Welcome Guest Search | Active Topics | Members | Log In | Register

Was 9-11 an inside job? Options · View
Playmale
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 1:40:03 PM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
sprite wrote:
Thing is, with conspriacies, you can keep them quiet for a day or so... maybe a week or even a month if you're really careful, but eventually, someone says the wrong thing or someone uncovers something damning... i can't imagine that a government as inept as ours seems to be at times managed to keep this one secret for 9 years which to me means one thing - there is no conspiracy. add it to the silliness of the JFK assassination - fun for people to debate, but totally baseless.


This has already happened. Starting before 9/11.

There were the FBI memos sent and ignored regarding suspicious characters trying to get flight training.
There were large numbers of shorts placed against Unites and American Airlines in the days before the attacks.
Key people were diverted from travel and from the WTC on 9/11
The FAA rescinded the 40 year old rule, adopted following the Cuban missle crisis, allowing the pilots to be armed two monthe before September 11.
War games scheduled bt the military for 9/11 involving, hijacking, attacks of buildings using planes as missles, and toxic or infectuous substances.


The Office of Emergency Management sent Richard Zarillo to warn the firefighters that the south tower was going to collapse, before it did.
Silverstiens statement that they decided to "pull it," referring to building 7, which is the term used in imploding a building.
There were warnings for hours that WTC7 would collapse, but it was later officially explained as a collection of conditions that did not coallesce until just before the building fell.
There is the fact that reporters started reporting that building 7 had collapse, before it did. Even reporting that it had collapsed with it still visible in the background of a live shot.



When the story changes or too many pieces don't fit that is when there is something going on.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 2:00:45 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
Jacknife wrote:
Been watching a Loose Change a few too many times have we.

Come on people, while we are here lets discuss all ridiculous conspiracy theories. I heard the moon landings were fake and Elvis is still alive.



For those of us actually reading these threads undecided, it would be good if those of you who believe the government/media account of 9-11 offered something beyond dismissive arrogance. How about some reason and evidence to support your beliefs, such as Jillicious has done (well, at least until her last post...)

I'm not convinced either way, but so far, except for some debunked temperature figures, the only thing I'm hearing from that side are a) the government isn't capable of hiding anything other than what they've said, and b) you're a crazy-person for questioning the official story.
Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 4:49:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
As long as people stop linking Canada to the attacks, I'm willing to accept the "official" story as reasonable. But too many people, including some high ranking US government officials still believe that the attackers came through Canada, which 1. Is false, and 2. Is irrelevant, because they still would have had to enter the US by receiving permission from the US customs officials at the border.
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:29:58 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
Jebru wrote:
As long as people stop linking Canada to the attacks, I'm willing to accept the "official" story as reasonable. But too many people, including some high ranking US government officials still believe that the attackers came through Canada, which 1. Is false, and 2. Is irrelevant, because they still would have had to enter the US by receiving permission from the US customs officials at the border.


How does the issue of how the hijackers got into the US factor into what you believe? Or were you just adding that in regardless?
Rembacher
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:37:57 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 10/16/2008
Posts: 1,101
LadyX wrote:
Jebru wrote:
As long as people stop linking Canada to the attacks, I'm willing to accept the "official" story as reasonable. But too many people, including some high ranking US government officials still believe that the attackers came through Canada, which 1. Is false, and 2. Is irrelevant, because they still would have had to enter the US by receiving permission from the US customs officials at the border.


How does the issue of how the hijackers got into the US factor into what you believe? Or were you just adding that in regardless?


The entry of the attackers may be a seemingly irrelevant part of the story, but to some, it is part of the "official" story. It is the only part that I have a solid belief on. The rest of the story seems far more consistent than whether or not the attackers came through Canada. I don't believe the Canada part, but I haven't heard any real contradictory evidence to the rest of the story. Though, because I know the Canada story is told as official by some, it makes it impossible for me to ever believe 100% in any portion of the story, since I know how inaccurate that part of it was/is.
Jacknife
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 5:59:48 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
LadyX wrote:
Jacknife wrote:
Been watching a Loose Change a few too many times have we.

Come on people, while we are here lets discuss all ridiculous conspiracy theories. I heard the moon landings were fake and Elvis is still alive.



For those of us actually reading these threads undecided, it would be good if those of you who believe the government/media account of 9-11 offered something beyond dismissive arrogance. How about some reason and evidence to support your beliefs, such as Jillicious has done (well, at least until her last post...)

I'm not convinced either way, but so far, except for some debunked temperature figures, the only thing I'm hearing from that side are a) the government isn't capable of hiding anything other than what they've said, and b) you're a crazy-person for questioning the official story.



Hey Hun, you know me and I'm all about freedom of thought and expression. You can question the official position all you like, but you have to come up with an alternative theory which is consistent with evidence.

Depending on who you talk to the level of conspiracy changes from person to person.

If you (or anyone else) are saying that the US Goverment brought down the two towers? may I ask how many people do you think knew about such an operation?

The entire day is a huge ball of idiocy, lack of planning and shear incompetence, but that doesn't say conspiracy.
Dancing_Doll
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 6:02:32 PM

Rank: Alpha Blonde

Joined: 2/17/2010
Posts: 5,994
Location: In your dirty fantasies
There are way too many glaring inconsistencies in the "official story". People want to say that "our government just couldn't pull off something like this successfully"... News Flash! They didn't pull it off successfully. Look at all the embarrassing glitches and loose ends that add up as proofs for the idea of a conspiracy theory. It was plotted and carried out like National Lampoon's version of a top secret mission. What's embarrassing is the acceptance by the general public of what has been fed to them despite all the evidence available to the contrary...

We're not talking about UFOs or the Bible here, we're talking about quantifiable facts about an event that occurred, in part, right before our eyes.






NotMyRealName
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 7:33:42 PM

Rank: Rookie Scribe

Joined: 11/25/2010
Posts: 4
Location: Utah
An inside job? People are so ridiculous. How much do you hate your own country (or another country if you're from elsewhere) to think that a country would do that to its own people? Its iNsAnItY! I may not agree with everything that has happened since but good grief find something else to spend your time on. Like the awesome stories on this site ;)
DamonX
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 10:11:27 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 1/25/2009
Posts: 795
Hey WMM... I hear they made a movie about your life. Congratulations!





I would give more credence to such ideas if the proponents didn't look for such conspiracy theories under every unturned stone that they come across.

With every catastrophe in american history, conspiracy theories abound...whether it be Pearl Harbour, the sinking of the Lusitania, or 9/11.

They may be true or they my not be....but there seems to be a type of personality that almost wishes for such clandestine agendas.

There is a saying... "When you hear hoof beats, look for horses and not zebras."

Conspiracy theory nuts not only look for zebras...but when they find horses, they hold them down and paint them black and white!

I get it. Conspiracy theories are fun. They're cool. They're sexy.

But its hard to take people seriously when they subscribe to every half brained concoction that is dreamt up by people not only thinking...but hoping for some secret agenda.

By the way...is anyone else sick of 9/11 stuff? I have some interesting ideas for topics about pubic hair.......
LadyX
Posted: Saturday, December 04, 2010 11:47:13 PM

Rank: Thread Mediator

Joined: 9/25/2009
Posts: 4,678
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:

But its hard to take people seriously when they subscribe to every half brained concoction that is dreamt up by people not only thinking...but hoping for some secret agenda.

By the way...is anyone else sick of 9/11 stuff? I have some interesting ideas for topics about pubic hair.......


Somehow I think I'm being both redundant and taking the bait to suggest you're painting everyone who would question the real 9-11 story with the same brush, yet I am. Go ahead, call me a sucker, I guess I am one. Not sure it's "sexy" though.

I do look forward to your pubic hair questions.
MrNudiePants
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 7:24:51 PM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/10/2009
Posts: 2,082
Location: United States
DamonX wrote:

I would give more credence to such ideas if the proponents didn't look for such conspiracy theories under every unturned stone that they come across.


Well... you could try actually bringing some substance to the thread, instead of just laying on the condescension and jack-assery.

Personally, I find many things about the attack to be remarkably coincidental, such as the fact that the only aircraft allowed to fly during the no-fly period following 9-11 were those planes carrying the Saudi royal family out of the country. And I've always been suspicious of how quickly Bin Laden was identified as the person behind the attacks when there was no public message from him taking credit. In every other terrorist attack I can remember, you either had several dozen crackpot groups all trying to claim credit at once, or it took weeks of painstaking detective work to try to find out who was to blame. I find it hard to believe that they could reliably pin this on Al Qaeda so quickly. Not impossible, mind you, but difficult.

All-in-all, I tend to believe most parts of the "official" story, but there are still nagging doubts.

WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:45:07 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
DamonX wrote:
Hey WMM... I hear they made a movie about your life. Congratulations!


Heh, attack personalities instead of information. This is what Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity and Olberman do. Congrats dude.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Monday, December 06, 2010 8:53:09 PM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
Do you have a free 82 minutes to spare?

DamonX wrote:


By the way...is anyone else sick of 9/11 stuff? I have some interesting ideas for topics about pubic hair.......


Probably not, you're sick of it all anyway. Besides to learn new information about that day goes against your grain. Like many people around the world, you're fine with the official US government 'facts'.

Meh, who cares, right? You're Canadian, I wouldn't expect you to give a flying shit, one way or another. Unless you can stand back and poke and prod at America, or the US Constitution and try to stir someone up.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Jacknife
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:20:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
Playmale wrote:

There were warnings for hours that WTC7 would collapse, but it was later officially explained as a collection of conditions that did not coallesce until just before the building fell.
There is the fact that reporters started reporting that building 7 had collapse, before it did. Even reporting that it had collapsed with it still visible in the background of a live shot.



When the story changes or too many pieces don't fit that is when there is something going on.


Reporter is handed script and blindly reads it without looking back and checking. I'm sure every one has seen this done. The guys at the site know its going to collapse and release it so every knows it is going to happen and doesn't scare more people from it collapsing. Bad reporting? Yes! Conspiracy? No

Playmale
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:37:26 AM

Rank: Smiley Guru

Joined: 7/16/2008
Posts: 551
Location: United States
Jacknife wrote:
Reporter is handed script and blindly reads it without looking back and checking. I'm sure every one has seen this done. The guys at the site know its going to collapse and release it so every knows it is going to happen and doesn't scare more people from it collapsing. Bad reporting? Yes! Conspiracy? No


First time in history that a steel framed high rise (47 stories tall, which would make it the tallest building in 33 states) has ever collapsed from an office fire, and there is no testimony or eyewitness who say who knew or how they knew it was going to come down.

The lie was that no one knew this was going to come down, until Silverstein said, "We made the decision to pull it." So how did the BBC know it was going to fall before it did?

Why doesn't the media like to talk about building 7 anymore?
Jacknife
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 12:37:48 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
MrNudiePants wrote:
DamonX wrote:

I would give more credence to such ideas if the proponents didn't look for such conspiracy theories under every unturned stone that they come across.


Well... you could try actually bringing some substance to the thread, instead of just laying on the condescension and jack-assery.

Personally, I find many things about the attack to be remarkably coincidental, such as the fact that the only aircraft allowed to fly during the no-fly period following 9-11 were those planes carrying the Saudi royal family out of the country. And I've always been suspicious of how quickly Bin Laden was identified as the person behind the attacks when there was no public message from him taking credit. In every other terrorist attack I can remember, you either had several dozen crackpot groups all trying to claim credit at once, or it took weeks of painstaking detective work to try to find out who was to blame. I find it hard to believe that they could reliably pin this on Al Qaeda so quickly. Not impossible, mind you, but difficult.

All-in-all, I tend to believe most parts of the "official" story, but there are still nagging doubts.


Honestly this is also the part that bugs me, not because it says conspiracy, more that it was just one of the many poor decesions that were made at the time. It was done to protect the "Innocent Bin laden" family.

The Bush administration were given a memo when they came in to office by Richard Clarke, saying that Bin laden was an imminent threat to the country and they ignored it. There was also some intelligence chatter from some sources that there were plans to use Airliners as missiles, so Bin Laden would have been right at the top of the list of suspects.
Jacknife
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 1:23:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 8/27/2008
Posts: 196
Location: United Kingdom
Playmale wrote:
Jacknife wrote:
Reporter is handed script and blindly reads it without looking back and checking. I'm sure every one has seen this done. The guys at the site know its going to collapse and release it so every knows it is going to happen and doesn't scare more people from it collapsing. Bad reporting? Yes! Conspiracy? No


First time in history that a steel framed high rise (47 stories tall, which would make it the tallest building in 33 states) has ever collapsed from an office fire, and there is no testimony or eyewitness who say who knew or how they knew it was going to come down.

The lie was that no one knew this was going to come down, until Silverstein said, "We made the decision to pull it." So how did the BBC know it was going to fall before it did?

Why doesn't the media like to talk about building 7 anymore?


A fire which no one was fighting, because they were obviously busy, unlike all other the other high rise fires there have been. Sprinkler system also failed to kick in (if someone believes that was deliberate, I'm not going to try and persuade you otherwise), because of the collapse of the other towers, burst the water mains. Also I don't know how many other steel framed highrise fires had a 110 story building fall next to them either. The situation is rather unique would you not say?

If one is going to put forward such a theory one needs to postulate a theory as to why it was brought down? Can I assume that you are suggesting that WTC7 was brought down with explosives?

In an interview Larry Silverstein said: "I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, 'We've had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it.' And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse." Unfortunately there is no time frame for when this conversation took place, but it indicates that the fire service knew they were in trouble and suspected the building may collapse.

Chief of the New York Fire Department on the day Daniel Nigro has said that the fire service did not need to ask the permission of the owner when making decisions relating to buildings that are on fire: "We are in charge and the decision will be the fire chiefs and his alone,".
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 8:54:56 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
Hmmm...you mean these buildings never collapsed like WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 ...did?
This first one certainly looks like a towering inferno.




The most recent example of a spectacular skyscraper fire was the burning of the
Hotel Mandarin Oriental starting on February 9, 2009. The nearly completed
520-foot-tall skyscraper in Beijing caught fire around 8:00 pm, was engulfed
within 20 minutes, and burned for at least 3 hours until midnight.
Despite the fact
that the fire extended across all of the floors for a period of time and burned out
of control for hours, no large portion of the structure collapsed.




The First Interstate Bank Building is a 62-story skyscraper in Los Angeles that
suffered the worst high-rise fire in the city's history. From the late evening of
May 4, 1988 through the early morning of the next day, 64 fire companies
battled the blaze, which lasted for 3 1/2 hours. The fire caused extensive window
breakage, which complicated firefighting efforts. Large flames jutted out of the
building during the blaze. Firefighting efforts resulted in massive water damage
to floors below the fire, and the fire gutted offices from the 12th to the 16th floor,
and caused extensive smoke damage to floors above. In spite of the total burnout
of four and a half floors, there was no damage to the main structural members
and only minor damage to one secondary beam and a small number of floor pans,
no large portion of the structure collapsed.




One Meridian Plaza is a 38-floor skyscraper in Philadelphia that suffered a severe
fire on February 23, 1991. The fire started on the 22nd floor and raged for 18 hours,
gutting eight floors. The fire caused window breakage, cracking of granite, and failures
of spandrel panel connections. 4 Despite the severity and duration of the fire, as
evidenced by the damage the building sustained, no part of the building collapsed.


Maybe the union construction workers and the architects in NY State just don't know how to build skyscrapers?












If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:09:09 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,818
WMM, just a little detail, did those buildings have a plane crashing on their top?


I mean, I dont wanna go all technical here, but are you aware that planes do weight? Not to meantion the fuel tanks exploding.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:23:20 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
There are many fallacies which surround the events of that day, Jack. Here...you highlight yet another one.

Jacknife wrote:
Hey Hun, you know me and I'm all about freedom of thought and expression. You can question the official position all you like, but you have to come up with an alternative theory which is consistent with evidence.


You are right, we can question the official positions and theories all we want. But we don't have to throw out alternative theories either. I wasn't on site, I didn't have access to any of the steel or material hauled out to Fresh Kills or shipped to China to be recycled. FEMA and the FBI never let anyone investigate any of the crash sites, aside from their chosen ex-spurts who reported back to NIST. The flaws are many and varied in the government story. The FBI confiscated security videos from all around NY City and the Pentagon which could have showed all three impact points and they've never released any of those tapes from any of those cameras which clearly showed any planes hitting any of the three buildings. A lot of questions could be cleared up pretty quickly if those tapes were released with their footage shown in their entirety.

Jacknife wrote:
Depending on who you talk to the level of conspiracy changes from person to person.


I suppose you don't remember how the official government conspiracy theory was rolled out to the public even before the towers actually fell that day, and how it kept morphing for the first 72 hours. You don't find anything the government theory espouses as even being mildly curious, if not outright full of shit? My guess is that if you toss out 75% of the wild guesses on the left end of the spectrum by the attention whoaring Truthers and 75% of the horseshit at the far right of the spectrum from NIST/FEMA...then the actual truths lie somewhere in the middle of those. But you don't want to consider any of that. You don't really want to investigate it on your own, you're happy with the official story and anyway...life goes on, right? What can we do about any of this, in the final scheme of things?


Jacknife wrote:
If you (or anyone else) are saying that the US Goverment brought down the two towers? may I ask how many people do you think knew about such an operation?

The entire day is a huge ball of idiocy, lack of planning and shear incompetence, but that doesn't say conspiracy.


Compartmentalized operations of vast scale are run all the time, Jack, without the foreknowledge of the hundreds or thousands of individual 'contributors' even knowing the full scale of their contributions. A real world example is this: People are just doing 'their jobs'. There is nothing nefarious about what those people are doing, in particular. But added up...everyone's task makes the entire operation run. And this operation certainly did not come off without any hitches...that's why people like myself, Playmale, NudiePants and others have grounds to question 'things'. We see the haphazard handling of crucial events, we see the bald faced lies...(like temperatures of 1800 plus degrees of skyscraper fires being bandied about as facts)...we see all these things and it makes us all ask ourselves first...... WHAT THE FUCK are they trying to shove down my throat?

Stick around this thread, you might actually learn a few things which would give you enough pause to consider the unthinkable. That a government would actually allow this kind of thing to occur, if not even encourage it to happen.

THAT is the one thing that my parents and millions of people of their generation and older cannot fathom. They cannot grasp the possibility that their government would subterfuge the entire country and 'everything those people thought they stood for'...just to pull this shitpile off and encourage all the rest of the mind and control games that have occurred since then.

You take away 9/11...and the Patriot Act never gets implemented. The two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan never occur. Trillions in no-bid contracts never get awarded to Friends of Bush (the military industrial complex). The US Economy doesn't go so deep into the tank so quickly. Bush probably doesn't get elected to a 2nd term in 2004 (he's not a War President who is protecting his country - for one thing).

If 9/11 doesn't occur.......nothing is the same in the world since that day.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:30:44 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
javier wrote:
WMM, just a little detail, did those buildings have a plane crashing on their top?


I mean, I dont wanna go all technical here, but are you aware that planes do weight? Not to meantion the fuel tanks exploding.


Dude, I can only address one idiotic set of facts at a time. And I won't skip over the really important stuff either. It was stated and has been stated that those towers came down because of the INTENSE FIRES inside them, which softened the structural steel. The burning of the (lol) fireproofed gypsum and drywall inside those towers, released sulfphur which then with the INTENSE heat, combined to weaken the structural steel to a point where everything just collapsed.

I'm still assassinating those fallacies. I can get around to the 'two' 80 ton jets and their contributions. But you do know, Javier...that outside of an engine part that did not belong to a Pratt & Whitney jet engine of the type found on the jet it was supposed to have come from (on a sidewalk over four blocks away) was the only parts of that jet that was stated to be 'found' and recovered from the 80 ton airliner at the WTC scene. Did that plane vaporize like the one did at Shanksville or the one at the Pentagon? And if it vaporized (turned to particulate matter) then how did that occur?

I find it interesting that the planes all vanished. All the metal, plastic, leather, luggage EVERYTHING. But the human DNA remained intact to the point where identifying the dead was possible. DNA is stronger than all those other compounds. That's another new fact I learned from our government. Human DNA is in-de-fucking-structible.

We'll get to all that later, but thanks for asking. It shows that you're thinking.

I too have a J.O.B. to perform and a life to lead outside of Lush and rehashing all of this yet again with 200 new internet acquaintances. We got all the time in the world, dude.



If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:49:02 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,818
WellMadeMale wrote:
javier wrote:
WMM, just a little detail, did those buildings have a plane crashing on their top?


I mean, I dont wanna go all technical here, but are you aware that planes do weight? Not to meantion the fuel tanks exploding.


Dude, I can only address one idiotic set of facts at a time.


You mean you can only address one idiotic set of opinions at a time. Facts are facts, facts aint intelligent or stupid, they are just facts. And a fact is that two big planes full of fuel crashed against two buildings. The planes were not made of paper. Perhaps the structures of those buildings were not originally conceived to handle planes crashing on them?


It's a little bit like that scene in Poseidon, the 2006 version. When the ship capsized, the Captain tells everybody to keep calm and wait for rescue in the seiled lobby. Richard Dreyfuss, who is a architect, joins a group of a people who tries to reach the surface, and says "I am an architect, I know those things are not made to be upside down".

Of course he was right, and a few minutes later everybody in the lobby was drown.


So perhaps you are blinded by all those technical details, and the branches dont let you see the forest.


Bottom line is that buildings were not designed to handle plane crashes.
Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:50:14 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,818
.
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 9:56:33 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
But they were designed to handle fires Javier and that's the official story. That the fire brought the towers down as far as I know anyway. You'd think if they planes were solid and large enough to bring the towers down more of it would of survived the crash.

And it is also a fact that they had some trouble finding the actual planes in the rubble.. Kind of strange.



Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:07:14 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,818
Magical_felix wrote:
But they were designed to handle fires Javier and that's the official story. That the fire brought the towers down as far as I know anyway. You'd think if they planes were solid and large enough to bring the towers down more of it would of survived the crash.

And it is also a fact that they had some trouble finding the actual planes in the rubble.. Kind of strange.



Perhaps, Felix, who knows. Perhaps some day we can discover what really happened, or perhaps what happened is the official version. I just hope there's no conspiracy, what kind of world would be living in?
Magical_felix
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:15:26 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 4/3/2010
Posts: 4,577
Location: California
javier wrote:
Magical_felix wrote:
But they were designed to handle fires Javier and that's the official story. That the fire brought the towers down as far as I know anyway. You'd think if they planes were solid and large enough to bring the towers down more of it would of survived the crash.

And it is also a fact that they had some trouble finding the actual planes in the rubble.. Kind of strange.



Perhaps, Felix, who knows. Perhaps some day we can discover what really happened, or perhaps what happened is the official version. I just hope there's no conspiracy, what kind of world would be living in?


You're right, this kind of thing scares me. But... If it was a conspiracy, they win because most of us will just continue to stick our heads in the sand. What else can we do really?



Guest
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:21:48 AM

Rank: Lurker

Joined: 12/1/2006
Posts: 473,818
Magical_felix wrote:
But... If it was a conspiracy, they win because most of us will just continue to stick our heads in the sand. What else can we do really?



Nothing, we can´t do anything. Just fasten our seatbelts and enjoy the ride.
heartofdarkness
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:22:36 AM

Rank: Forum Guru

Joined: 2/9/2009
Posts: 350
Location: Scotland
Interesting debate guys an gals. here is my position:
1) the WTC buildings were brought down by a combination of factors namely the unique design of the large towers which was compremised by the massive impact of two aircraft and the fire weakend state of the steel frames of said buildings. WTC7 i decline to comment on as i dont have enough info to make an informed guess
2) the pentagon was not hit only by an aircraft but also eather by a cruse missile or by a large guided bomb dropped by a UCAV or having the UCAV crash into the side of the building
3) the whole thing was an orchestrated "pearl harbour" type event designed to allow the american right to attempt to implement there project for the new american century.
4) the basic plan was drawn up in 1962 by the joint chiefs of staff known as operation northwoods this was chopped and changed till it fitted there needs and was put into action by a small team which was later disposed of.
please feel free to poke holes, take the piss or anythin else you fancy.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:27:43 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
javier wrote:
Bottom line is that buildings were not designed to handle plane crashes.


But they were designed to handle plane crashes, Javier. There is a plethora of information concerning just that. The Sears Tower in Chicago was also designed to handle a jet liner flying directly into it.

Planes are not pieces of paper. But millions of pieces of paper did not vaporize or even catch fire that day in downtown Manhattan, yet two 80 ton jet liners disintegrated into particulate matter.



Hell, Javier...The FBI even found one of the hijacker's passports (undamaged)
in the midst of all that carnage...in the street, within 24 hours of the event!


Pretty damned miraculous if you ask me.

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
WellMadeMale
Posted: Tuesday, December 07, 2010 10:36:16 AM

Rank: Constant Gardener

Joined: 9/30/2009
Posts: 10,216
Location: Cakeland, United States
javier wrote:
WellMadeMale wrote:
javier wrote:
WMM, just a little detail, did those buildings have a plane crashing on their top?


I mean, I dont wanna go all technical here, but are you aware that planes do weight? Not to meantion the fuel tanks exploding.


Dude, I can only address one idiotic set of facts at a time.


You mean you can only address one idiotic set of opinions at a time. Facts are facts, facts aint intelligent or stupid, they are just facts. And a fact is that two big planes full of fuel crashed against two buildings. The planes were not made of paper. Perhaps the structures of those buildings were not originally conceived to handle planes crashing on them?


It's a little bit like that scene in Poseidon, the 2006 version. When the ship capsized, the Captain tells everybody to keep calm and wait for rescue in the seiled lobby. Richard Dreyfuss, who is a architect, joins a group of a people who tries to reach the surface, and says "I am an architect, I know those things are not made to be upside down".

Of course he was right, and a few minutes later everybody in the lobby was drown.

Bottom line is that buildings were not designed to handle plane crashes.


Javier...perhaps you watch too many special effects laden Hollywood movies? Ever consider that? I won't mention those as a basis for any of my debunking (but it's interesting that you went there).

And yeah...I'm all about getting technical. So you can feel free to get technical with me. That's something the NIST/FEMA report failed to do totally. They NEVER got technical. And when they did decide to try to get all technical - they got their fucking facts wronger than wrong. Like the intense 1800 degree fires inside the two trade center towers which only burned for an hour in one instance and for just over an hour in the other instance.

There never was any intense fires inside those buildings from jet fuel laden aircraft. There never were blast furnace like conditions within either of those two fires.

The exhaust temperatures coming out of the jet engines were indeed hot enough to recreate blast furnace like temps, but the very second those planes crashed, those engines stopped operating. They weren't the source of the heat either.

Huge fireballs were witnessed that supposedly gobbled up 50% of the fuel in the initial explosion of the 2nd jet we all think we saw hit the Tower. We didn't see fireballs with the first 'collision'. We didn't really see a plane hit that first tower. There's no clear video of that first collision in the public domain.


javier wrote:
So perhaps you are blinded by all those technical details, and the branches dont let you see the forest.


What technical details, Javier? You have not stated any here. Jill is the only person to even try to state anything remotely technical yet. And I'm the only person who has addressed the temperatures of organic fuel laden fires.

Let's get technical Javier. In the words of our former fearless leader: "Bring it on."

If ya can't beat 'em... pay someone to do it for you.
Users browsing this topic
Guest 


Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.

Main Forum RSS : RSS

Powered by Yet Another Forum.net version 1.9.1.6 (NET v4.0) - 11/14/2007
Copyright © 2003-2006 Yet Another Forum.net. All rights reserved.