PDA

View Full Version : Was 9/11 a setup by the US government or other forces?


renstar
Sep 10th, 2011, 08:23 AM
Got handed a flyer today from a group of Australian architects, part of a big movement of professionals and others now seriously questioning the official story of 9/11

See sites such as

911truth.org
911oz.com
Firefightersfor911truth.org
Patriotquestion911.com
Nyccan.org

Etc etc

I myself feel it was a setup, what do you guys think

Sammo
Sep 10th, 2011, 10:36 AM
I don't know/care basically cause we will never know :shrug:

Darop.
Sep 10th, 2011, 11:33 AM
These conspiracy theories are so ridiculous :facepalm:

As if US needed to create such a huge catastrophe against itself just to justify going to war in the middle east.

KournikovaFan91
Sep 10th, 2011, 11:50 AM
Yeah I feel like they didn't need such an event to start a war, I mean there would have been a ton of other methods into which a war could have happened. It also seems so elaborate that I don't think they could pull it off without leaks all over the place.

Dani12
Sep 10th, 2011, 12:10 PM
al-Queda already took responsibility for 9/11. Move on..

Elwin.
Sep 10th, 2011, 12:11 PM
:weirdo:

Rui.
Sep 10th, 2011, 12:34 PM
I find it rude that people actually make this type of questions. I mean... It's not like 3k died or anything. :rolleyes:

gentenaire
Sep 10th, 2011, 12:56 PM
If these conspiracy theorists would investigate their own theories in as much detail as they're investigating the official versions, they'd soon realise how ridiculous their theories really are. Actually, they don't even need to look at them in detail, there are such massive holes in their theories, you have to be blind to believe in them.

Of course we don't know everything that happened on 9/11. It's more than likely that certain truths have been hidden from the public. The US may have ignored some warnings, who knows. But to jump from 'they're hiding something' to 'they're behind it' is a pretty huge leap.

renstar
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:31 PM
If these conspiracy theorists would investigate their own theories in as much detail as they're investigating the official versions, they'd soon realise how ridiculous their theories really are. Actually, they don't even need to look at them in detail, there are such massive holes in their theories, you have to be blind to believe in them.

Of course we don't know everything that happened on 9/11. It's more than likely that certain truths have been hidden from the public. The US may have ignored some warnings, who knows. But to jump from 'they're hiding something' to 'they're behind it' is a pretty huge leap.

Actually its not ridiculous at all. I have just come back from seeing a documentary film premiere showing dozens of architecture and explosive experts dispute the official explanation.

Most damning is the implosion of WTC building.

WTC building 7 imploded uniformly and quickly in 7 seconds supposedly due to fire. NO other building in history has collapsed like this due to fire. Dozens of the experts said its impossible, that the symmetry of the collapse, the speed, the fact their was no resistance, all point to the fact of planted explosives.

Not to mention also fire fighters and others all talking about the explosives going off.

Why also was a firefighter in one video i saw ordering people out because of an explosion

Sonim sorry all who believe in the official story, but the collpse of building 7 totally disproves the official story

Valanga
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:34 PM
*subscribe*

renstar
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:35 PM
One cold also point out, as also pointed out by many experts, that when a natural disaster such as this happens, the materials are kept and thiroughly examined. Just look at a pkane crash where fragment materials are painstakingly put togerher and studied.

How odd then that the trade centre building materials were quickly loaded into trucks and shipped to China for melting down, totally going against all protocal.

Infiniti2001
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:51 PM
al-Queda already took responsibility for 9/11. Move on..

This!!

tennislover
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:55 PM
yes.

just consider the way the buildings collapsed: totally absurd!

tennislover
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:56 PM
Actually its not ridiculous at all. I have just come back from seeing a documentary film premiere showing dozens of architecture and explosive experts dispute the official explanation.

Most damning is the implosion of WTC building.

WTC building 7 imploded uniformly and quickly in 7 seconds supposedly due to fire. NO other building in history has collapsed like this due to fire. Dozens of the experts said its impossible, that the symmetry of the collapse, the speed, the fact their was no resistance, all point to the fact of planted explosives.

Not to mention also fire fighters and others all talking about the explosives going off.

Why also was a firefighter in one video i saw ordering people out because of an explosion

Sonim sorry all who believe in the official story, but the collpse of building 7 totally disproves the official story

I agree. This story is a mystery

Chris 84
Sep 10th, 2011, 01:59 PM
i want to preface this by syaing that i don't necessarily believe in the conspiracy theories around 9/11, but there are some questions that haven't been and probably never will be answered. so to play devil's advocate....

As if US needed to create such a huge catastrophe against itself just to justify going to war in the middle east.

the last thing the usa wants is another vietnam, so in order to get the public to go along wholeheartedly with a war, they could have thought that drastic actions were needed.

al-Queda already took responsibility for 9/11. Move on..

that's irrelevant. conspiracy theorists would say that bin laden was a cia agent. after all, we know he DID indeed work with the cia in the past and so did many taliban-followers.

also, even if this wasn't the case, it is v common for terrorist organisations to claim responsibility. some mad islamic terror group claimed responsibility for the norway stuff, but that was obviously untrue.

I find it rude that people actually make this type of questions. I mean... It's not like 3k died or anything. :rolleyes:

why does it matter that 3,000 people died? i mean such a thread would be insensitive at the time, for sure, but 10 years on, surely people can question things? if 3,000 people died, then all the more reason why people would be interested in the event and try to explain it.

gentenaire
Sep 10th, 2011, 04:49 PM
yes.

just consider the way the buildings collapsed: totally absurd!

How would you know? Are you an expert? Or are you simply basing your view on something you saw on the internet or in some documentary?

fifty-fifty
Sep 10th, 2011, 04:53 PM
Al-Queda, with blessing of US government.

Ashi
Sep 10th, 2011, 04:57 PM
9/11 was a byproduct of US foreign policy.

gentenaire
Sep 10th, 2011, 05:26 PM
A couple of questions:
- Three rooms are on fire. One has a roof with steal beams, another with concrete beams, another with wooden beams. Which one will collapse the first?

- are explosives/bombs the only things that can set off explosions?

- If the buildings came down from explosives, why bother with the airplanes?

- if you wanted the public to believe a plane hit the pentagon would you:

a) plant explosives in the pentagon, hijack a plane, land the plane in some secret place, dispose of the plane and all the passengers without leaving a single trace, bribe hundreds of people to make a false witness statements
b) hijack a plane and fly it into the pentagon

why on earth would anyone pick option a) ?

- Did you know that the Madrid tower was a concrete skyscraper? Did you know that it did have on part in steel? Did you know that the steel part collapsed, but the concrete part didn't?

Talita Kumi
Sep 10th, 2011, 05:27 PM
Al-Queda, with blessing of US government.

this

Mforensic
Sep 10th, 2011, 05:33 PM
Not this shit again! It was freakin Palpatine who hoped to use it to start a war to root out the jedi ok! Stick that in this conspiracy bullshit. (sad thing is that will probably show up on some conspiracy website:lol:)

Wiggly
Sep 10th, 2011, 10:24 PM
The odd thing is people claiming the planes were military.
If so, what the hell did they do to the passengers? Send them on Elvis's island?

Darop.
Sep 11th, 2011, 02:18 AM
i want to preface this by syaing that i don't necessarily believe in the conspiracy theories around 9/11, but there are some questions that haven't been and probably never will be answered. so to play devil's advocate....



the last thing the usa wants is another vietnam, so in order to get the public to go along wholeheartedly with a war, they could have thought that drastic actions were needed.

Also, apart from the Oslo thing you mentioned, it's quite rare that a terrorist organization as "structured" as Al-Qaeda claim responsibility on the long term for something so big they didn't actually do.





Ok, then empty out some government building then blow it up. Apart from the thousands of people who died, WTC was the symbol and center of the US's economic egemony on the world.

Also, apart from the Oslo thing you mentioned, it's rare that a terrorist organization as "structured" as Al-Qaeda takes responsibility in the long term for something so big they didn't actually do...

shap_half
Sep 11th, 2011, 05:11 AM
How would you know? Are you an expert? Or are you simply basing your view on something you saw on the internet or in some documentary?

What are you basing your views on? Are you an expert on everything you've ever produced an opinion about?

Novichok
Sep 11th, 2011, 06:01 AM
What are you basing your views on? Are you an expert on everything you've ever produced an opinion about?

I'm pretty sure the poster is basing his/her opinion on the views of reputable scientists/engineers who have commented on the collapse of those buildings.

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2011, 06:45 AM
I'm pretty sure the poster is basing his/her opinion on the views of reputable scientists/engineers who have commented on the collapse of those buildings.

I am. Plus, I happen to have a MSc degree in Building Engineering myself.
I've yet to find a conspiracy theory that makes any sense.

Mistress of Evil
Sep 11th, 2011, 07:13 AM
I tend to believe in the conspiracy theories to an extent :shrug: I mean, after watching several documentaries which point out a lot of uncertain things that don't make sense and stories told by a couple of survivors, it is totally normal to wonder.
Though, the OP might have chosen another day to start such a thread, but he is an insensitive troll, I guess.

Halardfan
Sep 11th, 2011, 07:23 AM
The age of the conspiracy theory is destructive and stupid.

Some people no longer believe any event that occurs is what it seems to be. That is simply paranoia.

Londoner
Sep 11th, 2011, 08:01 AM
al-Queda already took responsibility for 9/11. Move on..

This.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 08:23 AM
The problem with conspiracies, especially now since people discuss so much online, is that the more people debate with conspiracy theorists, the more it gives legitimacy to their position, if only from all the exposure the theory gets when people argue.

In every field, there are alleged "experts" who 1) are imcompetent 2) sometimes they're simply wrong; yes "experts" are wrong all the time, think doctors for example. Why would it be different for architects? 3) crazy 4) have an agenda 5) etc.

So who cares about what some architects think? We need to look at what the majority of them are saying. Of course they could be wrong, but why assuming in this case the majority is wrong and a tiny minority is right? Because a youtube documentary sez so?

Gentenaire asked very good questions, but conspiracy theorists only worry about poking holes in the vast amount of information we have about 9-11, rather than looking at the global picture and ask themselves if what they believe make sense.

It's the same with Holocaust deniers. There are 294382394892384923842348 piece of evidence pointing that the Holocaust is true, but they don't care. They only care about planting doubts by nitpicking on some of the data.

Of course there appear to be holes and question marks in the official story. With the vast amount of data and information about 9-11, it should be expected. Imagine if we would apply the same skepticism in our life for every event in which there are appear to be question marks. We would end up radical skeptics who don't even believe in our own existence.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:27 AM
How would you know? Are you an expert? Or are you simply basing your view on something you saw on the internet or in some documentary?

Well I can sure you hundreds of experts in architecture around the world are now questioning the 9/11, especially the collapse of building 7, which had NOT been hit by a plane, and collapsed exactly how one that has had explosives implanted.

Let me point you to some of the points made by these experts.

Say the building did, as the experts say, collapse by fire (even though never has a skyscraper collapsed by mere fire before), say this is true, then the building would fall in one section first where the fire has weakened the structure, but it didn't, the whole building fell uniformly, with perfect symmetry, identifying explosives.

Next the speed, the whole building collapsed withing 6 seconds. As one of the experts said, this just does NOT happen from natural causes, go into any building in the world, it has resistance in the way of pillars and pilons etc, you HAVE to totally knock out that resistance/ support for a building to fall this way. For just a fire a building would NOT fall this way and in this time, impossible.

Take the many youtube clips where firefighters are yelling about the explosions they are hearing. Also warning that theres going to be an explosion in building 7.

I suggest you go to the websites such as:

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/take-action/533-10th-anniversary-project.html (this one is architects and engineers for 9/11 truth

911truth.org
911oz.com
Firefightersfor911truth.org
Patriotquestion911.com
Nyccan.org

for many experts now questioning the official story

Martian Jeza
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:29 AM
Al Quaeda = CIA invention and Bin Laden was CIA asset : what do you want more ? FFS ! Shut down your televisions that can't stop of brainwashing you !

9/11 was an INSIDE JOB !

Our true enemies are : Wall Street, CIA, MI5, MI6, Zionists, CFR, The Fed, Bilderberg, etc.

WAKE UP PEOPLE ! All of this was staged !

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:46 AM
A couple of questions:
- Three rooms are on fire. One has a roof with steal beams, another with concrete beams, another with wooden beams. Which one will collapse the first?

- are explosives/bombs the only things that can set off explosions?

- If the buildings came down from explosives, why bother with the airplanes?

- if you wanted the public to believe a plane hit the pentagon would you:

a) plant explosives in the pentagon, hijack a plane, land the plane in some secret place, dispose of the plane and all the passengers without leaving a single trace, bribe hundreds of people to make a false witness statements
b) hijack a plane and fly it into the pentagon

why on earth would anyone pick option a) ?

No but the level of explosions that happened would not be from just fire.


- Did you know that the Madrid tower was a concrete skyscraper? Did you know that it did have on part in steel? Did you know that the steel part collapsed, but the concrete part didn't?

No but the level of explosions that happened would not be from just fire.

The airplanes were used as an alibi for what they were doing, a cover up if you will. .

Well not all agree whether they were passenger planes or replaced planes........ but a lot do agree that the official story does not add up or make sense.

-7eJORgF3a4

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:10 AM
You should spend less time on crackpot theories debunked a long time ago and more time studying the English language.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:12 AM
You should spend less time on crackpot theories debunked a long time ago and more time studying the English language.

Well I could go say go #$%$ yourself but I have manners..... and you should read what I say rather than sit on your pathetic kiwi arse taking in every bit of drivel the mass owned media shoves down your gullible fat neck.

This is an internet forum and I rechecked the English of my last post and it's fine. So screw you.

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:16 AM
Well I can sure you hundreds of experts in architecture around the world are now questioning the 9/11

And I can sure you ( :facepalm: ) there are hundreds of alleged experts in biology around the world who believe the world was created 6000 year ago in 7 days. Does it make true, or credible?

Why do you care about those hundreds of architects, and not about the thousands others who have no issue with the official story, and who debunked all the - now old - arguments you just posted?

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:19 AM
And I can sure you ( :facepalm: ) there are hundreds of alleged experts in biology around the world who believe the world was created 6000 year ago in 7 days. Does it make true, or credible?

Why do you care about those hundreds of architects, and not about the thousands others who have no issue with the official story, and who debunked all the - now old - arguments you just posted?

Well why don't you not read the thread if it so offends your smarmy smug own point of view, that you seem to insist every one else has. So what if people believe in the creation story, just because you don't and you don't believe its credible does the world revolve around your little pathetic opinion?

Not only do a lot of architects believe the 9/11 story is invalid Ive already given some reasons. Seems your too lazy or too stupid to reply to those reasons, and just rely on useless rant. Grow a brain.

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:20 AM
The airplanes were used as an alibi for what they were doing, a cover up if you will. .

A cover up of what? They could just have easily said it was foreign terrorists who planted the bombs. Why on earth would they make it so extremely complicated? The risk of leaks would be waaaay too high. There's no way they could have pulled off such a conspiracy without people knowing about it. And why? The impact of 9/11 on the world, on what happened afterwards isn't determined by whether or not the towers came down or not. Had the towers survived the impact from the planes, the effect would have been the same.
The US was attacked on home soil. That's enough to justify a war. It's not as if there'd been no retaliation if the towers had survived the impact.

And don't you think these explosives would have gone off the moment the planes hit the towers? I'd find it extremely unlikely that a building riddled with explosives wouldn't go off after such an impact.

The WTC towers were steel towers. The core was seriously damaged by the impact of the planes. Because steel is about the worst kind of material in case of fire (no one answered my question, but a wooden beam is safer in case of fire than steel), steel beams need extra fire protection in the shape of paint and fire insulation. The impact of the planes dislodged the insulation so the fires could reach the steel. The steel buckled, the top floors of the building came down and from the impact of such an enormous weight falling down, it's only normal that floor by floor, the structure gave way.

The official version makes perfect sense, the conspiracy theory has enormous giant holes on it.

There's no need to post youtube clips of an architect having doubts. It doesn't make it the truth. There are million of architects and engineers out there, it's not hard to find a few who think differently. Besides, I've probably calculated more structures myself than the architect in the youtube clip. And yes, we take fire resistance into account when calculation structures (which is why we often shy away from steel structures).

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:26 AM
The airplanes were used as an alibi for what they were doing, a cover up if you will.

Why would they need an "alibi" (it's not even the right word but anyway) considering bombing buildings IS a terrorist attack, and what happened on September 11 are terrorist attacks. All they had to do was to put the blame on terrorists for the bombings as well, instead of hiding it (?), if the goal was to make an attack as spectacular as possible.

This makes ZERO sense no matter how you look at it.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:26 AM
A cover up of what? They could just have easily said it was foreign terrorists who planted the bombs. Why on earth would they make it so extremely complicated? The risk of leaks would be waaaay too high. There's no way they could have pulled off such a conspiracy without people knowing about it. And why? The impact of 9/11 on the world, on what happened afterwards isn't determined by whether or not the towers came down or not. Had the towers survived the impact from the planes, the effect would have been the same.
The US was attacked on home soil. That's enough to justify a war. It's not as if there'd been no retaliation if the towers had survived the impact.

And don't you think these explosives would have gone off the moment the planes hit the towers? I'd find it extremely unlikely that a building riddled with explosives wouldn't go off after such an impact.

The WTC towers were steel towers with a concrete core. The core was seriously damaged by the impact of the planes. Because steel is about the worst kind of material in case of fire (no one answered my question, but a wooden beam is safer in case of fire than steel), steel beams need extra fire protection in the shape of paint and fire insulation. The impact of the planes dislodged the insulation so the fires could reach the steel. The steel buckled, the top floors of the building came down and from the impact of such an enormous weight falling down, it's only normal that floor by floor, the structure gave way.

The official version makes perfect sense, the conspiracy theory has enormous giant holes on it.

There's no need to post youtube clips of an architect having doubts. It doesn't make it the truth. There are million of architects and engineers out there, it's not hard to find a few who think differently. Besides, I've probably calculated more structures myself than the architect in the youtube clip. And yes, we take fire resistance into account when calculation structures (which is why we often shy away from steel structures).

And AGAIN Ill say I do not have all the answers regarding why they used planes etc etc etc. All Im saying is that there is a growing movement of architects and explosion experts that say it is NOT possible building 7 came down due to the official reason. NOT POSSIBLE!

Yes its rather useless pointing things out to people that have made up their mind and don't want to possibly take in other facts that confront their own belief systems. Yet I saw this new documentary and listened to dozens of expert engineers, architects and explosive experts and their very clear opinion that building 7 went down from explosives was very compelling. If you or others don't believe it and believe the government story, well what more can I say is that The government never lies, what you see on the news is total truth, and the Easter Bunny is real and leaves Eggs at your house every year........ whatever keeps you happy at night to believe, believe it.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:30 AM
hqAf6zmLzUk

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:30 AM
Well why don't you not read the thread if it so offends your smarmy smug own point of view, that you seem to insist every one else has. So what if people believe in the creation story, just because you don't and you don't believe its credible does the world revolve around your little pathetic opinion?

Not only do a lot of architects believe the 9/11 story is invalid Ive already given some reasons. Seems your too lazy or too stupid to reply to those reasons, and just rely on useless rant. Grow a brain.

Why I'm not surprised you didn't answer my question?

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:32 AM
And AGAIN Ill say I do not have all the answers regarding why they used planes etc etc etc. .

You have no answer at all to provide, because your fantasy makes no logical sense.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:35 AM
Why would they need an "alibi" (it's not even the right word but anyway) considering bombing buildings IS a terrorist attack, and what happened on September 11 are terrorist attacks. All they had to do was to put the blame on terrorists for the bombings as well, instead of hiding it (?), if the goal was to make an attack as spectacular as possible.

This makes ZERO sense no matter how you look at it.

Well I'm not the CIA, im not the government, I don't know the answers to all those questions. My guess was that the planes were to add to the confusion of the situation and that the explosives were a backup in case the planes didn't do the job, but thats my opinion, I don't have evidence on that front.

My main point was regarding building 7 and the many expert engineers and architects questioning the way it fell.

There I answered your question Kiwi clown, so does that suprise you now. Im suprised you dont make love to yourself in mirrors you seem so up yourself.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:40 AM
You have no answer at all to provide, because your fantasy makes no logical sense.

Yes hundreds of Engineers, Architects and organisations around the world who think the 9/11 story does not add up are all in fantasy land and Whitehead boy is the knowledge of all.

pfffffffft one of those guys would have more knowledge in their little finger than you have in your entire brain

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:46 AM
Of course we don't know everything that happened on 9/11. It's more than likely that certain truths have been hidden from the public. The US may have ignored some warnings, who knows. But to jump from 'they're hiding something' to 'they're behind it' is a pretty huge leap.

Just thought I'd quote myself again since Renstar didn't read it.

debunking the conspiracy theories.
http://www.jod911.com/

One very important line:

these people give absolution to terrorists while accusing innocent people of mass murder, all without a shred of evidence.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:46 AM
A cover up of what? They could just have easily said it was foreign terrorists who planted the bombs. Why on earth would they make it so extremely complicated? The risk of leaks would be waaaay too high. There's no way they could have pulled off such a conspiracy without people knowing about it. And why? The impact of 9/11 on the world, on what happened afterwards isn't determined by whether or not the towers came down or not. Had the towers survived the impact from the planes, the effect would have been the same.
The US was attacked on home soil. That's enough to justify a war. It's not as if there'd been no retaliation if the towers had survived the impact.

And don't you think these explosives would have gone off the moment the planes hit the towers? I'd find it extremely unlikely that a building riddled with explosives wouldn't go off after such an impact.

The WTC towers were steel towers with a concrete core. The core was seriously damaged by the impact of the planes. Because steel is about the worst kind of material in case of fire (no one answered my question, but a wooden beam is safer in case of fire than steel), steel beams need extra fire protection in the shape of paint and fire insulation. The impact of the planes dislodged the insulation so the fires could reach the steel. The steel buckled, the top floors of the building came down and from the impact of such an enormous weight falling down, it's only normal that floor by floor, the structure gave way.

The official version makes perfect sense, the conspiracy theory has enormous giant holes on it.

There's no need to post youtube clips of an architect having doubts. It doesn't make it the truth. There are million of architects and engineers out there, it's not hard to find a few who think differently. Besides, I've probably calculated more structures myself than the architect in the youtube clip. And yes, we take fire resistance into account when calculation structures (which is why we often shy away from steel structures).

Ok as an architect, you look at this footage very carefully of building 7 collapsing, honestly tell me if this is from some fires burning inside. If you can honestly tell me that, then I would be very suprised:

972ETepp4GI

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:48 AM
Just thought I'd quote myself again since Renstar didn't read it.

debunking the conspiracy theories.
http://www.jod911.com/

One very important line:

these people give absolution to terrorists while accusing innocent people of mass murder, all without a shred of evidence.

NO, they destroyed all the evidence before it could be examined bwhahahaha........ thats one of the big things in the doctumentary I saw, most crime scenes or disasters they painstakingly look at the metal, the debris for months. Mysteriously all world trade centre materials were quickly and immediately trucked off to China and melted down.

This in itself is SCANDALOUS!!!

spencercarlos
Sep 11th, 2011, 12:02 PM
Yes hundreds of Engineers, Architects and organisations around the world who think the 9/11 story does not add up are all in fantasy land and Whitehead boy is the knowledge of all.

pfffffffft one of those guys would have more knowledge in their little finger than you have in your entire brain
You are tiresome. If you are willing to open a thread here then you should be up to discussion, but everytime someone disagrees with you, you can only start to insult.

And then what happens is that most people disagrees with your reasoning. Ugh.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 12:09 PM
You are tiresome. If you are willing to open a thread here then you should be up to discussion, but everytime someone disagrees with you, you can only start to insult.

And then what happens is that most people disagrees with your reasoning. Ugh.

If im tiresome simple don't read my threads and get lost.

If you cared to read that Kiwi idiots first post against me he was attacking my supposed bad English as well as some other derogatory comments.

People are entitled to their opinion, which is fine, but when people start attacking me personally, then I fight back. Got a problem with that?

Whitehead's Boy
Sep 11th, 2011, 12:26 PM
You're the one who's throwing personal attacks. A dig about your English skills is hardly comparable to the insults you keep throwing at me.

Now I see you're harrassing me in private as well. I'll just ignore this thread now because you clearly have issues. A lot of people who debunk 911 conspiracy theories have to use a pseudonym because they end up being harrassed by 911 CT crackpots.

Martian Jeza
Sep 11th, 2011, 12:42 PM
renstar, my advice to you : people here still are not ready to receive the information : they think all they watch on TV or listen on the radio is the truth ! But yet what people still don't know : loads of workers at Ground Zero have died of cancer ( air was so healthy to breathe : bullshit ) ! Building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane but yet collapsed ! And the twin tower the two others are the three in total in this world that collapsed because of a fire ! Don't forget that all of the fire all alone couldn't bring down the towers !

Where's the footages of a plane really hitting the pentagon ? NOWHERE !

Loads of helpers, fire fighters and witnesses aren't welcome at the "celebration" of the 10 years of the wannabe attacks !

Islam isn't my enemy ; MI5, MI6, Mossad, CIA, CFR, Bilderberg, Zionists, Wall Street, NATO, etc. are my enemies ! that are the true terrorists !

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2011, 12:58 PM
Ok as an architect, you look at this footage very carefully of building 7 collapsing, honestly tell me if this is from some fires burning inside. If you can honestly tell me that, then I would be very suprised:

972ETepp4GI

Yes, the combination of structural damage due to falling debris en severe fires caused this collapse. Pretty much everyone on the scene (hundreds and hundreds of witness reports, people who were actually there, not people who're watching TV images) realised the building was lost and on the verge of collapse. So the fire department decided to pull their men out.

Do you think the sentence, "we didn't want any more loss of life so we decided to explode the building" makes sense? Pull it clearly referred to pulling the people and cars, etc. out. To avoid further loss of life, it was decided to pull everyone out. That makes perfect sense. A couple of hours later, the building collapsed.
Saying it was a controlled demolition is basically saying that the fire brigade was in on it. And I find that very offensive.

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2011, 01:06 PM
Don't forget that all of the fire all alone couldn't bring down the towers ! !

uhm...you seem to be forgetting the tiny little detail of boeings hitting the buildings.


Where's the footages of a plane really hitting the pentagon ? NOWHERE !

Where's the footage of the bombs being planted in the pentagon? NOWHERE!

Also, would you be willing to repeat those claims to the people in charge of identifying the charred remains of the bodies in the pentagon, belonging to the people who were on the flight? Who put those bodies there unnoticed? Who put the debris from the plane there unnoticed?

Martian Jeza
Sep 11th, 2011, 02:17 PM
uhm...you seem to be forgetting the tiny little detail of boeings hitting the buildings.



Where's the footage of the bombs being planted in the pentagon? NOWHERE!

Also, would you be willing to repeat those claims to the people in charge of identifying the charred remains of the bodies in the pentagon, belonging to the people who were on the flight? Who put those bodies there unnoticed? Who put the debris from the plane there unnoticed?

Most of the fire burned outside of the towers !

We don't talk about bombs : we just want to know what hit the pentagon and it wasn't a flight at all !

Go there for more informations :http://ae911truth.org/

And Kim's Fan 4-Ever, I don't have issues, if you think I have go and be happy to give away your freedoms !

gentenaire
Sep 11th, 2011, 02:27 PM
we just want to know what hit the pentagon and it wasn't a flight at all !

Would you mind answering the 4th question I asked earlier?

tennislover
Sep 11th, 2011, 02:52 PM
Al-Queda, with blessing of US government.


and with the blessing of CIA

Morning Morgan
Sep 11th, 2011, 03:32 PM
This thread is destined to be a trainwreck. And as Svetlio said, the timing of the thread just screams "Troll!". Of all the years and months the OP could have picked to start the thread, he chose September of the tenth year. Mods you should just shut this thread down ASAP before it gets really ugly.

Bismarck.
Sep 11th, 2011, 04:04 PM
renstar, my advice to you : people here still are not ready to receive the information : they think all they watch on TV or listen on the radio is the truth !

Riiiiiiiiiight, we're the brainwashed ones of modern media when you've clearly been diddled by what you've read and/or watched on the internet, so trying to portray us as stupid sheep doesn't really work considering you're the same. Have you ever questioned your belief in the 9/11 conspiracy theories, or have you just followed them wholeheartedly without actually checking the info?

But yet what people still don't know : loads of workers at Ground Zero have died of cancer ( air was so healthy to breathe : bullshit ) !

Can you quote your source on the amount of deaths, please? Also, considering the buildings had been partially constructed from asbestos and other carcinogens (cadmium, lead etc.), I would say that those materials would be the main cause of these kinds of deaths, wouldn't you? Not any kind of explosive shit.

Building 7 that wasn't hit by a plane but yet collapsed ! And the twin tower the two others are the three in total in this world that collapsed because of a fire ! Don't forget that all of the fire all alone couldn't bring down the towers !

The "no other buildings have ever collapsed because of fire" argument is such bullshit, given that 9/11 was an attack of its own kind. Did you fail to notice that large passenger jetplanes hit two of the buildings, causing damage to the centre of the building which was the structural core? I suppose you must've. WTC7 had fires burning on numerous floors (6–14, 19–22 and 29–30 according to Wikipedia) and had had thousands of tons of debris from the collapse of the North and South Towers fall down, taking out a large part of the south-facing side of the building.

Where's the footages of a plane really hitting the pentagon ? NOWHERE !

Where's the footage of a bomb explosion?

Loads of helpers, fire fighters and witnesses aren't welcome at the "celebration" of the 10 years of the wannabe attacks !

Source?

Islam isn't my enemy ; MI5, MI6, Mossad, CIA, CFR, Bilderberg, Zionists, Wall Street, NATO, etc. are my enemies ! that are the true terrorists !

:facepalm: Please get out of your house more.

Break My Rapture
Sep 11th, 2011, 05:34 PM
There actually was footage of the pentagon attack: a surveillance camera showed a plane crashing into the pentagon (source: documentary by National Geographic which aired here moments ago). They said this was the only sort of footage existent of the crash.

I believe it's solely Al-Queda's doing, these disgusting creatures are appaling in every sense of the word, to the bone. They are what pollute this world, the way they deceived all those passengers on the planes during the hijacking is mind-boggling. Deceiving them moments before they are about to crash into a building containing hundreds of people...ugh. The footage of those planes slicing through the towers is spine-chilling in the most negative sense of the word. These mongrols don't even deserve to be called humans.

As for the ones claiming this was a set-up/inside job/whatever, how would you "explain" the aircraft (don't recall the airline / plane number) that crashed into a field because of the fight that broke out between the hijackers and pilots/passengers? These theories = purely grasping at straws by sickos.

Darop.
Sep 11th, 2011, 05:39 PM
renstar, my advice to you : people here still are not ready to receive the information : they think all they watch on TV or listen on the radio is the truth !

:haha:

OK, and you get your information from wacked up claims on the internet with absolutely no sources. Who's the real idiot here? :shrug:

ptkten
Sep 11th, 2011, 06:16 PM
What's hilarious is that people honestly think that the United States would create this elaborate of a conspiracy to go to war in Iraq. The U.S. didn't need to destroy one of their major economic centers and set their economy back for years just to go to war in Afghanistan or Iraq. It's so patently absurd that I don't even know where to begin and a lot of good points have already been made earlier in this thread.

In addition, this would require literally thousands of people to be in on the conspiracy without anyone leaking anything about an inside job. I can assure you that the U.S. has a strong independent press that would absolutely love to uncover a conspiracy like this and there was never a hint that anything was fishy about what happened.

It's sad that some people's hatred of U.S. policy has made them go crazy, grasping at straws that make them seem ridiculous. You can hate the U.S. response to the attacks without being insane about conspiracy theories.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:53 PM
You're the one who's throwing personal attacks. A dig about your English skills is hardly comparable to the insults you keep throwing at me.

Now I see you're harrassing me in private as well. I'll just ignore this thread now because you clearly have issues. A lot of people who debunk 911 conspiracy theories have to use a pseudonym because they end up being harrassed by 911 CT crackpots.

Well exscuse me but YOU were the one that chose to TROLL my thread and start off with personal attacks against me. If having a different opinion to what the mass media feeds the sheep such as yourself is a crackpot, well fine then sign me up!

Good, why don't you climb back under the shady rock you slivered from and don't bother my thread again, your certainly NOT welcome! I encourage debate, but going on personal attacks is not, ta ta

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 10:59 PM
Yes, the combination of structural damage due to falling debris en severe fires caused this collapse. Pretty much everyone on the scene (hundreds and hundreds of witness reports, people who were actually there, not people who're watching TV images) realised the building was lost and on the verge of collapse. So the fire department decided to pull their men out.

Do you think the sentence, "we didn't want any more loss of life so we decided to explode the building" makes sense? Pull it clearly referred to pulling the people and cars, etc. out. To avoid further loss of life, it was decided to pull everyone out. That makes perfect sense. A couple of hours later, the building collapsed.
Saying it was a controlled demolition is basically saying that the fire brigade was in on it. And I find that very offensive.

Well I'm sorry then your architecture skills are obviously lacking since a lot of experts now say that many factors point to this being a controlled demolition. All I can speculate in is that there were explosives placed in a number of buildings, maybe another one of the planes was originally meant to go into building 7 as well, and the explosives were already placed and they decided to go ahead anyway, I don't know.

Ok say a fire was responsible, as I have previously said would the building go down so uniformly and so symetrically???

IF YOU THINK THIS YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF, FULL STOP!!!

THIS IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!

swissmr
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:05 PM
OP you're a tool :o

While there may be some holes in the official story of what happened that day, there are much bigger flaws in these so called 'conspiracy theories'.

renstar
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:11 PM
OP you're a tool :o

While there may be some holes in the official story of what happened that day, there are much bigger flaws in these so called 'conspiracy theories'.

Well guess what, I'm not talking about the hundreds of conspiracy theories to do with it all. That's the best the believers in the official story can do, use the words "conspiracy story", and try to list all the whacko theories all into one group and dismiss it.

All Im brining up is that there is a growing group of many world architecture and engineering and explosive experts that are now saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE that factors such as building 7 coming down from the official explanation, as well as other factors.

Don't argue with me, dispute them, simple!

Darop.
Sep 11th, 2011, 11:41 PM
Ok say a fire was responsible, as I have previously said would the building go down so uniformly and so symetrically???

IF YOU THINK THIS YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF, FULL STOP!!!

THIS IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!

It's called PANCAKING, look it up.

renstar
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:04 AM
It's called PANCAKING, look it up.

well dude, I wish you could have seen the world premiere documentary I did in a town hall in Sydney two nights ago titled, "9/11: explosive evidence Experts speak out" because architect and engineer one after another interviewed and asked about Building 7. They said it was laughable that it was anything other than controlled demolition.

Lets put it this way, one of them said when you walk in a building would you go in there if there wasn't resistance? Well would you? No because it would fall down. Now this building 7 had something like 30 or so main pilons in the middle, there is NO WAY that fires could cause the building to uni formally and quickly fall like the way it did without that resistance being completely blown away, at least the first 5 floors. Buildings just do NOT fall that way, plain and SIMPLE! You would have seen parts fall here and there, parts stay up for a while, but to all fall like that, IMPOSSIBLE.

Lets also look at the website firefighters for 9/11 truth where there is much controversy over the perceived use of exotic accelerants in all the buildings:

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

A common sense test: You’re dispatched to a house fire in a 2 story with a basement. Upon arrival, all 3 floors are well involved. After extinguishment, the neighbor across the street tells you he saw flashes on all 3 floors within seconds of each other. It turns out the owner has arson convictions on his record. You smell gasoline. Now, should you test the debris for accelerants? No matter what the owner and his friends tell you, wouldn’t you still test it? It’s a “NO-Brainer”…isn’t it?

NOW, HOW WOULD YOU INVESTIGATE?
Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero “remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.”N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

So, with all these indicators, would you test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue/Thermite? How could you confirm or rule out the possibility terrorists planted explosives in addition to the aircraft hits?

Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history? With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants? Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants or they were incompetent! Well, if it was incompetence, we can go back and still test. These scientists have tested…read their results!!
If you can’t answer why, then please take the time to investigate. Browse our website, and please sign the petition. Our communities trust us. If we let them know this is not how professionals investigate, or how we treat our Brothers and Sisters who gave so much, they will listen. Also, please visit www.FealGoodFoundation.com and learn how to help our Brothers and Sisters in need.

Many of our Brothers and Sisters are sick and dying from their exposures at Ground Zero, our Country is crumbling. I am asking you to do something much more difficult than fighting a fire. I am asking you to be as professional as you would be on any emergency call. I am asking you to review the evidence surrounding 9-11. I am asking you to join us in demanding an investigation that follows National Standards, and passage of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act to take care of the sick Ground Zero workers. I am asking you to stand with us to help SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS AND OUR COUNTRY!
Respectfully,
Erik Lawyer
erik@firefightersfor911truth.org

Ayumilover.
Sep 12th, 2011, 12:35 AM
WTF!! :facepalm:

oh yes, let's all come to the conclusion that 9/11 was just some set-up because Bush was in office. I mean come on, he sure is an evil man for defending America by not letting us get attacked again, and killing off terrorist. That's just so bad. And after all, it's not like the radical muslims are breaking human rights laws left and right, while trying to destroy the civilized world. :rolleyes: .. i'm sure they wouldn't hurt a fly. :o

fifty-fifty
Sep 12th, 2011, 01:58 AM
WTF!! :facepalm:

oh yes, let's all come to the conclusion that 9/11 was just some set-up because Bush was in office. I mean come on, he sure is an evil man for defending America by not letting us get attacked again, and killing off terrorist. That's just so bad. And after all, it's not like the radical muslims are breaking human rights laws left and right, while trying to destroy the civilized world. :rolleyes: .. i'm sure they wouldn't hurt a fly. :o



Yeah, he did such a great job defending US after he got a report that there will be an attack by terrorists.

renstar
Sep 12th, 2011, 02:52 AM
WTF!! :facepalm:

oh yes, let's all come to the conclusion that 9/11 was just some set-up because Bush was in office. I mean come on, he sure is an evil man for defending America by not letting us get attacked again, and killing off terrorist. That's just so bad. And after all, it's not like the radical muslims are breaking human rights laws left and right, while trying to destroy the civilized world. :rolleyes: .. i'm sure they wouldn't hurt a fly. :o

Perhaps you should ask Georges true masters, the Illuminati why they ordered him to go ahead with this evil plan, but then again they specialize in the horrid and evil.

Funny how the illuminati loves the number 11. Twin towers making the number 11, September 11, 11 crew on the planes etc. One of the most evil men in history is Bush, but hes one but of many.

mOkCzOIePBY

gentenaire
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:56 AM
Well I'm sorry then your architecture skills are obviously lacking since a lot of experts now say that many factors point to this being a controlled demolition. All I can speculate in is that there were explosives placed in a number of buildings, maybe another one of the planes was originally meant to go into building 7 as well, and the explosives were already placed and they decided to go ahead anyway, I don't know.

Ok say a fire was responsible, as I have previously said would the building go down so uniformly and so symetrically???

IF YOU THINK THIS YOU ARE KIDDING YOURSELF, FULL STOP!!!

THIS IS A CONTROLLED DEMOLITION!!!

Ok, I get it. All the architects who say it's controlled demolition are experts, all the architects and engineers who say it isn't are crap and lack skills.

a few questions for you:
Considering the twin towers collapse started exactly at the point of impact (not at the bottom, as is usual for controlled demolition), when do you think the explosives were planted on those floors? Did they put them there beforehand and then told the pilots to hit the towers on those exact floors? Do you think all those explosives and wiring could withstand such an impact and such fires?
or did they put them there after the planes hit? A couple of people ran up the stairs, went to the damaged floors and put the explosives there on those damaged floors. Is that how you think it happened?

As for WTC7: Have you ever seen what a building looks like before controlled demolition? how do you think all that wiring and explosives went unnoticed to the people working in the buildings? Do you think all the wiring and those explosives could survive 7 hours of very intensive fires?
With controlled demolition, the building is stripped and weakened beforehand. That obviously wasn't possible here, so there'd need to be some seriously heave explosives involved. How come there's zero trace of such massive explosions going off? How come no explosions were detected on the seismograph? Do you think the New York fire fighters are liars?

Please answer those questions first before attacking my architectural skills.

Darop.
Sep 12th, 2011, 09:37 AM
well dude, I wish you could have seen the world premiere documentary I did in a town hall in Sydney two nights ago titled, "9/11: explosive evidence Experts speak out" because architect and engineer one after another interviewed and asked about Building 7. They said it was laughable that it was anything other than controlled demolition.

Lets put it this way, one of them said when you walk in a building would you go in there if there wasn't resistance? Well would you? No because it would fall down. Now this building 7 had something like 30 or so main pilons in the middle, there is NO WAY that fires could cause the building to uni formally and quickly fall like the way it did without that resistance being completely blown away, at least the first 5 floors. Buildings just do NOT fall that way, plain and SIMPLE! You would have seen parts fall here and there, parts stay up for a while, but to all fall like that, IMPOSSIBLE.

Lets also look at the website firefighters for 9/11 truth where there is much controversy over the perceived use of exotic accelerants in all the buildings:

http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

A common sense test: You’re dispatched to a house fire in a 2 story with a basement. Upon arrival, all 3 floors are well involved. After extinguishment, the neighbor across the street tells you he saw flashes on all 3 floors within seconds of each other. It turns out the owner has arson convictions on his record. You smell gasoline. Now, should you test the debris for accelerants? No matter what the owner and his friends tell you, wouldn’t you still test it? It’s a “NO-Brainer”…isn’t it?

NOW, HOW WOULD YOU INVESTIGATE?
Look at the facts of the WTC, specifically Tower 7, collapses:
1) Terrorists used explosives on WTC 1 in 1993.
2) Over 118 first responders reported hearing explosions before all 3 collapses, many said it sounded like the “bang-bang-bang” you hear during a demolition.
3) We have video, photographic and audio evidence of explosions after the impact and before collapse.
4) Live news was reporting multiple explosions, and the possibility terrorists also planted explosives.
5) Barry Jennings, the Emergency Coordinator for the NY Housing Authority reported explosions in Tower 7. He also reported being knocked down by explosions prior to the collapse of the tower.
6) Molten steel AND concrete were found at Ground Zero “remember, hydrocarbon fires do not burn hot enough to melt steel or concrete.”N.F.P.A. 921- 19.2.4 Exotic Accelerants states that molten steel and concrete could indicate the use of exotic accelerants, specifically Thermite.
7) WTC 7 was the first concrete and steel high rise to collapse during a fire that had not been struck by an aircraft. It was determined not to be significantly damaged by the falling debris, and diesel fuel tanks DID NOT contribute significantly to the fire (according to NIST final report 2008).

So, with all these indicators, would you test for exotic accelerants/explosive residue/Thermite? How could you confirm or rule out the possibility terrorists planted explosives in addition to the aircraft hits?

Why does N.I.S.T. REFUSE to this day to test for exotic accelerants in the most heinous crime in U.S. history? With the first high rise building collapses in history, why would N.I.S.T. NOT test for accelerants? Especially, with so many indicators, one in which we have lost so many lives, so many Brothers, so many Freedoms, and our Economy. I have not found a single fire investigator who can give a reason other than they didn’t want to find exotic accelerants or they were incompetent! Well, if it was incompetence, we can go back and still test. These scientists have tested…read their results!!
If you can’t answer why, then please take the time to investigate. Browse our website, and please sign the petition. Our communities trust us. If we let them know this is not how professionals investigate, or how we treat our Brothers and Sisters who gave so much, they will listen. Also, please visit www.FealGoodFoundation.com (http://www.FealGoodFoundation.com) and learn how to help our Brothers and Sisters in need.

Many of our Brothers and Sisters are sick and dying from their exposures at Ground Zero, our Country is crumbling. I am asking you to do something much more difficult than fighting a fire. I am asking you to be as professional as you would be on any emergency call. I am asking you to review the evidence surrounding 9-11. I am asking you to join us in demanding an investigation that follows National Standards, and passage of the 9/11 Health and Compensation Act to take care of the sick Ground Zero workers. I am asking you to stand with us to help SAVE OUR BROTHERS, SISTERS AND OUR COUNTRY!
Respectfully,
Erik Lawyer
erik@firefightersfor911truth.org

I was talking about the towers, not WTC 7.

Perhaps you should ask Georges true masters, the Illuminati why they ordered him to go ahead with this evil plan, but then again they specialize in the horrid and evil.

Funny how the illuminati loves the number 11. Twin towers making the number 11, September 11, 11 crew on the planes etc. One of the most evil men in history is Bush, but hes one but of many.

mOkCzOIePBY

:facepalm:

People, Dan Brown's novels are FICTION!!!!!!!! Get it together!!!
And OMG guess what!!! "Suck my balls" also has 11 letters!!!! :unsure: :scared: If they're "obsessed" with 11, why didn't they make the attack november 11? The harder you search for retarded clues (summing up numbers until you get 11) the more you're going to find them, but it doesn't mean it actually means something.


:weirdo:

TheHangover
Sep 12th, 2011, 10:47 AM
yes i think that's an inside job, too many clues that make me tend to think that
1)the clear controlled explosion that you can find in every controlled demolition (even firemen said that in those moments)
2)steel melt at a way higer temperature than the burning jet fuel's one, so if the building resisted to the jet impacts there is no reason why they collapsed after such a relatively big amount of time
3)wtc7 collapsed for a ridicolous fire while equivalent buildings in Madrid and Beijing burned litterally for days and never collapsed (are us engeneers that bad?)
4)no images, no videos, no rest of the plane that hit the pentagon, the hole didn't fit a boeing 767 dimensions, no signs of the plane wings on the building
5)no fighter jet took off despite 4 big planes full of people were hijacked for more than a hour, and not even after the first plane hit the first tower, while several minutes passed between ny and washington attacks
6)it's statistical very unlikely (and this is not a secondary fact, reflect on this) that two buildings hit by two planes in different points, with different angles, speed, weight, fuel etc... collaps in the almost identical way, it's physically impossible.
the 9-11 allowed u.s. to begin its unjustified wars especially in iraq (no mass destruction weapons, no al-queda in iraq) and now u.s. basically controls giant oilfields of iraq and afghanistan and key strategy zones close to iran and israel. These's are a lot of good reasons.

Usa did in its own home what they did during the 1970-80 years in italy financing terrorism to influence elections and important decisions, that's how "democracy" goes

bulava
Sep 12th, 2011, 11:12 AM
One word: Bull :tape:

When I was in the US I used hear from various people saying that:

a) Moon landing was fake
b) UFO mania is true
c) Aliens are coming
d) and loads of other crap! :lol:

Hurley
Sep 12th, 2011, 02:03 PM
The only thing I'll say - and I said it a zillion times when these fights first appeared on these boards 9 years ago - is that the Pentagon is directly next to I-395 and its onramps and exits, and at any one time during daylight hours tens of thousands of drivers have complete access to viewing every angle of it, especially during the morning when this interstate, as a major thoroughfare between Washington, D.C. and the Northern Virginia suburbs of Alexandria, Arlington, and Fairfax County, are packed with commuters.

So, if a plane DIDN'T hit the Pentagon, we would have known about it on 9/12/01, when thousands upon thousands of people said "Hey...uh, a plane didn't hit the Pentagon."

So anyone who still thinks that a plane didn't hit the Pentagon is dumber than a box of rocks.

Beat
Sep 12th, 2011, 03:03 PM
I myself feel it was a setup, what do you guys think

aren't you the person who also thinks that climate change is a lie?

Martian Jeza
Sep 12th, 2011, 04:00 PM
aren't you the person who also thinks that climate change is a lie?

Man made global warming is an entire farce ! Since the earth exists there have been cold age and also very warm periods but at those times men didn't exist yet ! Climate change always exist but the way it's presented by the globalists is a FRAUD ! They want us to pay for a carbon tax to make the rich, richer, to screw up the lives of the humanity. The Man made Global Warming is in the plans of the Globalists ( New World Order ) : Read the book Eco-science of JP Holdren and 2 others : they all are malthusians, fanatic crackpots !

Chris 84
Sep 12th, 2011, 04:06 PM
WTF!! :facepalm:

oh yes, let's all come to the conclusion that 9/11 was just some set-up because Bush was in office. I mean come on, he sure is an evil man for defending America by not letting us get attacked again, and killing off terrorist. That's just so bad. And after all, it's not like the radical muslims are breaking human rights laws left and right, while trying to destroy the civilized world. :rolleyes: .. i'm sure they wouldn't hurt a fly. :o

bush is no better than them.
he's not an evil man for defending america, he's an evil man for lying about the reasons to go to war with other countries, for allowing the bombing and murder of innocent civilians and for furthering american imperialism at the cost of human life.

9/11 being an inside job or not has very little to do with how evil bush and his advisers are. if you can deceive the country into backing a war which kills innocent civilians and leads to the deaths of countless of your own soldiers, you can do anything. he and bin laden are very much alike. murderous terrorists.

Melange
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:25 PM
A couple of questions:
- Three rooms are on fire. One has a roof with steal beams, another with concrete beams, another with wooden beams. Which one will collapse the first?

- are explosives/bombs the only things that can set off explosions?

- If the buildings came down from explosives, why bother with the airplanes?

- if you wanted the public to believe a plane hit the pentagon would you:

a) plant explosives in the pentagon, hijack a plane, land the plane in some secret place, dispose of the plane and all the passengers without leaving a single trace, bribe hundreds of people to make a false witness statements
b) hijack a plane and fly it into the pentagon

why on earth would anyone pick option a) ?

- Did you know that the Madrid tower was a concrete skyscraper? Did you know that it did have on part in steel? Did you know that the steel part collapsed, but the concrete part didn't?

Exactly. Part of it collapsed. WTC was first example of skyscraper collapsing completely and in perfect symmetry. If the steel frame were really weakened by jet fuel fire, only part of the building would have started collapsing first and it would have taken a long time to occur because of all the unaffected floors below. Instead, what we see is an unbelievable perfect demolition and all floors collapsing within 20 seconds. How is it possible for a skyscraper built to the best standards to simply collapse so fast. Dont forget the designers had anticipated all kinds of disasters including multiple crashes by commercial jetliners. Buildings collapsed within 3 hours of fire. Similar building collapses due to fire have taken over 10 hours and none of them was a perfect symmetrical collapse. You have a MSc degree in Building Engineering and you dont find anything suspicious about how perfectly it all occurred.

GrafMariaPetraK
Sep 12th, 2011, 05:28 PM
Yessssssssssssssssssssssssssssssss

Melange
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:23 PM
Just a few questions are:


the way the buildings collapsed. 110 storeys of skyscraper constructed to the highest standards collapse on itself in 20 seconds. Its just too fast and too perfect
bldg 7 collapses due to fire from office furnishings
first time ever the flight recorders were not found, not even one of the four, even though they were able to find minute fragments of human remains
fires burning for a few months even though the jet fuel burns off within minutes
Norad is unable to intercept any of the hijacked planes, ridiculous claims that they are unable to track multiple hijacked planes
video footage of Transportation Secretary Minetta who says they were kept updated on the progress of the plane even when no efforts were made to stop it when it was clearly heading to either White House or Pentagon
the tiny hole in the Pentagon, such a clean, precise impact, no sign of impact from 150ft wide wings, no debris outside, FBI only releases a few seconds of video of the impact with no sign of a plane
how does an arab with a few hours of simulator training make such a perfect approach at a very low level building with a huge jetliner that he does not even scrape the ground, claims by several instructors that he his flying skills were inadequate
the crater of the fourth plane with no sign of wreckage, is it that easy to hide a plane?
the haste with which the plane and building remains are removed and disposed of, before investigation can take place, nothing to see here

US govt gives the official congressional commission a tiny $3m budget and ridiculous short time period to make an official investigation, incredible lack of cooperation and hindrance from govt which supposedly has nothing to hide because it was done by foreign terrorists. $3m budget to investigate the greatest terrorist attack on US soil

Melange
Sep 12th, 2011, 06:29 PM
WTF!! :facepalm:

oh yes, let's all come to the conclusion that 9/11 was just some set-up because Bush was in office. I mean come on, he sure is an evil man for defending America by not letting us get attacked again, and killing off terrorist. That's just so bad. And after all, it's not like the radical muslims are breaking human rights laws left and right, while trying to destroy the civilized world. :rolleyes: .. i'm sure they wouldn't hurt a fly. :o

If the conspiracy actually happened, I dont think Bush was in on it. He was the perfect president for the situation because of his lack of experience, lack of interest in detail and his preference to delegate responsiblity to others. At the time of the events, they had sent him off to Florida to visit schools. What we do know is that in the months before it, he and Rice got so many alerts about terrorist attacks from CIA and others that they started laughing at them.

njnetswill
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:46 PM
A mod should rename this thread "TF nutjob convention"

gentenaire
Sep 12th, 2011, 07:47 PM
If the steel frame were really weakened by jet fuel fire, only part of the building would have started collapsing first and it would have taken a long time to occur because of all the unaffected floors below. Instead, what we see is an unbelievable perfect demolition and all floors collapsing within 20 seconds. .

WE do NOT see all floors collapsing simultaneously. Take a good look at the images. The collapse starts at the exact point where the planes hit. You tell me how that would be possible by explosives. You tell me how explosives could possibly not detonate when in a burning building. You tell me how all the wiring could have possibly survived the impact of a boeing and the subsequent fires. All this nonsense about the WTC being the first skyscrapers to collapse. They were the first to be hit by boeings full of fuel.

The collapse starts at the point of impact and the entire top of the building, all that weight falls onto the lower floors. That's a massive impact. No structure (or perhaps maybe a concrete bunker) can survive such massive forces. No wonder the columns gave way. And then that weight falls on the floor below, which gives way, and on to the next floor and the next and the next. That's what happened. It's not a surprise that the South tower, which was hit at a lower point (and therefore there was more weight resting on the damaged columns) was the first to collapse.

I've posted several questions in this thread. Not a single one of these questions has been answered.

Read the following paper, it answers a lot of your questions.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

Darop.
Sep 13th, 2011, 07:12 PM
yes i think that's an inside job, too many clues that make me tend to think that
1)the clear controlled explosion that you can find in every controlled demolition (even firemen said that in those moments)
2)steel melt at a way higer temperature than the burning jet fuel's one, so if the building resisted to the jet impacts there is no reason why they collapsed after such a relatively big amount of time
3)wtc7 collapsed for a ridicolous fire while equivalent buildings in Madrid and Beijing burned litterally for days and never collapsed (are us engeneers that bad?)
4)no images, no videos, no rest of the plane that hit the pentagon, the hole didn't fit a boeing 767 dimensions, no signs of the plane wings on the building
5)no fighter jet took off despite 4 big planes full of people were hijacked for more than a hour, and not even after the first plane hit the first tower, while several minutes passed between ny and washington attacks
6)it's statistical very unlikely (and this is not a secondary fact, reflect on this) that two buildings hit by two planes in different points, with different angles, speed, weight, fuel etc... collaps in the almost identical way, it's physically impossible.
the 9-11 allowed u.s. to begin its unjustified wars especially in iraq (no mass destruction weapons, no al-queda in iraq) and now u.s. basically controls giant oilfields of iraq and afghanistan and key strategy zones close to iran and israel. These's are a lot of good reasons.

Usa did in its own home what they did during the 1970-80 years in italy financing terrorism to influence elections and important decisions, that's how "democracy" goes

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Answers to all your "doubts".

bulava
Sep 13th, 2011, 07:46 PM
A mod should rename this thread "TF nutjob convention"
:lol::tape::wavey:

Melange
Sep 13th, 2011, 08:56 PM
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/1227842

Answers to all your "doubts".

Who are popular mechanics and why are they so interested in this issue and why are Faux News their special friend. They keep referring to exclusive photos that the govt showed just to them but never released to the public

9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

rada
Sep 13th, 2011, 09:25 PM
Well I wish I could say that I don't but I kinda do, I don't trust the US government at all but the fact that 3000 ppl died is just to sad :(

Melange
Sep 13th, 2011, 09:31 PM
Well I wish I could say that I don't but I kinda do, I don't trust the US government at all but the fact that 3000 ppl died is just to sad :(

Im not comparing tragedies, but over 3000 US soldiers dying unnecessarily in Iraq is also tragic

Melange
Sep 13th, 2011, 09:53 PM
WE do NOT see all floors collapsing simultaneously. Take a good look at the images. The collapse starts at the exact point where the planes hit. You tell me how that would be possible by explosives. You tell me how explosives could possibly not detonate when in a burning building. You tell me how all the wiring could have possibly survived the impact of a boeing and the subsequent fires. All this nonsense about the WTC being the first skyscrapers to collapse. They were the first to be hit by boeings full of fuel.

The collapse starts at the point of impact and the entire top of the building, all that weight falls onto the lower floors. That's a massive impact. No structure (or perhaps maybe a concrete bunker) can survive such massive forces. No wonder the columns gave way. And then that weight falls on the floor below, which gives way, and on to the next floor and the next and the next. That's what happened. It's not a surprise that the South tower, which was hit at a lower point (and therefore there was more weight resting on the damaged columns) was the first to collapse.

I've posted several questions in this thread. Not a single one of these questions has been answered.

Read the following paper, it answers a lot of your questions.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

There are a few replies to the report you posted. I dont have the time to study it all but here is one
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

00:30- WTC Construction manager: Bldg is designed to stand passenger jet crash and the fire
5:00- If the bldg collapses why does it take the path of greatest resistance
6:30- NIST expert says the jet fuel did not melt the steel

OBylG_EkhhU

serenaforever
Sep 13th, 2011, 11:25 PM
The age of the conspiracy theory is destructive and stupid.

Some people no longer believe any event that occurs is what it seems to be. That is simply paranoia.

This. Anytime anything bad happens (9/11, JFK assassination, etc.), the conspiracy theories come out, and people are claiming it was a government setup. Paranoia indeed.

Melange
Sep 14th, 2011, 12:44 AM
Half the problem is the hasty, shoddy official investigations and the ignoring of evidence and alternative causes. If these events are so obvious and straight forward why is there a need for so much cover up. $3m spent on the 9/11 official commission when they spent $1 trillion on the dept of Homeland Security??

Sally Struthers
Sep 14th, 2011, 12:47 AM
you people who actually believe these conspiracy theories better stop now before I think less of you than I already do :lol: :angel:

BigB08822
Sep 14th, 2011, 04:47 AM
Life is not a movie. There isn't always a giant twist coming where we find out everything we thought we knew was all wrong. Sometimes things are as they appear. Conspiracies are just a bunch of fun for the people involved, it is almost a game to see who can come up with the most absurd idea and then try to find faulty logic to back it up.

Temperenka
Sep 14th, 2011, 04:53 AM
I didn't think anybody actually believed these conspiracy theories... :help:

Ridiculous.

Martian Jeza
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:21 AM
I didn't think anybody actually believed these conspiracy theories... :help:

Ridiculous.

New World Order ? It doesn't exist : well on the 11/09/1991 gave George Bush at the UN a great speech how much he wants it ! But hey it only was a dream !

Who founded Bin Laden when the CCCP was on war with Afghanistan ? You got it : CIA !

Can you really believe that a passport can survive a plane crash + a building collapse ? :lol:

How come NORAD did nothing to destroy the flights before they hit the twin towers ?


Lary Silverstein admitted to have said : Pull it for the WTC 7


Those wannabe high-jackers couldn't pilot a vulgar little flight properly !

Where are the wings, the tail section, the engines, etc. about the flight that hit the Pentagon ?

6/10 people of the 9/11 commission think they have been lied !

Loads of the family who lost someone during 9/11 think also they have been lied !

William Rodrigez : a hero of 9/11 is constantly censored !

Some eye witnesses death are very suspicious !

Do I have to go further ?




But all of this is conspiracy, right ?

Martian Jeza
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:32 AM
Please answer those questions first before attacking my architectural skills.

I bet Richard Gage and the other 1500 architects and engineers are liars for you : would love to see you debating with them !

Temperenka
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:49 AM
New World Order ? It doesn't exist : well on the 11/09/1991 gave George Bush at the UN a great speech how much he wants it ! But hey it only was a dream !

Who founded Bin Laden when the CCCP was on war with Afghanistan ? You got it : CIA !

Can you really believe that a passport can survive a plane crash + a building collapse ? :lol:

How come NORAD did nothing to destroy the flights before they hit the twin towers ?


Lary Silverstein admitted to have said : Pull it for the WTC 7


Those wannabe high-jackers couldn't pilot a vulgar little flight properly !

Where are the wings, the tail section, the engines, etc. about the flight that hit the Pentagon ?

6/10 people of the 9/11 commission think they have been lied !

Loads of the family who lost someone during 9/11 think also they have been lied !

William Rodrigez : a hero of 9/11 is constantly censored !

Some eye witnesses death are very suspicious !

Do I have to go further ?




But all of this is conspiracy, right ?

No... you need not go further. Your points were all so thoughtfully crafted and beautifully articulated that I am 100% sold this was a conspiracy! Thanks for showing me the light! :bounce:

No, but really, I want some of whatever you are smoking. It's been a long week.

Martian Jeza
Sep 14th, 2011, 06:03 AM
No... you need not go further. Your points were all so thoughtfully crafted and beautifully articulated that I am 100% sold this was a conspiracy! Thanks for showing me the light! :bounce:

No, but really, I want some of whatever you are smoking. It's been a long week.

The only thing I'm smoking is the the truth ! Loads of you don't even want to think by themselves which is very sad ! Be like me without a television for months or years, It will maybe save you ! You can check my facts wherever you want but you won't make the effort to this this ! ISLAM ISN'T MY ENEMY !

Temperenka
Sep 14th, 2011, 06:28 AM
The only thing I'm smoking is the the truth ! Loads of you don't even want to think by themselves which is very sad ! Be like me without a television for months or years, It will maybe save you ! You can check my facts wherever you want but you won't make the effort to this this ! ISLAM ISN'T MY ENEMY !

Nor is Islam my enemy. Complete and utter lack of common sense is my enemy. Just because I'm sensible enough to not believe this absurd conspiracy does not mean I am anti-Islamic.

You and other crazies are so thirsty for a conspiracy that it clouds the limited amount of sense you may have possessed. Let me guess, you also believe that man landing on the moon and JFK's assassination were conspiracies?

I have no interest in checking your facts. They are trash.

Also, here is some Aristotelian food for thought for you:
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it."

Darop.
Sep 14th, 2011, 11:32 AM
Who are popular mechanics and why are they so interested in this issue and why are Faux News their special friend. They keep referring to exclusive photos that the govt showed just to them but never released to the public

9/11 Debate: Loose Change vs. Popular Mechanics pt. 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stVmEmJ666M

Yeah, see that video does nothing but prove that the loosechange guys are misinformed retards who are riding on common feelings and sentiments to put cash in their pockets. They're quite good demagogues, that I must admit.

Beat
Sep 14th, 2011, 11:59 AM
A mod should rename this thread "TF nutjob convention"

:spit:

Avid Merrion
Sep 14th, 2011, 12:47 PM
http://atomicbunker.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/tinfoil-hat.jpg

renstar
Sep 14th, 2011, 01:24 PM
This. Anytime anything bad happens (9/11, JFK assassination, etc.), the conspiracy theories come out, and people are claiming it was a government setup. Paranoia indeed.

Well guess what, go to North Korea and listen to all their news broadcasts that Kim Jung Il or whatever his name is is the grand master and they are really not starving and the outside world is evil, yet they all believe it because that is what they are told.

What makes YOU or US as a whole SO arrogant to think we are any better off. What exactly makes the sanitised garbage news we are fed 24/7 so true? Thank GOD we live in countries where we at least can have independent points of view, apart from the heavily biased and selected news we are told from media and government.

NO not all so called "conspiracy theories" are right, but hey theres a few out there that are hitting the mark.

People who believe everything they are told are worse than so called nutjobs, they are to me mindless sheep, heading for the slaughter........ goodluck........ but wakeup!!!

fifty-fifty
Sep 14th, 2011, 03:16 PM
I didn't think anybody actually believed these conspiracy theories... :help:

Ridiculous.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008_pie.png/250px-911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008_pie.png

fifty-fifty
Sep 14th, 2011, 03:24 PM
Life is not a movie. There isn't always a giant twist coming where we find out everything we thought we knew was all wrong. Sometimes things are as they appear. Conspiracies are just a bunch of fun for the people involved, it is almost a game to see who can come up with the most absurd idea and then try to find faulty logic to back it up.

Are you saying all conspiracy theories are false? Some of them were proven to true.


http://www.sixwise.com/newsletters/07/02/28/the-9-most-shocking-conspiracy-theories-that-turned-out-to-be-true.htm

Melange
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:13 PM
How about the wacky conspiracy theory that the US govt made up a crock of lies about WMD and imminent nuclear threat as an excuse for grabbing Iraq's oil fields? Cant believe they would ever lie to their own people.

Dani12
Sep 14th, 2011, 05:16 PM
:lol: This thread is great! It's like a study of the human mind.

fifty-fifty
Sep 14th, 2011, 06:12 PM
:lol: This thread is great! It's like a study of the human mind.

We need a separate conspiracy theory thread, not just about 9/11. There's clearly hidden demand for it.

Bayo
Sep 14th, 2011, 06:16 PM
I'll forward this thread to Agent Mulder.

Temperenka
Sep 14th, 2011, 07:38 PM
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008_pie.png/250px-911worldopinionpoll_Sep2008_pie.png

Can you post a source? The only things necessary to make a pie chart are Excel and a few fingers.

Who was polled? What were their demographics?

This "source" is crap. Step it up and use more concrete logic.

Melange
Sep 14th, 2011, 07:55 PM
Here is some more crap for you


A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[11] The survey found that 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them[12] because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.[13]


Zogby poll conducted in August 2004, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure


Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure. :facepalm:

ptkten
Sep 14th, 2011, 07:56 PM
Well guess what, go to North Korea and listen to all their news broadcasts that Kim Jung Il or whatever his name is is the grand master and they are really not starving and the outside world is evil, yet they all believe it because that is what they are told.

What makes YOU or US as a whole SO arrogant to think we are any better off. What exactly makes the sanitised garbage news we are fed 24/7 so true? Thank GOD we live in countries where we at least can have independent points of view, apart from the heavily biased and selected news we are told from media and government.

NO not all so called "conspiracy theories" are right, but hey theres a few out there that are hitting the mark.

People who believe everything they are told are worse than so called nutjobs, they are to me mindless sheep, heading for the slaughter........ goodluck........ but wakeup!!!

:spit: Did you just compare North Korea's media to U.S. media? I can assure you that the vast majority of journalists in the U.S. hated Bush and would have loved nothing more than to uncover a conspiracy about 9/11.

Again, the U.S. did not need to create this elaborate conspiracy that destroyed some of our economic and military centers, killed 3,000 people and set back our economy for years just to gain access to some oil and take over a leader they didn't like :weirdo:

The government could have come up with something a lot less costly to the U.S. to get the U.S. to go to war such as when they exaggerated the claims that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

ptkten
Sep 14th, 2011, 08:00 PM
A poll from July 2006, sponsored by Scripps Howard and conducted by Ohio University, surveyed 1,010 randomly-selected citizens of the United States, with a margin of error of 4 percent.[11] The survey found that 36 percent thought it somewhat or very likely that U.S. officials either participated in the attacks or took no action to stop them[12] because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East.[13]


Zogby poll conducted in August 2004, on 808 randomly-selected residents of New York State. It found that 49 percent of New York City residents and 41 percent of New York state citizens believe individuals within the US government "knew in advance that attacks were planned on or around September 11, 2001, and that they consciously failed to act".[4] The margin of error for this poll was 3.5 percent.

The second major Zogby poll on 9/11 was conducted in May 2006. It was a telephone interview of 1,200 randomly-selected adults from across the United States, consisting of 81 questions, with a 2.9 percent margin of error.[5] Some of the questions asked include the following:

"Some people believe that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks, saying there has been a cover-up. Others say that the 9/11 Commission was a bi-partisan group of honest and well-respected people and that there is no reason they would want to cover-up anything. Who are you more likely to agree with?"

Responses: 48% No Cover-up / 42% Cover-up / 10% Not sure


Newsweek Magazine poll "What America Knows", conducted Princeton Survey Research Associates International, regularly asks American citizens a wide range of questions relating to world events past and present and a number of more trivial questions of general knowledge.[7] On five occasions the following question has been asked:

"Do you think Saddam Hussein’s regime in Iraq was directly involved in planning, financing, or carrying out the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001?"

September 2003 responses: 47% Yes, 37% No, 16% not sure.
January 2004 responses: 49% Yes, 39% No, 12% not sure.
September 2004 responses: 42% Yes, 44% No, 14% not sure.
October 2004 responses: 36% Yes, 51% No, 13% not sure.
June 2007 responses: 41% Yes, 50% No, 9% not sure. :facepalm:

What these polls show is that Americans think the Bush Administration knew of the possibility of attacks but didn't act on the intelligence because he didn't think it was likely that al-Qaeda would actually do that elaborate of an attack. It doesn't mean that many people thought Bush or the government was involved.

Melange
Sep 14th, 2011, 08:07 PM
What these polls show is that Americans think the Bush Administration knew of the possibility of attacks but didn't act on the intelligence because he didn't think it was likely that al-Qaeda would actually do that elaborate of an attack. It doesn't mean that many people thought Bush or the government was involved.

Guess you missed the part about "participated in the attacks"

"took no action to stop them because they wanted the United States to go to war in the Middle East" No responsibility there. You are so strong on national security we will vote you back in for another term. Frantic alerts from CIA ignored by Bush and Rice, no responsibility there. Great job Rice, I will promote you to Secretary of State.

TheHangover
Sep 14th, 2011, 08:48 PM
6hSPFL2Zlpg
this building in Beijing burned completely like a torch and it was full of fireworks, still it didn't collapse because seel in China as in the rest of the world melt at an higher temperature than the temperature that a "normal" fire can generate (a special furnace is necessary to melt steel), may be in the u.s. physics works in another way as the wtc7 fire was a candle compared to this

Melange
Sep 14th, 2011, 08:52 PM
Dude dont you know the fire from office furnishings can burn for a few months

TheHangover
Sep 14th, 2011, 09:20 PM
Dude dont you know the fire from office furnishings can burn for a few months

furnishings... that's the uncontrolled variable that was missing! the enigma is solved

fifty-fifty
Sep 14th, 2011, 09:47 PM
Can you post a source? The only things necessary to make a pie chart are Excel and a few fingers.

Who was polled? What were their demographics?

This "source" is crap. Step it up and use more concrete logic.

:rolleyes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/September_11_attacks_opinion_polls

fifty-fifty
Sep 14th, 2011, 10:01 PM
What these polls show is that Americans think the Bush Administration knew of the possibility of attacks but didn't act on the intelligence because he didn't think it was likely that al-Qaeda would actually do that elaborate of an attack. It doesn't mean that many people thought Bush or the government was involved.


1. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton.
2. Iraq has 2nd largest oil reserves.
3. 9/11 was a pretext for Iraq invasion.
4. Oil contract given to Halliburton after the war.

Obviously US govt was not directly involved cause this kind of operation would required too many people to prevent information leaks. But they had all the incentives too allow 9/11 to happen. Bush received a report about the attack and did nothing when 1st plane his the WTC.

Tennisation
Sep 14th, 2011, 10:37 PM
Renstar, lay down the pipe.

Darop.
Sep 15th, 2011, 02:07 AM
Well guess what, go to North Korea and listen to all their news broadcasts that Kim Jung Il or whatever his name is is the grand master and they are really not starving and the outside world is evil, yet they all believe it because that is what they are told.

What makes YOU or US as a whole SO arrogant to think we are any better off. What exactly makes the sanitised garbage news we are fed 24/7 so true? Thank GOD we live in countries where we at least can have independent points of view, apart from the heavily biased and selected news we are told from media and government.

NO not all so called "conspiracy theories" are right, but hey theres a few out there that are hitting the mark.

People who believe everything they are told are worse than so called nutjobs, they are to me mindless sheep, heading for the slaughter........ goodluck........ but wakeup!!!

I agree with you, but that's no reason to completely ignore common sense when approaching such subjects.
Nations mostly look after their own wealth and well-being, and making such economically important buildings (as the WTC towers were) and killing thousands of people, setting off mass paranoia which hindered the economy, causing an uncountable amount of damage that costs tons of money to repair, all just to go to war in the middle east is completely against any sort of common sense and logic any way you look at it.
Sure governments hide many things, but often it's things that are "morally wrong" but that make them richer and improve the wellbeing of the country.

bulava
Sep 15th, 2011, 03:02 PM
Sure governments hide many things, but often it's things that are "morally wrong" but that make them richer and improve the wellbeing of the country.
This is nothing new because many countries have become richer by killing and looting the people in other countries from the last five centuries under the Colonial rule. Why some people are only targeting the United States as if it's the only country which is evil etc? Please spare us from this crap. I'm ignoring its failed campaigns in Korea and Vietnam.

Well, I get that the US war against Iraq/Libya is certainly wrong to an extent that invading Iraq and messing it up, but NOT killing Saddam et al. But I support its campaign in Afghanistan because that entire region presents immense threat to the regional peace, if not on the global scale. But again, the US spares the 'root' of the terrorism problem in Pakistan (not just Bin Laden). I don't get what's the point in waging the so-called "War on Global Terrorism." :confused:

Melange
Sep 16th, 2011, 05:44 AM
WE do NOT see all floors collapsing simultaneously. Take a good look at the images. The collapse starts at the exact point where the planes hit. You tell me how that would be possible by explosives. You tell me how explosives could possibly not detonate when in a burning building. You tell me how all the wiring could have possibly survived the impact of a boeing and the subsequent fires. All this nonsense about the WTC being the first skyscrapers to collapse. They were the first to be hit by boeings full of fuel.

The collapse starts at the point of impact and the entire top of the building, all that weight falls onto the lower floors. That's a massive impact. No structure (or perhaps maybe a concrete bunker) can survive such massive forces. No wonder the columns gave way. And then that weight falls on the floor below, which gives way, and on to the next floor and the next and the next. That's what happened. It's not a surprise that the South tower, which was hit at a lower point (and therefore there was more weight resting on the damaged columns) was the first to collapse.

I've posted several questions in this thread. Not a single one of these questions has been answered.

Read the following paper, it answers a lot of your questions.

http://www.jod911.com/WTC%20COLLAPSE%20STUDY%20BBlanchard%208-8-06.pdf

A cover up of what? They could just have easily said it was foreign terrorists who planted the bombs. Why on earth would they make it so extremely complicated? The risk of leaks would be waaaay too high. There's no way they could have pulled off such a conspiracy without people knowing about it. And why? The impact of 9/11 on the world, on what happened afterwards isn't determined by whether or not the towers came down or not. Had the towers survived the impact from the planes, the effect would have been the same.
The US was attacked on home soil. That's enough to justify a war. It's not as if there'd been no retaliation if the towers had survived the impact.

And don't you think these explosives would have gone off the moment the planes hit the towers? I'd find it extremely unlikely that a building riddled with explosives wouldn't go off after such an impact.

The WTC towers were steel towers. The core was seriously damaged by the impact of the planes. Because steel is about the worst kind of material in case of fire (no one answered my question, but a wooden beam is safer in case of fire than steel), steel beams need extra fire protection in the shape of paint and fire insulation. The impact of the planes dislodged the insulation so the fires could reach the steel. The steel buckled, the top floors of the building came down and from the impact of such an enormous weight falling down, it's only normal that floor by floor, the structure gave way.

The official version makes perfect sense, the conspiracy theory has enormous giant holes on it.




You mention a number of possible theories. A website has attempted to answer these and also the official building collapse report. See if you agree/disagree with it.


http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/piledriver.html

http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/collapse/smashdown.html

The Pile Driver/Smashdown Theory

NIST avoids explicitly endorsing the piledriver theory, but its theory depends on it.

It gets closer to explicitly endorsing it in the few additions of the Final Report to the Draft Report:

Failure of the south wall in WTC 1 and east wall in WTC2 caused the portion of the building above to tilt in the direction of the failed wall. The tilting was accompanied by a downward movement. The story immediately below the stories in which the columns failed was not able to arrest this initial movement as evidenced by videos from several vantage points.

The structure below the level of the collapse initiation offered minimal resistance to the falling building mass at and above the impact zone. The potential energy released by the downward movement of the large building mass far exceeded the capacity of the intact structures below to absorb that through energy of deformation.
(p 146/196)

Since the stories below the level of collapse initiation provided little resistance to the tremendous energy released by the falling building mass, the building section above came down essentially in free fall, as seen in videos. As the stories below sequentially failed, the falling mass increases, further increasing the demand of the floors below, which were unable to arrest the moving mass.
(p 146/196)



Structural engineer Ronald Hamburger articulated the pile-driver theory by name, stating to an audience on November 29, 2001:
Think of the impact of dropping a 25-story building straight down ... It was like a pile driver, which is why it collapsed as it did.

The pile-driver theory receded with the ascendancy of the truss-failure theory - the unsupported heights of the freestanding columns, lacking the lateral support of the pancaked floor diaphragms, buckled and collapsed



http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/collapse/columns.html

The Column Failure Theory

Suggestions of the column failure theory were apparent on the day of the attack, amidst the more frequent allusions to the core meltdown theory. Just two days later it was given the support of a technical paper, Why Did the World Trade Center Collapse?-Simple Analysis, written by Zdenek P. Bazant and Yong Zhou.

Although Bazant and Zhou describe their analysis as simplified and approximate, they express complete confidence that "The structural resistance is found to be an order of magnitude less than necessary for survival," and that the towers were "doomed" when the majority of columns of a single floor "lost their load carrying capacity". Simplified and approximate (and prompt) as it was, it seems to be the only published paper that purports to analyze the collapses quantitatively. Has no one else bothered to do a quantitative analysis of the greatest and most deadly structural failure in recorded history because Bazant and Zhou's simplified and approximate analysis is nonetheless comprehensively edifying and logically unassailable? Consider this review of their paper.

Analysis of the theory in light of the actual conditions show its assumptions to be unsupportable. It was soon overshadowed by the truss failure theory.



http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/official/trusses.html#flaws

The Truss Failure Theory

The truss failure theory, a key ingredient of the better known floor pancake theory, was endorsed by FEMA in its 2002 World Trade Center Building Performance Study . It invites us to imagine the floors assemblies detaching from their connections to the columns of the core and perimeter walls, precipitating a chain reaction of floors falling on one another. Without the lateral support of the floors, the columns, FEMA tells us, buckled and precipitated total building collapse.

The truss-failure/pancake theory offered a way around the obvious problem with the column failure theory: the need for all the columns to be heated to 800º C. It offered instead prerequisite conditions that were far less implausible: that trusses holding up the floor slabs were heated to that temperature, and began to experience some combination of expansion and sagging. Floor trusses are much easier to heat because, unlike the columns, they are not well thermally coupled to the rest of the steel structure.

The Truss Failure Theory was abandoned by NIST's investigation in 2004 because NIST was unable to get floor assemblies to fail as required by the theory. Documentaries that had promoted the truss failure theory became obsolete, and were quietly replaced with updated versions.


The NIST report is looked at in brief here
http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/collapse/nisttheory.html

The NIST report is looked at in more detail here
http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/nist/index.html

Melange
Sep 16th, 2011, 05:47 AM
uhm...you seem to be forgetting the tiny little detail of boeings hitting the buildings.



Where's the footage of the bombs being planted in the pentagon? NOWHERE!

Also, would you be willing to repeat those claims to the people in charge of identifying the charred remains of the bodies in the pentagon, belonging to the people who were on the flight? Who put those bodies there unnoticed? Who put the debris from the plane there unnoticed?

The remains were supposedly removed from the site and identified at an air base all in secret. Do you really know what procedure was used?


Just a little on that subject that I cannot understand. According to the 9/11 Commission Report, as Flight 77 was 5 miles (8.0 km) west-southeast of the Pentagon, it made a 330-degree turn. At the end of the turn, it was descending through 2,200 feet (670 m), pointed toward the Pentagon and downtown Washington. Hani Hanjour advanced the throttles to maximum power and dove towards the Pentagon. While level above the ground and seconds from the crash, the airplane's wings knocked over five street lampposts and the right wing hit a portable generator, creating a smoke trail seconds before smashing into the Pentagon.[33][34] Flight 77, flying at 530 miles per hour (853 km/h)

Just think about that. An inexperienced pilot supposedly flying a 757 for the first time made a power dive and flew at the Pentagon at full speed, at an angle parallel to the ground. First question is why fly parallel to the ground when its far easier and more believable to aim for the roof of what is a very low but expansive building.

The following video suggests that its very unlikely a plane could be controllable flying at full speed at sea level. The full movie suggests that even experienced pilots could not control the planes that hit the 3 buildings and that the plane could not possibly have hit the Pentagon according to the official flight data given.


Pilots for 9/11 Truth: Airplane controllability

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

gentenaire
Sep 16th, 2011, 06:38 AM
1. Cheney was CEO of Halliburton.
2. Iraq has 2nd largest oil reserves.
3. 9/11 was a pretext for Iraq invasion.
4. Oil contract given to Halliburton after the war.

Obviously US govt was not directly involved cause this kind of operation would required too many people to prevent information leaks. But they had all the incentives too allow 9/11 to happen. Bush received a report about the attack and did nothing when 1st plane his the WTC.

Bush would have started a war against Iraq without 9/11 too. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11, Iraq wasn't. In fact, the war in Afghanistan probably caused a delay in the war in Iraq. Bush really didn't need 9/11 as an excuse for the war against Iraq.

fifty-fifty
Sep 16th, 2011, 12:53 PM
Bush would have started a war against Iraq without 9/11 too. Afghanistan was a direct result of 9/11, Iraq wasn't. In fact, the war in Afghanistan probably caused a delay in the war in Iraq. Bush really didn't need 9/11 as an excuse for the war against Iraq.

Really? Based on what? No, WMDs were found. It would be hard to find public support without them believing that Saddam had something to with 9/11. He could've gone to the war anyway, but there was no way he'd win reelection. Remember Cheney saying if Kerry got elected there would be another terrorist attack? All that thanks to 9/11!

gentenaire
Sep 16th, 2011, 04:53 PM
Really? Based on what? No, WMDs were found. It would be hard to find public support without them believing that Saddam had something to with 9/11. He could've gone to the war anyway, but there was no way he'd win reelection. Remember Cheney saying if Kerry got elected there would be another terrorist attack? All that thanks to 9/11!

Oh, they used it to their advantage. This doesn't mean they wouldn't have gone to war without 9/11. Iraq had nothing to do with Al Qaeda. It was mainly Fox news that would misrepresent things (but hey, that's Fox News) and 'accidently' mix up the two. The official reason for the war against Iraq was the WMDs. Bush knew full there were no WMDs, but that didn't stop him.