?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Burns_Stratesec.htm

seems he was involved with companies that provided security around the wtc & airports.
the ones at the airports didnt detect the hijackers boarding the planes (nothing unusual in that pre 911 i would have thought)

are they suggesting he somehow helped them?

[Lump]

You haven't read much into this to be doing your usual quote-someones-whole-post-and-arrogantly-correct-them-in-red shit. The "official" report that Washington gave states that victims were identified by DNA and fingerprints.

ive just been reading the official us govt 9/11 Commision report & the only references to fingerprints are in a discussion on possible securtiy/ID improvements for passenger check ins.

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf (7meg)


so if you could tell me which report you are reffering to that would be great.

[DRKWRX]

So They knew that when one of the twin towers fell it would hit WTC 7 and then they could "pull" it, or they didnt and they were just gonna demolish it and noone would notice? haha come on.

[Saf]

You conspiracy theory people crack me up :)

If i tell a 3yo the sky is tangerine purple, and he respects me enough, he will tell others ... because he wants to believe in me.

I can tell you Hitler was a top guy, loyal and did a lot of good for Germany. And some guys called Jacob Goldstein on the otherhand could tell you exactly opposite ... who you want to belive ? . Both have fact.

A lot of the "conspiracy" theories you guys live off, have been discounted and proven to be just that ... theory. You guys need to watch "9/11 Conspiracy" .... and if you still belive its a conspiracy, then its only because you want to.

One of the "experts" (no realworld qualification mind you, self proclaimed all the way) in a typical female point of view (no offence to you females who actually use your brain) "jet fuel burns 1000f cooler than steel melts in the towers". Steel wasnt melted you douche bag, when it gets hot, to the point of it glowing, as in the temp exp during the raging inferno with thousands of gallons of Jet A1 on fire, it looses half its tensile strength as a min.

Yet with that kind of blatently stupid comment, hundreds who have no metalurgical knowledge, even simple mechanics that if you want to bend a peice of metal, you make it glow not melt it ... will follow that then think "they used explosives". Of course. Each persons mobile phone in WTC acted a a bomb like at a servo. Fuel / explosion / death.

The katana swordsmiths knew this a few years ago in the Edo era ... some still dont.

Good luck with the rest of em :)

[Slip_]

was it this one about bush's brother?

http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Articles5/Burns_Stratesec.htm

seems he was involved with companies that provided security around the wtc & airports.
the ones at the airports didnt detect the hijackers boarding the planes (nothing unusual in that pre 911 i would have thought)

are they suggesting he somehow helped them?

Correct.

Bush's brother provided security to all airports, airlines.... AND the world trade centre itself.

Open to interpretation what that implies...

Just a little food for thought is all... i'm not here to say WHAT, WHERE and WHO, WHY or HOW...

but my findings into this disturb me, i wont share because its my findings... as they're my conclusions.

i believe a big part of process is for people who are concerned... to look into it themselves. do they're own THOROUGH research.

NOT debating second, third, fictional evidence that CANNOT be clarified in threads like this.

If you look... 'it's' there...

If you want to look properly, i'm willing to assist and know people who would be willing to assist in 'food for thought'... i'd rather not because it's not as easy as reading a link and being set in mind with a conclusion... its convuluted and inconsitent... as is all info... it's your own intuitive rationale which makes you able to see truth in things... in fact.. nearly anything you want.

[Slip_]

The katana swordsmiths knew this a few years ago in the Edo era ... some still dont.

Well prior to the edo period my friend ;) LOL... a 'few' years indeed hahaha

[ben351]

watched a killer docco on foxtel calle " The Falling Man " the famous photo of one of the guys that jumped from the 92nd ( i think ) floor

http://www.smh.com.au/ffximage/2006/08/30/FallingMan_060829015536020_wideweb__300x430,1.jpg

pretty intese watching it hey seeing all those people jumping to there deaths ... pretty fucked up makes you think what would you have done

[Lump]

Correct.

Bush's brother provided security to all airports, airlines.... AND the world trade centre itself.

Open to interpretation what that implies...

its a very long bow to draw - hardly the stuff to make you 'shit bricks'

Just a little food for thought is all... i'm not here to say WHAT, WHERE and WHO, WHY or HOW...

well thats the kind of information i prefer.

but my findings into this disturb me, i wont share because its my findings... as they're my conclusions.

i believe a big part of process is for people who are concerned... to look into it themselves. do they're own THOROUGH research.

NOT debating second, third, fictional evidence that CANNOT be clarified in threads like this.

If you look... 'it's' there...

If you want to look properly, i'm willing to assist and know people who would be willing to assist in 'food for thought'... i'd rather not because it's not as easy as reading a link and being set in mind with a conclusion... its convuluted and inconsitent... as is all info... it's your own intuitive rationale which makes you able to see truth in things... in fact.. nearly anything you want.

..

[DRKWRX]

I agree with Saf, Just because the guy who designed the towers said they could take a plane doesnt mean shit, Did he test flying a plane into it? these videos just show people talking with no proof behind what they are saying or people saying "i heard a Bomb" etc "pull" the building, People will say all sorts of things during somthing like 9/11 doesnt mean there was anything behind it, and I dont think that everyone involved on an inside job like this would be ok with killing couple thousand of there own people, especially Americans bein so patriotic and all.

[Lump]

ive been reading the NIST report on the wtc fires (NIST is the equivilant of Standards australia from what i can tell) & it seems the office workstations provided a lot more fuel for the fires than people realise.
also the number of windows that were broken out & the prevailing winds really helped the fires intensity in critcal hotspots.
each floor had an area of close to 4000m2 (one acre) to give you an idea of the scale of this thing.

[peter_piper]

soo what about all the people that saw a twin engine passenger plane hit the building..?

what about the human remains that were disocovered there?

why would they launch a missle at the pentagon if there were already two planes going to hit the twin towers? surely that would be enough jusification to start a war...

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/pentagon-aerial.jpg

Firstly there were no eye witness reports that said they saw a twin engine or a 757 hit the pentagon. Especially flying at 20 feet above the ground. And a 757 flying soo low missing all those electricity and light poles and advertising signs that littered the path toward the pentagon?

Secondly there were no human remains discovered at the crash site.

If they used a 757 like they said was used, it would have done a LOT more damage - but to the surrounding area of the pentagon as well.


I just like the pictures where you can see the hole it made on the outside of the pentagon, with the roof still in tact. Then minutes later you can see pictures where the roof has collapsed and part of the wall collapsed in on itself. You can clearly see the foreground to the actual fire and impact on the wall. Now to find these pics so you dont all think i'm more of a raging fucking lunatic =]

PS check this out:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm

This is interesting also, but biased towards believing it was an A3 and not a 757:

http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/coffin.htm



http://z.about.com/d/godc/1/0/m/8/9_11.jpg

[Wezz]

Firstly there were no eye witness reports that said they saw a twin engine or a 757 hit the pentagon. Especially flying at 20 feet above the ground. And a 757 flying soo low missing all those electricity and light poles and advertising signs that littered the path toward the pentagon?


really? heres some.
http://www.geocities.com/someguyyoudontknow33/witnesses.htm



Secondly there were no human remains discovered at the crash site.


i can post picture of bodies at the wreckage site... but they are very graffic... let me know if you dont believe me and ill post them up...



If they used a 757 like they said was used, it would have done a LOT more damage - but to the surrounding area of the pentagon as well.


I disagree... search for a c-130 which hit a building in Iran... this is a massive military transport jet, which hit a apartment building... there was nothing left of the plane with similar damage to the building like the pentagon...

Those pictures of the pentagon are deceptive too, they had to completely re-build the outer most 3 rings...



I just like the pictures where you can see the hole it made on the outside of the pentagon, with the roof still in tact. Then minutes later you can see pictures where the roof has collapsed and part of the wall collapsed in on itself. You can clearly see the foreground to the actual fire and impact on the wall. Now to find these pics so you dont all think i'm more of a raging fucking lunatic =]

PS check this out:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.htm


cant watch pentagon strike , still at work :(



This is interesting also, but biased towards believing it was an A3 and not a 757:

http://home.att.net/~carlson.jon/coffin.htm


Things like the security camera;s footage is pretty much useless to determine what hit the building... they take about 1 frame per second...

now a plane travelling at 380km/h (im pretty sure this was the speed the plane hit at... someone stop me if its wrong..) means that it was travelling at over a 100m/second. so wouldnt show up on a security camera at such close range.

considering the amount of witnesses (was banked up peak hour, and plenty of people saw the plane.) I cant believe people still think it was a missile or a jet...

[Lump]

there were plenty of witnesses that saw the plane flying fast & low towards the pentagon, the major freeway nearby was backed up so lots saw it fly over from there & then saw the smoke.
also telegraph or light poles were hit on the way in.
human remains were also found


Originally Posted by peter_piper
Coincidences:
N.O.R.A.D. has had 100% success rate in interceptions to date. However they failed 3 times in one single day (9/11).


where did you read or get this information?

i can remember when this cessna crashed into the white house in 1994 and also these other events ater 911

http://tech.mit.edu/V114/N40/crash.40w.html


http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/cessna182flewtooclosetothewhitehouse.htm#tooclose



http://www.mycountryrightorwrong.net/cessna182flewtooclosetothewhitehouse.htm#security
any luck finding out the source of your statement above on norad?

[ben351]

i can post picture of bodies at the wreckage site... but they are very graffic... let me know if you dont believe me and ill post them up...




DO IT

[peter_piper]

Agreed. As for me finding source of statistics i'm still looking, i've lost all my original bookmarks from 2002 onward but I have this official statement which i've just found from a former NORAD dude of 11 years:

http://patriotsquestion911.com/#Hordon
http://patriotsquestion911.com/Statement%20Hordon.html

[Lump]

thanks for the links but its taking me ages to find anything on norad but i will keep looking.

either way the links to the cessna articles prove there have been at least & probably many more breaches of controlled airspace that norad could do nothing about in the time frame.

[Mad_Aussie]

Havn't been able to dig up which report quoted about body identification; i don't have as much of an obsession with the topic as some.

But you can't tell me that a large passenger plane hit the pentagon; It just doesn't add up. Even in all the computer models that people show, there should be more damage along the face of the building where the wings entered.

(i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8)

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/pentagon-aerial.jpg
That hole isn't wide enough to have let a plane with its full wingspan enter. Something much smaller than a 757 hit it, but something still with enough wingspan to bowl over a bunch of light posts.

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml talks in depth about the evidence supporting the 757 being involved, however Rolls Royce still to this day deny that the components recovered from the crash scene are from a RB211.

Reading through their evidence however, they do make a god point (especially to do with the planes landing gear) that it does point to a 757 hitting the building. The impact site just doesn't make sense, its a shame that more photographs werent released of the wreckage..


On that note however, it needs to be pointed out that the wreckage of the 4th plane that was supposedly shot down didn't match a commercial jet crash.

The sheer amount of inconsistencies with the whole affair is the key reason behind the amount of conspiracy theories about. The way the US government lied and covered so much up points directly to foul play.

[Wuked]

The sheer amount of inconsistencies with the whole affair is the key reason behind the amount of conspiracy theories about. The way the US government lied and covered so much up points directly to foul play.

Spot on the money IMO

[Lump]

Havn't been able to dig up which report quoted about body identification; i don't have as much of an obsession with the topic as some.

But you can't tell me that a large passenger plane hit the pentagon; It just doesn't add up. Even in all the computer models that people show, there should be more damage along the face of the building where the wings entered.

what makes you think the wings should have 'entered'?
considering they were containing a shit load of fuel & the pentagon was very solidly buit (unlike the towers..)

(i.e. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8)

http://www.brasscheck.com/videos/911/pentagon-aerial.jpg
That hole isn't wide enough to have let a plane with its full wingspan enter. Something much smaller than a 757 hit it, but something still with enough wingspan to bowl over a bunch of light posts.

the full wingspan would not have had a chance to enter that building, also you are looking at a pic that shows the aftermath of the impact & serious fire

http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/q0265.shtml talks in depth about the evidence supporting the 757 being involved, however Rolls Royce still to this day deny that the components recovered from the crash scene are from a RB211.

Reading through their evidence however, they do make a god point (especially to do with the planes landing gear) that it does point to a 757 hitting the building. The impact site just doesn't make sense, its a shame that more photographs werent released of the wreckage..


On that note however, it needs to be pointed out that the wreckage of the 4th plane that was supposedly shot down didn't match a commercial jet crash.

a plane shot down? what are you talking about? flight 93 crashed due to intervention of the passengers. no planes were shot down. and as for the wreckage not matching the plane again that is false.

The sheer amount of inconsistencies with the whole affair is the key reason behind the amount of conspiracy theories about. The way the US government lied and covered so much up points directly to foul play.

what points are they being accused of lieing/covering & by who?
..

[Lump]

On that note however, it needs to be pointed out that the wreckage of the 4th plane that was supposedly shot down didn't match a commercial jet crash.


here are some pics that show the remains of flight 93. see the engine being dug out of the ground & the windows that lookexactly like those from a commerical jet.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

btw there are 112 references at the end of that article by wiki.

[titmeat]

How do all these terrorist motherfuckers... that are supposedly known to be the sort that the government would want to monitor, especially within the country...

How do they just walk onto a plane? Did they NOT check ID of these cvnts? this is fucking 2001 we're talking... not 1994. Those cvnts the government named as "the terrorists"... were on the record... "known". They dont just walk through gates. They're pretty much blacklisted.

All that aside... lets say the 'upper echelons' have a vaild reason...

The passport that was found ON THE FOOTPATH under twins towers? The ID of one of the accused? Found amongst rubble and wreckage... perfectly intact... not even singe'd.

Pretty... fucking... normal.

[SSICK]

NWR31, why is it so important to you? how do you know the plane wasnt shot down? were you there? did u see the passengers struggle with the hijackers?

are you a terrorist?

[Wuked]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Airlines_Flight_93

btw there are 112 references at the end of that article by wiki.

Please, can we avoid citing wikipedia

[titmeat]

Please, can we avoid citing wikipedia


No fucking shit.

[Lump]

Please, can we avoid citing wikipedia
why?cant handle the truth? if its good enough for others to mention utube & other productions whats wrong with wiki? if i dont quote wiki then i have to quote the individual report or story (which i have done anyway - 911 commision, NIST report etc)

look at all the references that wiki lists they didnt just make these things up- look at all the audio files from people on that plane - including the hijackers & try and tell me their info is no more valid than anything else people can (or cant) find.

[Lump]

How do all these terrorist motherfuckers... that are supposedly known to be the sort that the government would want to monitor, especially within the country...

How do they just walk onto a plane? Did they NOT check ID of these cvnts? this is fucking 2001 we're talking... not 1994. Those cvnts the government named as "the terrorists"... were on the record... "known". They dont just walk through gates. They're pretty much blacklisted.
atta did bring up a alert when he checked in - they searched his luggage and waved a wand over him - its in the 911 commision report they write in detail about this. if you want the link i can give it to you


All that aside... lets say the 'upper echelons' have a vaild reason...

The passport that was found ON THE FOOTPATH under twins towers? The ID of one of the accused? Found amongst rubble and wreckage... perfectly intact... not even singe'd.

i read they found stuff like that at the pentagon, i wont bother to ask you to back it up cause its pretty minor in the scheme of things
Pretty... fucking... normal.

..

[titmeat]

why?cant handle the truth? if its good enough for others to mention utube & other productions whats wrong with wiki? if i dont quote wiki then i have to quote the individual report or story (which i have done anyway - 911 commision, NIST report etc)

.

Are you actually on crack.

Its public contribution content.

Its ONE FUCKING SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

Its probably the least vaild source of information.

"look at all the references that wiki lists they didnt just make these things up- look at all the audio files from people on that plane - including the hijackers & try and tell me their info is no more valid than anything else people can (or cant) find"

Wow... your easy to convince. Try reading multiple sources. +/-... share with others... make some conclusions.

Your not doing to well at shining the light of logic here sir... FailnShit.

Slip_

[titmeat]

"atta did bring up a alert when he checked in - they searched his luggage and waved a wand over him - its in the 911 commision report they write in detail about this. if you want the link i can give it to you"

Off wikipedia? oh please share...

[Lump]

NWR31, why is it so important to you? i have a passing interest in this how do you know the plane wasnt shot down? i believe it wasnt shot down were you there? nope did u see the passengers struggle with the hijackers? i would be dead now if i had

are you a terrorist? no are you?

since you all think wiki is a load of shit take 5 minutes to read their summary of flight 93 then give your version

heres a story from the new york times on the subject of shooting down 93

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/17/politics/17CND-REPO.html?ex=1402891200&en=8c98e9b77372a170&ei=5007&partner=USERLAND

quote: "Had Flight 93 not crashed in Pennsylvania, it would have arrived in the Washington area 10 to 20 minutes later, the staff report said.

"There was only one set of fighters orbiting Washington, D.C., during this time frame," the report said, referring to a pair of F-16's from Langley Air Force Base in Virginia. "They were armed and under Norad's control."

But they had not been told that they were authorized to shoot down an aircraft, contrary to what Vice President Dick Cheney thought at that time.

In fact, the report noted, "the Langley pilots were never briefed about the reason they were scrambled" and did not know that the vice president had ordered that a Washington-bound hijacked jet be shot down"
The F-16 pilots understood their mission as "to identify and divert aircraft flying within a certain radius of Washington, but did not know that the threat came from hijacked commercial airliners," the report noted.

As the lead pilot F-16 recalled later, "I reverted to the Russian threat...I'm thinking cruise missile threat from the sea."

[Lump]

"atta did bring up a alert when he checked in - they searched his luggage and waved a wand over him - its in the 911 commision report they write in detail about this. if you want the link i can give it to you"

Off wikipedia? oh please share...

no i said its all in the 911 commision report its a 7meg pdf which you have to download.

you can do that here

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/index.htm

[titmeat]

Hang on... you've only read government reports... 911 official releases... NYTimes articles... this other car forum where your getting your arguments... and a little more official content?

Pretty much explains it all.

Dont see any validity of ex-government statements from victims and public servants?

Lock this fucking ridiculous thread please.

[Lump]

Are you actually on crack. No are you?

Its public contribution content. so are these pissweak utube video's and crock of shit 'docos' some people try to refer too & you rekon they are fine
Its ONE FUCKING SOURCE OF INFORMATION.

do you know what a reference is? its where they provide a link to the actual information for what they are saying - they are backing what they say - unlike a lot of other crap around..

Its probably the least vaild source of information. oh really, what do you like to use?
"look at all the references that wiki lists they didnt just make these things up- look at all the audio files from people on that plane - including the hijackers & try and tell me their info is no more valid than anything else people can (or cant) find"

Wow... your easy to convince. Try reading multiple sources. +/-... share with others... make some conclusions.

well you tell me where are you getting your info from?

Your not doing to well at shining the light of logic here sir... FailnShit.

really, well we will see when you try to answer this post :)

Slip_

..

[Lump]

Hang on... you've only read government reports... 911 official releases... NYTimes articles... this other car forum where your getting your arguments... and a little more official content?

Pretty much explains it all.

Dont see any validity of ex-government statements from victims and public servants?
v
Lock this fucking ridiculous thread please.

again, where are you getting your info?

[titmeat]

Wow...

Look at that...

3 out of 5 your response's were questions.

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y189/Slip_87SX/wuhad.jpg

[Saf]

these videos just show people talking with no proof behind what they are saying or people saying "i heard a Bomb" etc "pull" the building, People will say all sorts of things during somthing like 9/11 doesnt mean there was anything behind it,


Right. A friend of my parents was in first tower to be hit, she got out and we spoke once about all this kinda stuff. She said that no matter what people look back on that were there, the sensory overload was so extreme that time and events passed without even recollection. The trauma made many people fall into a shock that ... lets face it, you get a beam that has thousands of pounds per square inch of tensile strength snap, and its 2 feet wide with tens of thousands of tons above it, and yes, it can sound like a bomb. Doesnt mean it was one as a eg.



and I dont think that everyone involved on an inside job like this would be ok with killing couple thousand of there own people, especially Americans bein so patriotic and all.

Right. That and the fact that the US govt cant keep a secret, they are terrible at this kind of stuff, so can we assume that it was a inside job with hundreds if not thousands of people in the know, yet its been years since and its not leaked ?. Dont buy that.


I still don't see why this is still called a conspiracy "theory", when you have the general manager of Boeing saying how he can't comprehend how when the supposed "plane" hit the pentagon, the fire was so hot as to melt the (near on indestructible) turbines made from titanium

Lets hope he knows what he talking about. BTW, its inconel not ti, but hey, even the general manager can make a mistake.

[Lump]

Wow...

Look at that...

3 out of 5 your response's were questions.

big deal & heres why-

1. you try to discredit my information (which backs up my claims), so i think it fair to ask where you are getting your info. even tho i asked you twice still no reply on that one..

2. you make statements to discredit wiki like you have no clue what a reference is, so i thought i should check if you do (no reply either)

3. you asked me if i was on crack, i replied no & thought to ask you the same thing (no reply to that one either lol)

[WRCjosh]

i think the most interesting bit, is how did not one, but TWO turkeys who youd assume spent the majority of their time plowing goat pussy in the caves of afghanistan, with only a few lessons under their turbans, manage to pilot two commericial jets through the heart of new york city and perfectly into what you couldnt say is a very large target.

[Wezz]

how can wiki be disputed as a reliable source when you guys are posting youtube videos :/

re: pentagon... how can you dispute the massive number of first hand witness that saw a 757 hit the building..

also how do you know what the wreckage of a plane hitting a building would look like... (the pentagon is a pretty stong building too, blast resistant windows, built to resist bomb attacks, etc.. ) again, as i posted earlier, have a look at the pictures from a c-130 which hit a apartment complex in Iran.

http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/cbs_iran1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/iranfocus_iran1.jpg
http://911research.wtc7.net/pentagon/analysis/compare/docs/iranfocus_iran2.jpg

this was a plane coming in to land too... so it wasnt going anywhere near the speed of the 747 that hit the pentagon..

this shit aint fucking loony toons... when a play crashes into a building it doesnt leave a nice perfectly plane shape hole.

you mention in-consistencies..? what are they?
also , what did america gain from doing this?

[xr06t]

bush made a couple of zillion $'s from munitions contracts?

[Ryan1080]

i think the most interesting bit, is how did not one, but TWO turkeys who youd assume spent the majority of their time plowing goat pussy in the caves of afghanistan, with only a few lessons under their turbans, manage to pilot two commericial jets through the heart of new york city and perfectly into what you couldnt say is a very large target.

They were enrolled in flying lessons for a few months beforehand...

[Wezz]

bush made a couple of zillion $'s from munitions contracts?

got a reference for this? i cant find any information or claims matching this....

im suprised I havent heard any conspiracies regarding the recession lately... surely the jews and israel had something to do with it!:lol:

[Mad_Aussie]

NWR31, Wiki is not a source of reference, AT ALL.

No university will accept a wiki reference.
No court will accept a wiki reference.

Why? Because its not valid. Not valid at all. Anyone can add or alter it, unlike the Britannica, so anything floating on there can and generally ends up being inaccurate.

And honestly, if you believe that the government there is totally innocent and it was all a horrible unjustified attack and the Americans did the right thing every step of the way, then I'm sorry my friend but you've had your gray matter pre-heated nicely and are so soft and squishy that anything that they stamp "government" on you believe.
They lied from the word go, and they lied about EVERYTHING. Even bush said that a government that withholds information is a government with something to hide, and considering how little HARD EVIDENCE has been released to this day is absolute justification for any conspiracy theory.


By the way, structure your responses and answer people chronologically to make a point, because even if you don't try to be, your red "corrections" make you look like a total fucking clown. As I mentioned before, if you handed in your PhD as just a quotation with each point tacked on in red, you'd be laughed at.

Unless of course you were doing a case study on mentality complexes where that people must compulsively point out everyone's folly on an internet forum. In which case, Dr NWR31, my apologies.




also how do you know what the wreckage of a plane hitting a building would look like... (the pentagon is a pretty stong building too, blast resistant windows, built to resist bomb attacks, etc.. )

Interesting that out of the whole building, the section that the plane hit was the only section of these re-enforcements to be completed... and that a total noob was able to just hoik a 757 around and plough straight into that piece? Again, evidence that a failure that couldn't even land a Cessna did that, doesn't add up.

[Lump]

NWR31, Wiki is not a source of reference, AT ALL.

No university will accept a wiki reference.
No court will accept a wiki reference.

Why? Because its not valid. Not valid at all. Anyone can add or alter it, unlike the Britannica, so anything floating on there can and generally ends up being inaccurate.

wtf are you on about? of course wiki itself cant be used as a reference but the information that wiki refers to can - do you understand this very basic concept?

if the references that wiki REFERS TO are crap in your opinion where do you get your info?

And honestly, if you believe that the government there is totally innocent and it was all a horrible unjustified attack and the Americans did the right thing every step of the way, then I'm sorry my friend but you've had your gray matter pre-heated nicely and are so soft and squishy that anything that they stamp "government" on you believe.
They lied from the word go, and they lied about EVERYTHING. Even bush said that a government that withholds information is a government with something to hide, and considering how little HARD EVIDENCE has been released to this day is absolute justification for any conspiracy theory.

well you tell me what you think they lied about?


By the way, structure your responses and answer people chronologically to make a point, because even if you don't try to be, your red "corrections" make you look like a total fucking clown. As I mentioned before, if you handed in your PhD as just a quotation with each point tacked on in red, you'd be laughed at.

this is not a Phd, i prefer to address comments this way becasue i can deal with each issue i can offer input on. if you dont like it tough shit

Unless of course you were doing a case study on mentality complexes where that people must compulsively point out everyone's folly on an internet forum. In which case, Dr NWR31, my apologies.
Interesting that out of the whole building, the section that the plane hit was the only section of these re-enforcements to be completed... and that a total noob was able to just hoik a 757 around and plough straight into that piece? Again, evidence that a failure that couldn't even land a Cessna did that, doesn't add up.

..

[Slip_]

Your information?

hahahaha

For someone defending the truth of a event... you sure have alot of questions for the people asking questions.

[Wezz]

Interesting that out of the whole building, the section that the plane hit was the only section of these re-enforcements to be completed... and that a total noob was able to just hoik a 757 around and plough straight into that piece? Again, evidence that a failure that couldn't even land a Cessna did that, doesn't add up.

what about the huge number of witnesses that saw the plane hit the building....? thats sort of a pretty big hole in your theory....:dunno:



And honestly, if you believe that the government there is totally innocent and it was all a horrible unjustified attack and the Americans did the right thing every step of the way, then I'm sorry my friend but you've had your gray matter pre-heated nicely and are so soft and squishy that anything that they stamp "government" on you believe.


I never said the government is totally innocent... they probably did know of threats to the wtc, BUT... due to mis-communication, and not recognising the seriousness of the threat , they werent acted on...

Im sure there are plenty of threats to new york, identifying the real ones and acting on them is a hard thing to do.

It is my belief though, that the attacks werent masterminded by Bush, Cheney, etc... what would they gain from this?.... a war with afghanistan and if you include iraq? has no cost them a F*** load of money, approx 330 billion, has damaged their economy, has pissed off alot of countries Russia, France, Iran, Pakistan... gee, this scheme really worked out well for them didnt it!



They lied from the word go, and they lied about EVERYTHING. Even bush said that a government that withholds information is a government with something to hide, and considering how little HARD EVIDENCE has been released to this day is absolute justification for any conspiracy theory.


What more hard evidence do you need.... ? the problem is that people are so indoctrinated into believing conspiracies theories they dont believe the facts presented to them....

[Lump]

Your information?

hahahaha

For someone defending the truth of a event... you sure have alot of questions for the people asking questions.
yeah, like where are they getting there infomation from?
its a pretty fair question when you consider they are trying to discredit my sources.

also if someone makes a form of allegation they dont substantiate with anything in detail, what the fuck is wrong with asking them to provide more info.
otherwise what is the point of making it?

[Slip_]

Playground thread.

Go back to school.

[xr06t]

got a reference for this? i cant find any information or claims matching this....

im suprised I havent heard any conspiracies regarding the recession lately... surely the jews and israel had something to do with it!:lol:

only the zeitgeist movie man. i wouldn't have thought they would get such simple info wrong re shareholdings etc, but i could be wrong.

[Slip_]

Problem being, there was alot wrong with Zeitgeist.

They ask the right questions, but draw conclusions for the viewer. which is not only a putoff... but conflicting in interest.

[Lump]

i think the most interesting bit, is how did not one, but TWO turkeys who youd assume spent the majority of their time plowing goat pussy in the caves of afghanistan, with only a few lessons under their turbans, manage to pilot two commericial jets through the heart of new york city and perfectly into what you couldnt say is a very large target.

they had a lot more than a few lessons.

read from the heading at the bottom of page 240 or from the heading at the bottom of page 258

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

[peter_piper]

I once farted on the set of blue lagoon

[Biante12]

NEVER TRUST THE CIA. they can plan anything

[Slip_]

I once farted on the set of blue lagoon

LOL

I once kanga'd the public toilet at parliment house...

true story.

[titmeat]

clear ya FUCKING pm thingy jimBOO

[Jiblet]

diggin up old thread but has anyone thought about friction as a cause of the melted metal? since the fire could not produce this result?

thinking back to the news reports, i remember them saying that the angles of the planes when they hit allowed them to penetrate the buildings more and cause a greater amount of destruction (instead of just impacting on the side of the tower). Since it has been stated that the buildings' strongest points were the interior structure, maximum penetration is the most effective way to result in maximum damage.

and has anybody actually thought that the 'terrorists' have a fair bit of knowledge in engineering/architecture? think of the taxi driver who was a doctor in his home country....

just a thought.

[Lump]

what makes you think a fire cant weaken a metal structure?
because it can & does.

[MISS 13B]

Albeit very high, metal does have a melting point.

[Jiblet]

what makes you think a fire cant weaken a metal structure?
because it can & does.

i'm not saying it can't weaken the metal, i'm saying it wouldn't produce a lump of molten metal (which has been said a few times in peoples posts)

i was focussing more on the angle of the planes when they hit..

[R3N]

mel gibson was right!

[Lump]

Albeit very high, metal does have a melting point.
metal does not need to melt (or get anywhere near that..) to greatly reduce its strength.

[Rantopotamus]

What about the basement columns which looked like they were cut with oxy cutters??

Temperature of an Oxyacetylene Torch up to 3,480 °C

Temperature of jet fuel burning with after burners engaged 1080 °C


There was planes that hit the building, theres no arguement about that... I always thought there was more to it...

[Lump]

i'm not saying it can't weaken the metal, i'm saying it wouldn't produce a lump of molten metal (which has been said a few times in peoples posts)

i was focussing more on the angle of the planes when they hit..
as ive said the metal does not need to get to a molten state (or anywhere near that)
the angle of the planes means sfa, the fire they caused did tho.

dufus, im not even going to bother with your comment - allready addressed your 'points'

[Rantopotamus]

sorry i havent read through the whole thread.

but giong back one page I see your an idiot so I will refrain from continuing.

[Lump]

lol, another day, another 'lip drop' by dufus

[mitchy]

just wait, his next post will be a backpedal about how sarcasm can't be detected online, blah blah, etc...

[31-EVO]

Internet: Where no one can partake in conversation about interesting topics without testicle fortitude being brought into play.

[Jumanji]

terrorists did it. but they were allowed to do it.

bumps up defense spending, starts new wars, new anti-hoon laws, anti-terror laws etc etc.




yanks have never walked on the moon

:werd:

[Brockas]

I always thought there was more to it...

http://i43.tinypic.com/mt5su9.jpg

[KyeBidz]

*dribble*


http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/1500/retardkeyboard.gif

[Rantopotamus]

just wait, his next post will be a backpedal about how sarcasm can't be detected online, blah blah, etc...

nope.. there was definately more to it...

+ it's funny how you always comment on something which has nothing to do with you whatsoever!

You generalise me when you are the optimum bandwagon spec junky of all!

I am obviously Ueber important to you Mitchy! Do you want to come sniff my seat as well?

Edit + the other 2 yokels join in! And I am supposed to be the predictable one!

[Brockas]

Edit + the other 2 yokels join in! And I am supposed to be the predictable one!

Never said anything about predictable.

You're just a troll. You post stupid comments over and over again. Eventually people who frequent this place daily (me, kye etc) get fed up with your shit.


and fucking lol @ calling me a yokel.

[mitchy]

before or after you let Kye have his way with you?
not keen on that pingpingpingpings sloppy seconds.

[Rantopotamus]

I frequent the site daily as well... And its Mitchy who claims the predictability.

I don't see how my comment was trolling.. I wasn't trying to sell you anything. + I think it was a valid question / conversation point until the typical bandwagon jumps on.

how me asking about temperatures of the beams is stupid i dont know?

my point is 100's of people post and not everyone completely agrees on everything. You 3 are trolling just as much as me by continuously dribbling the same old shit.

[KyeBidz]

http://www.julkaisut.fi/lip433/media/need%20a%20hug.jpg

[jaybee]

awww look at the cute kitty kat

[stumps.]

droplip comment is quite appropriate in this case. Brockas loves the tin foil hat picture that i believe Kye introduced to the forums much earlier.

Vicious circle

[jaybee]

re-using a pic or saying that someone else used first is quite heavily frowned upon around here isnt it?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_4_w1wxYR1K4/SKz5Nm2kG3I/AAAAAAAAAOA/Onr4Mpa2JtU/s400/Andrew+OKeefe..JPG

[R3N]

hey... i only frequent this site daily because i cant sleep... clown'll eat me

[Brockas]

but giong back one page I see your an idiot


I don't see how my comment was trolling.. I wasn't trying to sell you anything. + I think it was a valid question / conversation point until the typical bandwagon jumps on.

Oh no, you're right. Very valid question.

Stop being a muppet. You calling anyone an idiot is fucking ironic.



Brockas loves the tin foil hat picture that i believe Kye introduced to the forums much earlier.
Seemed highly appropriate for this discussion. I guess I'll spell out the point I was trying to make with that generic picture...

There will always be people who look for conspiracies where there are none, fueled simply because there are coincidences (like every event).

The bigger the event, the more coincidences are found. Conspiracy theorists start fapping, and all of a sudden rational people get caught up in opinion portrayed as fact.

[fourseven]

This Paul pingpingpingping sounds like he has a bit of intelligence.

[mitchy]

This Paul pingpingpingping sounds like he has a bit of intelligence.

http://i43.tinypic.com/mt5su9.jpg

:lol:

[R3N]

it's a coincedence!

[Rantopotamus]

If you can call someone an idiot I dont see why I cant. EDIT : The guy is as stubborn as you are, so once again you are just as much a hypocrite as you think I am.

And once again, get off your fucking high horse. You are not the be all end all.

You have a valid point by saying there is people who try find conspiracies but in the end Paul. THAT IS YOU OPINION.

You cannot prove you are right or wrong just like the others can't. I am not retarded. You don't know me from a bar of soap so flame on as usual but turn your fucking generalise bar off BS where it usually is and possibly for once don't feel the need to piss on everything that isn't exactly what you think / like / want / need / care about.

[Brockas]

The guy is as stubborn as you are, so once again you are just as much a hypocrite as you think I am.
That makes no sense.


You have a valid point by saying there is people who try find conspiracies but in the end Paul. THAT IS YOU OPINION.
YOU SENTENCE MAKES SENSE.


You cannot prove you are right or wrong just like the others can't. I am not retarded. You don't know me from a bar of soap so flame on as usual but turn your fucking generalise bar off BS where it usually is and possibly for once don't feel the need to piss on everything that isn't exactly what you think / like / want / need / care about.
I do try not to treat anyone on this forum with contempt. After reading thousands of your posts, my patience wears thin.

You consistently post drivel, and I'm not the only one who has noticed (see: bandwagon you refer to).

[Jiblet]

the angle of the planes means sfa, the fire they caused did tho.


405atw, watch people who break pieces of wood with their hands. Do they open palm the piece of wood? no they don't cos that would hurt like buggery. They karate-chop it.

Angle means more than sfa...

I agree with every other post you have written, but your as closed-minded as the rest of us.

I wouldn't mind knowing how many people here have a knowledge of science? Not taking the piss, would just like to know.

[Brockas]

I wouldn't mind knowing how many people here have a knowledge of science? Not taking the piss, would just like to know.

Well you went to uni with me, so you know :p

BSc Nanoscience, Hons. Physics / Nanoscience.

[KyeBidz]

Whoa jiblet, ease up there son. This thread is clearly an off-topic muppet bash. Hold your on-topic questions until the crying is over.


Dufus - hot tip for you, telling brockas to get off his high horse, as highly amusing as that is... has never worked.... ever.

[Rantopotamus]

Temperature of an Oxyacetylene Torch up to 3,480 °C

Temperature of jet fuel burning with after burners engaged 1080 °C

There was planes that hit the building, theres no arguement about that... I always thought there was more to it...




dufus, im not even going to bother with your comment - allready addressed your 'points'


sorry i havent read through the whole thread.

but giong back one page I see your an idiot so I will refrain from continuing.


Oh no, you're right. Very valid question.

Stop being a muppet. You calling anyone an idiot is fucking ironic.





how me asking about temperatures of the beams is stupid i dont know?





That makes no sense.



Hope that clears that up.... I called him an idiot because he is stubborn.






You consistently post drivel, and I'm not the only one who has noticed (see: bandwagon you refer to).

Okay, I will take that on board. But this is the internet - get used to it.

99% of the stuff I post is a form of sarcasm or I'm having a joke. If for some reason I feel like being coherent and serial, it is a rare occasion.

Don't take things so seriously...

[Rantopotamus]

Dufus - hot tip for you, telling brockas to get off his high horse, as highly amusing as that is... has never worked.... ever.

:wave: Thanks! It can't hurt to tell him once in a while!

None of you guys ever have an issue telling people what you think.

[Jiblet]

Kyebidz, i'm not trying to disrespect anyone. I just want to know if the people that are in this argument understand physics/ thermodynamics/ chemistry. Which are all factors in the destruction of a building.

Brockas, yeah i haven't forgotten you were doin nano.
btw, i have BSc Chemistry. (although that means sfa now i'm out of uni)