Favourites
Most popular topics | World-issuesopen/close
- Police try to shut down n... (114)
- Time to get tough with Ir... (86)
- THE LIE OF THE CENTURY... (54)
- Controversial anti-Rape D... (50)
- smoking ban.... hmmm?... (47)
- Woo Hoo! Obama is now US ... (44)
- NEW ZEALAND... (37)
- Ethnic Cleansing in Gaza... (37)
- HAPPY NEWS!!!!... (35)
- Athiests bus ads... (34)
- Britain takes case agains... (34)
- 9/11 - An Inside Job... (34)
- US sets possible Time tab... (33)
- Why Do People Mock Scient... (32)
- Moore sued by US Soldier... (30)
- this is sickening!!!... (29)
- Are you prepared to be ja... (28)
- Global warming - a load o... (25)
- Bill Gates: Satanist in S... (24)
- Paying for Palestinian Gu... (24)
- Human Rights...who needs ... (23)
- Vat down to 15% means 2.1... (23)
- The USA "world polic... (22)
- The costs of the Iraq war... (21)
- Ever heard anything so ST... (20)
Latest topics | World-issuesopen/close
- Should welfare recipients...
- this is sickening!!!...
- Vat down to 15% means 2.1...
- Loony left council wants ...
- Woo Hoo! Obama is now US ...
- Palin is spoofed by fake ...
- Are you prepared to be ja...
- Athiests bus ads...
- Passports will be needed ...
- Local Ways to beat the Cr...
- The worlds gone mad...
- 14th October UFO Confirma...
- My backyard becomming the...
- Wall Street rescue deal b...
- Conspiracy Theories...
- Swedish woman goes mental...
- Benny Cash...
- We were lied to about 9/1...
- Prisoners to work on buil...
- I know I shouldn't worry...
- Georgia at war?...
- Obama - what's your opini...
- Never take a laptop with ...
- anyone been to afghanista...
- Please take a look at thi...
Home >> World-issues >> 9/11 - An Inside Job
21.11.2007, 16:14 quote
God this crap pisses me off. Anyone who honestly beleive 9/11 was goverment setup needs braining. Its pretty simnple. US domestic sercurity has been shit for years before this, it was going to happen sometime. Why to people find it so hard to accept that the US is not invincible?
22.11.2007, 09:25 quote
| Hoshinosuna2 wrote: |
| God this crap pisses me off. Anyone who honestly beleive 9/11 was goverment setup needs braining. Its pretty simnple. US domestic sercurity has been shit for years before this, it was going to happen sometime. Why to people find it so hard to accept that the US is not invincible? |
I dont believe that most people think USA is invincble, but if it was purley a terrorist attack why did the WTC7 get demolished by controlled explosion at the same time as the two towers? and what happened to the plane wreckage that supposedly hit the pentagon? for me personally there are too many fishy stories going on in that saga and if that means i should be brained for having my own opinion about it then so be it, but it is always good to ask questions of such things instead of blindly accepting what you are told by the 'authorities' 
24.11.2007, 15:52 quote
| Greystone wrote: | ||
|
Wrong, They were demolished, a controlled explosion, and the debris all fell in on top of itself. Without doubt they were demolished. The plane that hit that 4 story hotel in Paris a few years back had debris up to two miles away from the crash. With the height of the twin towers, it should have been at least three? I'm no scientist but that does strike me as being a bit funny to say the least.
| Quote: |
| Those twin towers were not designed to be hit by two 60 ton fuel laden planes traveling at 450 to 500 miles per hour. It is probably impossible to design buldings that can withstand that that type of impact. |
Yes they are. They are designed to withstand category 5 hurricanes. Any engineer that has half a clue with tell you that they ARE built that way. Are you seriously going to discredit every advance in engineering in the last century to justify this incident?? Now that would be some statement right there.
| Quote: |
| Some people just can't seem to understand that on that day 19 Islamic terrorists hijacked four planes and used them as weapons against the USA. The people who keep claiming that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job should try to prove their claims. |
Every single characteristic about that US government tells me they were/are/would be prepared to carry out something of that calibre. That and all the unanswered questions AND the biased US Media (freedom fries) proves for me without doubt they carried this out.
| Quote: |
| A couple of years ago Channel 4 took on and debunked every theory put forward by the 9/11 conspiracy movement. |
What was the name of it? What year was it shown? Who produced it? Who funded it? If you can answer two of these questions i'll go and do some homework on it. Just to see that side of the argument.
24.11.2007, 16:00 quote
| kebabman wrote: |
| Not that I'm providing any evidence to the contrary but my opinion is that it was not a conspiracy. Or at least, not to the extent a lot of the conspiracy hunters claim. Did you ever think that the people selling all this stuff could just possibly be in it for the money? "DVD available soon", "Buy my book" etc etc? |
That is a good point there. If you compare the pro-terrorist theory and the money spent on that media campaign while looking at the other side of the argument and what was spent there you see there was far more effort and cost in the pro side of the debate, yet they still cant answer all the questions. Money not wisely spent or they simply cannot disprove the other theories, you choose.
| Quote: |
| OK, maybe everything is not as it seems. The biggest thing for me being the Pentagon that smells especially fishy.. |
It smells far worse that fishy
| Quote: |
| Granted, history would show this. But how many of the planes that hit buildings in the past had fuel tanks this big full of fuel. Fuel that burns at a ridiculously high temperature compared to the combustible materials found in most modern office blocks? That amount of fuel burning could quite easily cause the steel framework to melt |
It is scientifically impossible for 400 times that amount of fuel to melt that steel. In short, it didn't happen.
| Quote: |
| and hence the building collapsing. With the exception of WTC 7 which is another extremely fishy area, I strongly believe that it is very plausable these buildings collapsed due to the severe weight pushing down on an extremely weakened steel structure. |
Its impossible
| Quote: |
| Again, everything is definately not right with the explanations given, however I don't believe that it is as much of a conspiracy as everyone makes out. However I would still love to see the 100% truth about all of these things. Alas, we never will... Que Sara |
History will record it all and leave all the questions if there aren't answers. Either way its not good for the pro terrorist campaign.
24.11.2007, 16:15 quote
| Hoshinosuna2 wrote: |
| God this crap pisses me off. Anyone who honestly beleive 9/11 was goverment setup needs braining. Its pretty simnple. US domestic sercurity has been shit for years before this, it was going to happen sometime. Why to people find it so hard to accept that the US is not invincible? |
Why do people find it so hard to accept that the US government and media have been spoon feeding people an opinion since it has happened and there is a growing amount of people who are pushing the spoon away now and looking at what actually (plausibly) happened.
Why is it wrong to look at the other side of the debate? Seriously ... just answer this question first
Why is it wrong to look at the other side of the debate?
I mean, in the scheme of things, should that just be a given? Why isn't it though? Why do people have this mental barrier about exploring the other theories, after all if they are unfounded and mad off the wall stuff that simply couldn't have happened then there's no harm done.
If we are to believe what the media have told us then there is nothing to fear. If anything it will consolidate their argument. So dont just write it off, look at the other side of the argument and take it on board and use it to disprove the theories. It will set your mind at easy if anything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
24.11.2007, 17:06 quote
| CostaCork wrote: |
| Wrong, They were demolished, a controlled explosion, and the debris all fell in on top of itself. Without doubt they were demolished. |
The World Trade Centre buildings were 110 storeys high that made them very unstable in the event of a gigantic plane hitting them and a serious fire breaking out in them. No matter what was claimed that those buildings could withstand in reality they were very fragile.
Finally if 9/11 was an inside job then there must have been hundreds of people involved in the conspiracy, it would be impossible to organise something that big without leaks with someone blabbing the names of other people involved in it and making the whole conspiracy public.
24.11.2007, 17:22 quote
| Greystone wrote: | ||
The World Trade Centre buildings were 110 storeys high that made them very unstable in the event of a gigantic plane hitting them and a serious fire breaking out in them. No matter what was claimed that those buildings could withstand in reality they were very fragile. |
We'll have to agree to disagree so because the laws of chemistry and physics do not support your argument, and i'm sticking with them to be honest no matter what you say (although if you can factually disprove it obviously i'm all ears). Again, i'm not prepared to write off everything the laws of physics tell us just to support the US dooping the public into believing all of this.
| Quote: |
| Finally if 9/11 was an inside job then there must have been hundreds of people involved in the conspiracy, it would be impossible to organise something that big |
Why are the US media so one sided? Just answer that and move onto the next thing.
| Quote: |
| without leaks with someone blabbing the names of other people involved in it and making the whole conspiracy public. |
Hee hee, they are actually leaking it themselves.
25.11.2007, 01:44 quote
Greystone.......have some respect when replying to posts please......Just because you do not agree does not mean that it is bull..... So please watch your language and respect each other opinions as I do not want this thread to be closed down
_________________
26.11.2007, 19:00 quote
| CostaCork wrote: | ||
That is a good point there. If you compare the pro-terrorist theory and the money spent on that media campaign while looking at the other side of the argument and what was spent there you see there was far more effort and cost in the pro side of the debate, yet they still cant answer all the questions. Money not wisely spent or they simply cannot disprove the other theories, you choose. |
What does that have to do with the people selling their stories to make money? I fail to see the contextual relevance here?
| CostaCork wrote: | ||
It smells far worse that fishy |
Quite possibly, everyone has their own opinion.
| CostaCork wrote: | ||
It is scientifically impossible for 400 times that amount of fuel to melt that steel. In short, it didn't happen. |
You say that here, and in another post stating "We'll have to agree to disagree so because the laws of chemistry and physics do not support your argument". And you also ask for proof that it can happen. Where is your evidence to back up your claim that 400 times the amount of fuel is needed?
Also, the steel doesn't need to fully melt. It's strength becomes ever weaker the higher it's temperature. Hence my later point that the weight of all the concrete, steel, etc above the weakened point in the structure could cause the heated steel to buckle and hence the buildings collapse. The buildings were only designed to withstand a high impact, not the resulting fires which in my opinion would heat the steel enough to substantially weaken it. Again... It doesn't need to melt!
| CostaCork wrote: | ||
Its impossible |
At least some sort of explanation as to why would be good! And please don't say "The laws of physics say so". Why?
| CostaCork wrote: | ||
History will record it all and leave all the questions if there aren't answers. Either way its not good for the pro terrorist campaign. |
_________________
26.11.2007, 23:19 quote
| kebabman wrote: | ||||
What does that have to do with the people selling their stories to make money? I fail to see the contextual relevance here? |
I was on about the money being spent as opposed to people flogging their books etc. It was the money and motive aspect that i responded to to be honest. I should have been clearer about that.
It would definitely make you think though, the motive aspect of it all. Why wouldn't the US media not cover the story in a balanced manner? Maybe one or two 'ambulance chasing' tabloid types i'd believe but the blanket ban on the other side of the argument only has me asking more questions to be honest.
| Quote: | ||||
Quite possibly, everyone has their own opinion. |
Yeah, and i know mine now for sure
| Quote: | ||||
You say that here, and in another post stating "We'll have to agree to disagree so because the laws of chemistry and physics do not support your argument". And you also ask for proof that it can happen. Where is your evidence to back up your claim that 400 times the amount of fuel is needed? |
Ok, 400 times was an exaggeration on my part
but you know what i mean.
If you watch this at these times -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7E3oIbO0AWE
30 mins -> 31.40 mins -> 34.30 mins -> 45.00 -> 52.00 mins (look at this)
Actually, if you watch it from 30 mins to 55 mins, you'll see what i'm saying. Its only 25 mins of your life. You wont miss it
| Quote: |
| Also, the steel doesn't need to fully melt. It's strength becomes ever weaker the higher it's temperature. Hence my later point that the weight of all the concrete, steel, etc above the weakened point in the structure could cause the heated steel to buckle and hence the buildings collapse. |
The weight was always there, it was always above it and shifting (all buildings shift, its would have to be factored in for any building, even a bungalow) but read below.
| Quote: | ||||||||
The buildings were only designed to withstand a high impact, not the resulting fires which in my opinion would heat the steel enough to substantially weaken it. Again... It doesn't need to melt!
At least some sort of explanation as to why would be good! And please don't say "The laws of physics say so". Why?
|
First off, i have to say again that i am not scientist. I am only going on the ojective, quantified observations from people who have investigated all of this and people that should know as its their field of expertise.
From Torin Wolf (experienced demolitions expert) :
| Quote: |
| “But the craziest, most truly unhinged conspiracy theory for the towers falling on 9/11?” Torin asks rhetorically. “Fire.” The official story cannot be recreated by any experiment. NIST is the government agency involved in attempting to model what happened to the world trade center on 9/11, and they fail horribly. NIST never models what happens after the collapse initiation, and even what they do model before that is easily debunked. NIST created 16 separate physics programs to simulate the WTC 1 & 2 collapses and only got 1 to collapse partially. Torin adds, “When they did, [in the computer model] they removed 40% of the structural support.” The cross trusses that the towers received a significant amount of their strength from had to be removed to have a collapse in the computer simulation. Torin then mocks the official story, “There's no such thing as a 'pancake' collapse, but there is a progressive collapse” |
Taken from here -> http://nationalwriterssyndicate.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=128&Itemid=2
The Information Clearing House article on the The NIST 9/11 Report on the WTC Collapse:
Dead on Arrival
Do some research on the Information Clearing House and look to see how credible they are. It will give you a good idea of their intentions.
Also
Steven Jones' Paper:
Why Indeed Did the WTC Buildings Collapse?
| Quote: |
| In the article Jones enumerates thirteen reasons to challenge government reports and investigate the controlled-demolition hypothesis:
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools 2. Observed Temperatures around 1000ºC and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel 3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7 4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires 5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7 6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna 7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions 8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris – plumes from the Towers 9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy 10. Controlled Demolition "Implosions" Require Skill 11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800ºC Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou 12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models 13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations |
Read the whole thing here -> Its a PDF so you will need Adobe Acrobat.
http://www.wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
Also here -> http://www.journalof911studies.com/
This site mainly deals with the misinformation that is put out by the US Government and they pursue it to have them address it. A lot if this runs into dead ends as there's no response from them so dont get freaked when some stories just end up with questions.
The main thing about these guys is the balanced reasoned approach. Its not alarmist or over the top and its presented well. It gives you an idea of the red tape involved and all that goes with.
And again. Reading this will not harm you, all it is is you looking at the other argument and it gives you the chance to say 100% without doubt that the 'conspiracy theory' is wrong. Its all free and just a few clicks away.
30.11.2007, 21:52 quote
In the article Jones enumerates thirteen reasons to challenge government reports and investigate the controlled-demolition hypothesis:
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools
2. Observed Temperatures around 1000ºC and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel
3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7
4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires
5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7
6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna
7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions
8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris – plumes from the Towers
9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy
10. Controlled Demolition "Implosions" Require Skill
11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800ºC Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou
12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models
13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations.
None of these actually prove that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job! They just state un-usual aspects of the what happened. There are often unpredicted un-usual events that take place during natural disasters too.
In order to prove the attacks were an inside job there would have to be found evidence of planning of it by the Bush Administration or people connected in some way to the US government. So far though no evidence has been produced. No whistle blower has come forward and no conspiracy has been uncovered.
01.12.2007, 18:45 quote
| Greystone wrote: |
| In the article Jones enumerates thirteen reasons to challenge government reports and investigate the controlled-demolition hypothesis:
1. Molten Metal: Flowing and in Pools 2. Observed Temperatures around 1000ºC and Sulfidation in WTC 7 Steel 3. Near-Symmetrical Collapse of WTC 7 4. No Previous Skyscraper Collapse Due to Fires 5. Squib-timing during the Collapse of WTC 7 6. Early Drop of North Tower Antenna 7. Eyewitness Accounts of Flashes and Loud Explosions 8. Ejection of Steel Beams and Debris – plumes from the Towers 9. Rapid Collapses and Conservation of Momentum and Energy 10. Controlled Demolition "Implosions" Require Skill 11. Steel Column Temperatures of 800ºC Needed: A Problem in the Argument of Bazant and Zhou 12. Problems in the NIST Report: Inadequate Steel Temperatures and Tweaked Models 13. NIST's Failure to Show Visualizations. None of these actually prove that the 9/11 attacks were an inside job! They just state un-usual aspects of the what happened. There are often unpredicted un-usual events that take place during natural disasters too. In order to prove the attacks were an inside job there would have to be found evidence of planning of it by the Bush Administration or people connected in some way to the US government. So far though no evidence has been produced. No whistle blower has come forward and no conspiracy has been uncovered. |
I see what you did there
Completely avoid that fact that its impossible for two plane to knock those kind of structures.
They WERE demolished ..... but by who, who have gained most from all of this?
Sure avoid that aspect completely why don't ya
02.12.2007, 09:33 quote
| CostaCork wrote: |
| I see what you did there completely avoid that fact that its impossible for two planes to knock down those kind of structures. |
Despite people claiming that such buildings couldn't collapse from areoplane impacts they did. Just like the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg even though many people had claimed it was unsinkable.
Whatever the experts claim about something they can never know for sure before until it actually happens. Two fuel laden planes had never been flown into two skyscrapers at high speed before 9/11 so no one knew for sure exactly what would happen in such a case.
02.12.2007, 19:34 quote
| Greystone wrote: | ||
Despite people claiming that such buildings couldn't collapse from areoplane impacts they did. Just like the Titanic sank after hitting an iceberg even though many people had claimed it was unsinkable. Whatever the experts claim about something they can never know for sure before until it actually happens. Two fuel laden planes had never been flown into two skyscrapers at high speed before 9/11 so no one knew for sure exactly what would happen in such a case. |
Have to say Greystone has a point here....
_________________
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
