NationStates Jolt Archive

9/11 Conspiracy: Who is/was responsible? Bin Laden? Bush's PNAC cronies? Both? Did anyone stand to gain? Have they gained?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- God help us.

It's over an hour long. I don't have that much time. Got a summary handy?

If we leave the idiots alone, they'll go away. Just move along. Loose Change, right? I didn't click the link.

I think your wasting bandwith with unsubstantiated conspiracy theories.

It's blocked by my company. Hah.

Anyone care to take a shot at debunking it?

Isn't there a massive Popular Science article that debunks the lot of 9/11 myths? I remember someone here posting it atleast once. :confused:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Canada City']http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Yeah, that was it, Popular Mechanics rather. Why my search wasn't turning anything up. :p

Canada City']http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html
What about this (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/), then?

I don't know what to think about this all. It's a tad hard to accept either side.

I'm thinking-No.

Why even bother to care about who did it? If our US gov't did it, well what can we do? Nothing. It is too powerful for us to take on(if thats what one wants). So stop wasting time complaing and falling for the conspiracies

I find it odd that the same people who say that the "official story" is a cover-up that takes advantage of media coverage and glammor and multimedia propaganda to lie about the WTC, the Pentagon and Everything, are always so quick to present that same old Loose Change video with the keen musical score and snappy cutting to convince people.

I could not possibly care less.

whine if you want; i had family in the pentagon at the time of the plane crash. no matter what your bullshit "documentary" says, i'll trust my family over that piece of shite.

BS... Why cant people just accept fact (they may be right in their conspiracy theories once in a while) that some things happen that nobody could have planned for or was never expected to happen, that will shock the world? Lets face it everyone was asking questions at the time, just forget it. It happened, all theories discounted (unless you point out otherwise, which I doubt), leave it be.

That's a poorly put together documentary. The choice of background music (cheap and doesn't help to set the mood), the introduction (that scribbling is very unprofessional), the choice of narrator (sounds like a 16-year-old and gives it no authority) and the choice of language (far too personal). I can't comment on the rest because my connection is too bogged down with afternoon traffic to be able to stream it in anywhere close to real time. But it's probably poorly constructed as well.

If I was going to write about a 9/11 conspiracy then I probably comment on how the US government might have supposedly let it happen, rather than how they supposedly engineered it. If it did happen then you could probably get a lot more interesting and persuasive evidence that the US government was complicit in their actions surrounding 9/11, as oppsed to the denial of the official story of events.

Hmmm, you'd think if there really was a consipracy, the guy who made the video would've gotten outside, interviewed some people, go to the sites themselves, etc. Instead of just streaming together some sub-par video of websites, media coverage, etc. Jeez...

BS... Why cant people just accept fact (they may be right in their conspiracy theories once in a while) that some things happen that nobody could have planned for or was never expected to happen, that will shock the world? Lets face it everyone was asking questions at the time, just forget it. It happened, all theories discounted (unless you point out otherwise, which I doubt), leave it be.

Because people are still in shock. Lets say you have a friend who got into a car accident because of a drunk driver. You would be in shock and you would be like "no, no this can't be, this can't happen to her..." That's what's going on here. It's just not registering in the consipracy theorist mind, so they have to come up with other rationale for it.

Personally, it doesn't matter to me whether or not the government planned it/let it happen. I've already got enough shit to be pissed off at them for, I don't need more ammo. Thanks, I've got some already.

If you ignore 9/11 completely, the facts remain and the fog disappears. Afghanistan was, and still is, a joke, in the sense that it was supposed to actually do anything worthwhile. Iraq was, is, and will always be: controlled by religious arabs. There's nothing we can do about that. What Bush did do, however, is cash in on it and create a hell of a lot more fear and terrorism in the process. Bin Laden is a joke - we still haven't caught him, after all that shit we talked, after all those promises we made, we just gave up and moved on.

To me, they might as well have planned 9/11 down to the letter. They couldn't have profitted or gained more politically from anything else done in any other way.

I just accept the fact that my government is a bunch of selfish, greedy, murdering, lying, chickenshit bastards. After that, everything else just falls into place.

Crazy kids and their stories...

If we leave the idiots alone, they'll go away. Just move along. Loose Change, right? I didn't click the link.

Yes, these people are really really so desperate to get President Bush on anything they can.

Well if they get Bush to resign they will have Vice President Cheney as President and he gets to appoint
a good Vice President pick to run and win in 2008.

They are not going to get them both to resign at the same time, then if President Cheney resigns his Vice President becomes President appoints a Vice President and they run together as President and Vice President for President in 2008 and win as they will have had time to prove themselves in office.

Really really sick and desperate.

Of course, an article like this (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) by Steven E. Jones, (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University), is probably more debate-worthy than a half-assed video.

Some points apparently made in the article (paraphrased)...

The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."



i thought it was obvious that they had tried to knock the buildings over. it would have caused much more damage in an event that was already devastating.

Conspiracy theory or just plain fucking obvious?!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- most of it must be.
If you're not an American, I think I may be able to forgive this. But if you are: go to hell, you disgusting bastard. I've NEVER understood people who think that the government would have anything to do with 9/11. And this isn't a Republican patriot dogma thing talking here: this is just me and my opinion that has always been, regardless of my politics throughout my life. 9/11 was a tragedy, one that might have been preventable, but most certainly was NOT done to us by our government. That is just dispicible and utterly idiotic, and completely disgusts me.

Right. 9/11 was an inside job, we never landed on the moon, and, oh, yeah, the CIA killed JFK. :headbang:

If you're not an American, I think I may be able to forgive this. But if you are: go to hell, you disgusting bastard. I've NEVER understood people who think that the government would have anything to do with 9/11. And this isn't a Republican patriot dogma thing talking here: this is just me and my opinion that has always been, regardless of my politics throughout my life. 9/11 was a tragedy, one that might have been preventable, but most certainly was NOT done to us by our government. That is just dispicible and utterly idiotic, and completely disgusts me.
Well this administration isn't quite the cuddly little lap dog Rove would want people to believe. In the early 1980s, a Mr. Donald Rumsfeld worked to get the known dangerous substance Aspartame to be approved by the FDA. The Secretary under Carter wouldn't allow it, but the day after Reagan became president and appointed a new FDA head, Aspartame was released to the public. There is mounting controversy over its use today.

I believe conspiracy theories are what makes this world fun and interesting to live in. As to JFK, why were the formerly classified documents that supposedly said who killed him re-classified? hmm? HMMM? ;)

Well this administration isn't quite the cuddly little lap dog Rove would want people to believe. In the early 1980s, a Mr. Donald Rumsfeld worked to get the known dangerous substance Aspartame to be approved by the FDA. The Secretary under Carter wouldn't allow it, but the day after Reagan became president and appointed a new FDA head, Aspartame was released to the public. There is mounting controversy over its use today.

I believe conspiracy theories are what makes this world fun and interesting to live in. As to JFK, why were the formerly classified documents that supposedly said who killed him re-classified? hmm? HMMM? ;)
...

*immediately throws his Sweet-&-Low sweetened coffee in the trash*

On a serious note, you're right, and that only adds to my point. And personally? On the whole, I tend not to have too much of a problem with conspiracy theories. It's just...9/11 is NOT something that should be conspirasized about. The very idea that our government would really do something like that is utterly abhorrant. In a facist state or a dictatorship or something equally horrible I'd believe the possibility. In the republic that is the United States of America? Hell no. It's just not possible.

One of the pilots actually lived 15 minutes from me in Millville, NJ at the time. There was a huge story on his family.

Wow that's one good coverup, almost as good as the Halocaust cnspiracy.

If you're not an American, I think I may be able to forgive this. But if you are: go to hell, you disgusting bastard. I've NEVER understood people who think that the government would have anything to do with 9/11. And this isn't a Republican patriot dogma thing talking here: this is just me and my opinion that has always been, regardless of my politics throughout my life. 9/11 was a tragedy, one that might have been preventable, but most certainly was NOT done to us by our government. That is just dispicible and utterly idiotic, and completely disgusts me.

Why? Is it really so hard to believe the US government is no better than any other government? What reason is there to believe US politicians are the only honest ones? From the evidence I've seen, I'm inclined to disbelieve in the inside job theory. However, I don't base this opinion on the notion that the US government is somehow more virtuous than any other existing or previous government.

...

*immediately throws his Sweet-&-Low sweetened coffee in the trash*

On a serious note, you're right, and that only adds to my point. And personally? On the whole, I tend not to have too much of a problem with conspiracy theories. It's just...9/11 is NOT something that should be conspirasized about. The very idea that our government would really do something like that is utterly abhorrant. In a facist state or a dictatorship or something equally horrible I'd believe the possibility. In the republic that is the United States of America? Hell no. It's just not possible.
I'm just so disgusted by this administration, and I just know so much dirt about the Bush family, Rove, the PNAC etc... that it's really hard for me to just toss out the mere possibility of the Bush Administration being even partly behind it. I mean, basically, they had a lot, a hell of a lot to gain with a war, and 9/11 worked out incredibly good in his administration's favor, and it gave something to define his presidency so he wouldn't just be like another Reagan.

I find it hard to believe based on the fact that we elect our leaders from our own population, and that most people in our population are reasonable people that wouldn't even think of faking something on that scale for personal or political gain. Frankly, I think only the most disgustingly immoral person would stage something like 9/11, and while Bush and his cronies certainly aren't fantastic people, they're not THAT bad. That's just paranoia.

That's all I'm saying, really. Of course you might eventually see someone in office that's crazy enough to do something like that. But is it likely? Not really. The American populace might not be all THAT intelligent when it comes to elections, but I think we can trust ourselves to tell a crazy psycho from the other candidates. Bush might be a little dim, but crazy psycho he is not.

What are the words I'm looking for... oh yeah! Total bull shit.

The more I watch the more I realise these people must have failed chemistry and physic class.

I'm just so disgusted by this administration, and I just know so much dirt about the Bush family, Rove, the PNAC etc... that it's really hard for me to just toss out the mere possibility of the Bush Administration being even partly behind it. I mean, basically, they had a lot, a hell of a lot to gain with a war, and 9/11 worked out incredibly good in his administration's favor, and it gave something to define his presidency so he wouldn't just be like another Reagan.
bush hadnt been president for a year yet.

there wasnt enough time to plan it.

there wasnt any real upside even if he did use it to get us into a useless war in iraq.

no president is going to risk putting himself in the history books as someone lower than benedict arnold

Kyronea is right. no american president would ever do such a thing. bush may be an incompetant son of a bitch but he didnt become president to massacre US citizen on US soil. to seriously suggest that he would is disgusting

besides, no one plans something like this in a vaccuum. there would be thousands of people who would have some knowlege and hundreds with dirty hands. as we can see from the massive numbers of leaks over the years, if its one thing americans cant do its keep a huge dirty secret. we cant even get people whose livelihood is their NSA job to not rat out a program that does some kind of computer surveillance of people's out-of-country phone calls.

there is just no way that everyone involved in killing 3000 people could live with the guilt.

Even if the theories for conspiracy didn't have enough holes for a huge gangbang, one important idea remains. Why? I just cannot deduce a logical motive.

Could someone *try* to answer the points in post #23?

It's a BYU professor making the points, not a conspiracy theorist talking about reptilians. Because personally I can't refute all the points and I doubt many of the people dismissing all this wholesale have bothered to read the article.

Could someone *try* to answer the points in post #23?

It's a BYU professor making the points, not a conspiracy theorist talking about reptilians. Because personally I can't refute all the points and I doubt many of the people dismissing all this wholesale have bothered to read the article.

I've read it and he forgot a few things like oh say, the planes exploding perhaps?

I would laugh but 9/11 was not Joking matter. It was ****ing planes not missiles not magic Bombs that appeared inside buildings, not disguised Military craft. You're a sad person to watch an hour long film on such shite.

I've read it and he forgot a few things like oh say, the planes exploding perhaps?


? The planes exploded?

Sure, they crashed and erupted into flame, but that's not quite the same thing as an actual explosion involving explosives and pressure blast required to sever steel columns. And it doesn't explain the molten steel. Or the partially evaporated steel supports.

? The planes exploded?

Sure, they crashed and erupted into flame, but that's not quite the same thing as an actual explosion involving explosives and pressure blast required to sever steel columns. And it doesn't explain the molten steel. Or the partially evaporated steel supports.


Firstly the earlier post disproves it:
Canada City']http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html

Well that whole post is full of garbage, that professor needs to read up on buildings some more.
This guy knows nothing.

Occam's razor says go with the simplest explanation. In my mind, the simplest explanation is that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings. 80 TONS of highly flammable fuel slamming into a skyscraper at 500 mph. You're telling me that the government planted bombs inside to blow it up? Pleeease.

Firstly the earlier post disproves it:


Well that whole post is full of garbage, that professor needs to read up on buildings some more.
This guy knows nothing.

Instead of just dismissing it based on the source (those know-nothing BYU professors) could you explain in what way the PM article addresses the article? It doesn't address that there were those who did in fact, see "molten steel" or melted steel, and partially evaporated steel at the site. Even in the official 911 commission report. The PM article does correctly say that melting the steel might not be required... yet if there's melted steel nonetheless, then what?

And there's a whole lot more in the article than the summarization I posted in my post.

I like Popular Mechanics, but it's not a panacea for every possible criticism, question or hypothesis.

? The planes exploded?

Sure, they crashed and erupted into flame, but that's not quite the same thing as an actual explosion involving explosives and pressure blast required to sever steel columns. And it doesn't explain the molten steel. Or the partially evaporated steel supports.

Ok. Let me give it to you straight.

A plane fully loaded with jet fuel, crashes at high velocity, into a steel structure that actually has flameable material in it.

Upon impact, the blame bursts into flames, igniting the flameable material and it ignites the leaking jet fuel that causes an explosion. The resulting heat, melts the steel and this weakens the structure to where it can no longer hold it and this results in the collapse of the top half of the building which implodes the rest of the building because of its weight.

Of course, an article like this (http://www.physics.byu.edu/research/energy/htm7.html) by Steven E. Jones, (Department of Physics and Astronomy, Brigham Young University), is probably more debate-worthy than a half-assed video.

Some points apparently made in the article (paraphrased)...
Most of that article seems to center around 'No building that's fallen over has collapsed in the way those buildings did on 9/11'. And from this they make the huge leap of logic to somehow inferring that the buildings must have had explosives in them.
Well, here's the thing: No building that had fallen over prior (or indeed after) 9/11 due to a bloody great plane flying into in at close to sonic speed. So there's no way anyone can make inferences as to what would happen.



Anyway, well jet fuel doesn't burn (~800°C) hot enough to melt steel (~1500°C), it does burn hot enough to cause major structural damage and warping. That, and the fact that some of the steel structure was already damaged from the collision was more than enough to cause the collapse.

I like Popular Mechanics, but it's not a panacea for every possible criticism, question or hypothesis.

Neither is a BYU professor.

Here ya go!

The three buildings collapsed nearly symmetrically, falling down into their footprints, a phenomenon associated with "controlled demolition" — and even then it's very difficult, he says. "Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?" Jones asks. "And where would they obtain the necessary skills and access to the buildings for a symmetrical implosion anyway? The 'symmetry data' emphasized here, along with other data, provide strong evidence for an 'inside' job."

If the gov was going to kill 3,000 people already why would they care either? They lost their stucture when the plane hit! It wasn't the fire like the movie keeps saying it was a God damn jet plane

• No steel-frame building, before or after the WTC buildings, has ever collapsed due to fire. But explosives can effectively sever steel columns, he says.

It wasn't the fire it was a God damn jet plane! Weighing several tons at moving at 500mph! That will weaken the hell out of anything.


• WTC 7, which was not hit by hijacked planes, collapsed in 6.6 seconds, just .6 of a second longer than it would take an object dropped from the roof to hit the ground. "Where is the delay that must be expected due to conservation of momentum, one of the foundational laws of physics?" he asks. "That is, as upper-falling floors strike lower floors — and intact steel support columns — the fall must be significantly impeded by the impacted mass. . . . How do the upper floors fall so quickly, then, and still conserve momentum in the collapsing buildings?" The paradox, he says, "is easily resolved by the explosive demolition hypothesis, whereby explosives quickly removed lower-floor material, including steel support columns, and allow near free-fall-speed collapses." These observations were not analyzed by FEMA, NIST nor the 9/11 Commission, he says.

Ever heard of dominos? They know each other over. The structure of each floor wasn't meant to hlod the weight of all the floors above it. They could support it but not hold it up.

• With non-explosive-caused collapse there would typically be a piling up of shattering concrete. But most of the material in the towers was converted to flour-like powder while the buildings were falling, he says. "How can we understand this strange behavior, without explosives? Remarkable, amazing — and demanding scrutiny since the U.S. government-funded reports failed to analyze this phenomenon."

Did you even see ground zero? What the hell was all that stuff there?

• Horizontal puffs of smoke, known as squibs, were observed proceeding up the side the building, a phenomenon common when pre-positioned explosives are used to demolish buildings, he says.

Or when all the air is getting pushed out by gee I don't know maybe the top floors falling down?

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

So what caused them to burn? Huge fuel tanks the government put in without anyone noticing? Ever heard of Knetic energy? When something hits another energy is released.

• Molten metal found in the debris of the World Trade Center may have been the result of a high-temperature reaction of a commonly used explosive such as thermite, he says. Buildings not felled by explosives "have insufficient directed energy to result in melting of large quantities of metal," Jones says.

See last answer.

• Multiple loud explosions in rapid sequence were reported by numerous observers in and near the towers, and these explosions occurred far below the region where the planes struck, he says.

When a tornado is over head people say it sounds like a freight train. Does this mean tornados are really government trains o' death? No. It means that loud noises sound a like and metal falling in the building sounds like an explosion, or just plain terror caused them to hear things that weren't there.

Neither is a BYU professor.
But a miultitude of professors and physicists are. And I've seen a few sites where several physicsts question the legitimacy of Bush's story for 9/11. But I'm not going to get into that right now.

Most of that article seems to center around 'No building that's fallen over has collapsed in the way those buildings did on 9/11'. And from this they make the huge leap of logic to somehow inferring that the buildings must have had explosives in them.
Well, here's the thing: No building that had fallen over prior (or indeed after) 9/11 due to a bloody great plane flying into in at close to sonic speed. So there's no way anyone can make inferences as to what would happen.



Anyway, well jet fuel doesn't burn (~800°C) hot enough to melt steel (~1500°C), it does burn hot enough to cause major structural damage and warping. That, and the fact that some of the steel structure was already damaged from the collision was more than enough to cause the collapse.

Not to mention the fire igniting all the flameable materials that go into insolation and other building materials. This will make a fire hotter than it would otherwise be from jet fuel.

Instead of just dismissing it based on the source (those know-nothing BYU professors) could you explain in what way the PM article addresses the article? It doesn't address that there were those who did in fact, see "molten steel" or melted steel, and partially evaporated steel at the site. Even in the official 911 commission report. The PM article does correctly say that melting the steel might not be required... yet if there's melted steel nonetheless, then what?

And there's a whole lot more in the article than the summarization I posted in my post.

I like Popular Mechanics, but it's not a panacea for every possible criticism, question or hypothesis.
So you're going to take the word of one guy (albeit a professor) over a magazine that:
assembled a team of nine researchers and reporters who, together with PM editors, consulted more than 70 professionals in fields that form the core content of this magazine, including aviation, engineering and the military.
So it's one person vs 80+, who are experts in individual, specialist fields.

As for the molten steel claim, it wasn't. It ws most likely twisted, bent or saggy steel, which is easily caused by 800 degree fires. People see what they want. They want to see molten steel, so a piece of sagging steel becomes it.

But a miultitude of professors and physicists are. And I've seen a few sites where several physicsts question the legitimacy of Bush's story for 9/11. But I'm not going to get into that right now.

Please! We all know what happened on 9/11. We know they were terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network. We even Id'd some of the high jackers as being part of said network. We know that Osama Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

This here is nothing but a conspiracy theory and one not even steeped in anything resembling facts.

Please! We all know what happened on 9/11. We know they were terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network. We even Id'd some of the high jackers as being part of said network. We know that Osama Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

This here is nothing but a conspiracy theory and one not even steeped in anything resembling facts.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9075062&postcount=1

That's as close to a debate as you're going to get with me, mainly because I'm too sick about hearing about Iraq and it doesn't really matter now. Also, because I'm tired and don't feel like getting into a debate I've been many times before.

Most of that article seems to center around 'No building that's fallen over has collapsed in the way those buildings did on 9/11'. And from this they make the huge leap of logic to somehow inferring that the buildings must have had explosives in them.

Not... really...

Did you actually read it? I admit I haven't had time or energy to bother with it all.

But is the explosives scenario so difficult to believe?

I mean, terrorists a few years earlier were caught trying to plant explosives in the basement of the building, right?


Anyway, well jet fuel doesn't burn (~800°C) hot enough to melt steel (~1500°C),

Right, so the explanation for melted and/or molten steel is...?


Neither is a BYU professor.

I'm not offering the article or the professor up as an "explanation." It's mostly questions regarding the official story as told to us by a government that has never, ever lied about anything for any reason.

Jovian Moons, you just posted that so I don't have a whole lot to say about it. Indeed I am just trying to get some debate that doesn't involve pointing and laughing at people for being looney crazy bastards.

• Steel supports were "partly evaporated," but it would require temperatures near 5,000 degrees Fahrenheit to evaporate steel — and neither office materials nor diesel fuel can generate temperatures that hot. Fires caused by jet fuel from the hijacked planes lasted at most a few minutes, and office material fires would burn out within about 20 minutes in any given location, he says.

So what caused them to burn? Huge fuel tanks the government put in without anyone noticing? Ever heard of Knetic energy? When something hits another energy is released.

Right. What caused them to burn? That's the question.

Kinetic energy, you say?

Someone said the jet had 60 tons of fuel and itself weighed a few tons. Call it 70 tons. Moving at 500 mph. That's 223.52 meters per second and 63,502.931 kilograms. That's a KE of 12,563,515 joules. If 100% was translated as heat energy that's 11,907.91 BTUs...

Is that enough to make molten steel from pieces of the supports?

See, I don't know. I'm just asking questions.

<snippage>
Right, so the explanation for melted and/or molten steel is...? <snip>
owned!

So you're going to take the word of one guy (albeit a professor) over a magazine that:

So it's one person vs 80+, who are experts in individual, specialist fields.

First, I'm not really taking anyone's word at face value.

Second, that's really an ad populous appeal is it not? More people believe it... must be true.


As for the molten steel claim, it wasn't. It ws most likely twisted, bent or saggy steel, which is easily caused by 800 degree fires. People see what they want. They want to see molten steel, so a piece of sagging steel becomes it.

Well, see, this is eerily like the conspiracy theorists claims that people who disbelief THEM are just mistaken in what they saw, seeing what they want and otherwise deluded or lying.

Could someone *try* to answer the points in post #23?

It's a BYU professor making the points, not a conspiracy theorist talking about reptilians. Because personally I can't refute all the points and I doubt many of the people dismissing all this wholesale have bothered to read the article.
im sorry but he was stupid from the beginning when he suggested that the terrorists PLANNED to have the towers fall straight down. why would he be more right than popular mechanics about the rest?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9075062&postcount=1

That's as close to a debate as you're going to get with me, mainly because I'm too sick about hearing about Iraq and it doesn't really matter now. Also, because I'm tired and don't feel like getting into a debate I've been many times before.

I never brought the Iraq War up in this thread. Not once.

If you do not want to debate anymore then that's your perogative. I honestly don't care. Its already been proven what happened and anything else is a conspiracy theory.

I never brought the Iraq War up in this thread. Not once.So? I did. And I merely referred to it in a general sense, not just on NS.

If you do not want to debate anymore then that's your perogative. I honestly don't care. Its already been proven what happened and anything else is a conspiracy theory.
It hasn't been "proven," it's been told to us. Sure we saw video of the towers crashing, the planes flying into them, but does that really mean that that's all that happened? Of course not. It's just a simple explaination and exactly what the Bush Administration was hoping the American people accept. Same goes for the Iraq war. But I'm not going to start repeating myself, frankly because now that an even worse atrocity has happened (Iraq war) I couldn't care less right now.

So? I did. And I merely referred to it in a general sense, not just on NS.


It hasn't been "proven," it's been told to us. Sure we saw video of the towers crashing, the planes flying into them, but does that really mean that that's all that happened? Of course not. It's just a simple explaination and exactly what the Bush Administration was hoping the American people accept. Same goes for the Iraq war. But I'm not going to start repeating myself, frankly because now that an even worse atrocity has happened (Iraq war) I couldn't care less right now.

Believe what you will but I'll stick to the facts and not go into conspiracy theories that do not have any weight with them whatsoever.

Believe what you will but I'll stick to the facts and not go into conspiracy theories that do not have any weight with them whatsoever.
Sounds good.

im sorry but he was stupid from the beginning when he suggested that the terrorists PLANNED to have the towers fall straight down.

He didn't say that, he said

I call for a serious investigation of the hypothesis that WTC 7 and the Twin Towers were brought down, not just by impact damage and fires, but through the use of pre-positioned cutter-charges.

And to be honest, it's all written a lot more intelligently than your post.

why would he be more right than popular mechanics about the rest?

Heh. Why would Columbus be more right than a lot of scholars of the day?

What you're doing here is arguing from authority - Popular Mechanics is an authority more than a single professor at BYU, hence Popular Mechanics is right, no analysis required.

You beleive this because you fancy yourself as some progressive revolutionary and want to beleive in some evil vision of United States. Look at these videos scientifically and you'll see that no, it was not some inside job...

What was done that day was an atrocity, despite America's faults.... and I and other people don't take kindly to you making light of it with your pitiful conspiracy theories.

He didn't say that, he said

hmmmm and yet when i read
"Why would terrorists undertake straight-down collapses of WTC-7 and the Towers when 'toppling over' falls would require much less work and would do much more damage in downtown Manhattan?"

it says to ME that he thinks that the terrorists PLANNED to have the towers fall straight down.

that starts him out as stupid. why should i bother with anything else he has to say?

Why? Is it really so hard to believe the US government is no better than any other government? What reason is there to believe US politicians are the only honest ones? From the evidence I've seen, I'm inclined to disbelieve in the inside job theory. However, I don't base this opinion on the notion that the US government is somehow more virtuous than any other existing or previous government.

Case in point: Operation Northwoods (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/news/20010430/northwoods.pdf) (PDF).

Yup an inside job. And the Jews didn't show up for work. And the Jews control the media and the White House and the world and are trying to keep this all a secret from you. Also humans never landed on the moon, and the holocaust never happened, and Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor - that was really the USAF bombing Pearl Harbor so FDR would have an excuse to go after Japan. Hitler never invaded Poland either. The Jews made it up. And the Wizard of Oz is our secret master. He uses the Jewish controlled media and the Freemasons and Illuminati to exert mind control over us all. Hurricane Katrina was summoned by George Bush. He called upon the racist Wind Gods to flood the city because he hates black people. :rolleyes:

Yup an inside job. And the Jews didn't show up for work. And the Jews control the media and the White House and the world and are trying to keep this all a secret from you. Also humans never landed on the moon, and the holocaust never happened, and Japan never attacked Pearl Harbor - that was really the USAF bombing Pearl Harbor so FDR would have an excuse to go after Japan. Hitler never invaded Poland either. The Jews made it up. And the Wizard of Oz is our secret master. He uses the Jewish controlled media and the Freemasons and Illuminati to exert mind control over us all. Hurricane Katrina was summoned by George Bush. He called upon the racist Wind Gods to flood the city because he hates black people. :rolleyes:
He's stumbled into the perimeter of wisdom! He knows too much!
Sit tight and wait. The agency MIBs will be around shortly to take you the re-education camp.

btw, you forgot to mention the shape-changing masonic lizards who control everything and that the overall leader of them is none other than Ronald McDonald.

Occam's razor says go with the simplest explanation. In my mind, the simplest explanation is that planes were hijacked and flown into buildings. 80 TONS of highly flammable fuel slamming into a skyscraper at 500 mph. You're telling me that the government planted bombs inside to blow it up? Pleeease.

ok then- how can massive plane carrying 80 tons of flammable fuel slamming into the pentagon at 500 miles an hour only make a small hole in the pentagon?

oh, and how come wtc7 collapsed perfectly as well when no plane hit it?

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm (http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm)

Please! We all know what happened on 9/11. We know they were terrorists from the Al Qaeda terrorist network. We even Id'd some of the high jackers as being part of said network. We know that Osama Bin Laden himself claimed responsibility for the attack on the WTC and the Pentagon.

This here is nothing but a conspiracy theory and one not even steeped in anything resembling facts.

If facts are what you want then watch the official video of bin laden's confession. If that is bin laden then my arse is a fire engine.

ok then- how can massive plane carrying 80 tons of flammable fuel slamming into the pentagon at 500 miles an hour only make a small hole in the pentagon?
You might want to read this:
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/august2004/110804factsstraight.htm

Why such 'little' damage?
Though the Pentagon survived the impact remarkably well, the plane cut a vast swath of destruction throughout the affected portion of the structure. [B]The building, it should be noted, is built of steel reinforced concrete and masonry throughout, supported by narrowly spaced, spirally reinforced concrete columns varying in thickness from 14 to 21 inches, with the larger columns, naturally, to be found in the first story.

The load-bearing columns support a slab, beam, and girder system of flooring. While not a fortress, the construction of the Pentagon is substantial and massive. The building is constructed of 680,000 tons of sand and gravel that were used to make the steel-reinforced concrete. Each of the five sides of the building then contains more than 100,000 tons of structural building components. The Boeing aircraft, by comparison, weighed nearly 100 tons and, like any aircraft, was of much lighter aluminum and composite construction, as befitting a vehicle meant to fly.

The American Society of Civil Engineers described the impact site and the damage in their comprehensive report on the crash. According to the report, "Most of the serious structural damage was within a swath that was approximately 75 to 80 ft wide and extended approximately 230 ft into the first floor of the building. This swath was oriented at approximately 35 to 40 degrees perpendicular to the exterior wall of the Pentagon. Within the swath of serious damage was a narrower, tapering area that contained most of the very severe structural damage. This tapering area approximated a triangle in plan and had a width of approximately 90 ft at the aircraft’s entry point and a length of approximately 230 ft along the trajectory of the aircraft through the building."

If facts are what you want then watch the official video of bin laden's confession. If that is bin laden then my arse is a fire engine.
Oh, right. I take it you've meet Bin Laden so you know exactly what he looks and sounds like.
Really, you're getting more and more depserate in your belief-clinging.

Don't know about you others, but I'm giving up on this troll.

If facts are what you want then watch the official video of bin laden's confession. If that is bin laden then my arse is a fire engine.

*bites back a retort on that*

You left yourself open for a nice little comback here. Where do you keep the lights?

*bites back a retort on that*

You left yourself open for a nice little comback here. Where do you keep the lights?

Well spotted Corneliu!!

Download part 1 and 2 of 9/11 'In Plane Site- the Directors Cut' for a decent alternative view of what happened for those of you that don't immediately dismiss what you don't want to hear.

http://question911.com/links.php


The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is a propaganda bandwagon used by people that wish to discourage intelligent people from probing and questioning what we're told to believe.

ok then- how can massive plane carrying 80 tons of flammable fuel slamming into the pentagon at 500 miles an hour only make a small hole in the pentagon?

oh, and how come wtc7 collapsed perfectly as well when no plane hit it?

http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm (http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/plane-crash-pentagon-hole-photo.htm)
Dude, you're not the first person who posted these stupid conspiracy theories. They've been debunked numerous times in this very forum. Use the search function and find the other threads that prove you've been fooled by a lie.

The phrase 'conspiracy theory' is a propaganda bandwagon used by people that wish to discourage intelligent people from probing and questioning what we're told to believe.

Actually a conspiracy theory is a theory on an event that has no facts at all surrounding it but in someone's mind that someone did it when infact they didn't.

If facts are what you want then watch the official video of bin laden's confession. If that is bin laden then my arse is a fire engine.
What's it like to have a fire engine for an arse?

What's it like to have a fire engine for an arse?

HAHA! *points back to his statement about where does he put the lights(

Dude, you're not the first person who posted these stupid conspiracy theories. They've been debunked numerous times in this very forum. Use the search function and find the other threads that prove you've been fooled by a lie.

What a shock! There's that phrase 'conspiracy theories' again! Listen- there's no doubt that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Whether or not Bin Laden and/or the man whose passport miraculously escaped being burnt (even though the black boxes didn't!) were the conspirateurs? Decide for yourself.

The problem for me is that the official story just doesn't wash. The other problem I have noticed is that the most common form of debunk is simply scorn and derision.

There obviously profit-mongers out there cashing in- but there are a lot of other people also that are just looking for answers and getting fuck all (including victims and their families). It defies belief that the murder of so many people should be investigated in such a slipshod manner more than a year after the event.

When were the explosives in the WTC planted? Those buildings werent' abandoned at night. Security personel, maintainance and repair personel, and businessmen working late and sometimes crashing in their offices were always present. Planting the explosives would have required man-hours and power tools. You don't drill into support structures with a bit and brace. You use electirc drills, maybe hammer drills, which make noise. You need to finish all your work in time to cover up the holes you've made in the drywall and in the concrete before anyone notices it. How the fuck could anyone get away with it?

What a shock! There's that phrase 'conspiracy theories' again! Listen- there's no doubt that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Whether or not Bin Laden and/or the man whose passport miraculously escaped being burnt (even though the black boxes didn't!) were the conspirateurs? Decide for yourself.

Oh brother. Crazy stuff happens in a disaster. I can tell you tornado stories that have carton of eggs being tossed around and yet not a single egg shell was broken. How a Twister can rip apart your neighbor's home but leave yours untouched. No one can explain that.

The problem for me is that the official story just doesn't wash. The other problem I have noticed is that the most common form of debunk is simply scorn and derision.

Incorrect. We have used facts to back up our assertion. You have used nothing but opinions to try to back up your assumptions which does wash and you have yet to debunk a single fact that was presented to you.

There obviously profit-mongers out there cashing in- but there are a lot of other people also that are just looking for answers and getting fuck all (including victims and their families). It defies belief that the murder of so many people should be investigated in such a slipshod manner more than a year after the event.[/B]

We know who did it and we are going after him. If you do not believe that then you really are dillusional who has no concept of the real world but see conspiracies everywhere.

When were the explosives in the WTC planted? Those buildings werent' abandoned at night. Security personel, maintainance and repair personel, and businessmen working late and sometimes crashing in their offices were always present. Planting the explosives would have required man-hours and power tools. You don't drill into support structures with a bit and brace. You use electirc drills, maybe hammer drills, which make noise. You need to finish all your work in time to cover up the holes you've made in the drywall and in the concrete before anyone notices it. How the fuck could anyone get away with it?

It is practically impossible since your going to need permits for work such as this so now you are involving more than one agency and once you start involving more and more people, the odds at keeping a secret go down.

What a shock! There's that phrase 'conspiracy theories' again! Listen- there's no doubt that 9/11 was a conspiracy. Whether or not Bin Laden and/or the man whose passport miraculously escaped being burnt (even though the black boxes didn't!) were the conspirateurs? Decide for yourself.

The problem for me is that the official story just doesn't wash. The other problem I have noticed is that the most common form of debunk is simply scorn and derision.

There obviously profit-mongers out there cashing in- but there are a lot of other people also that are just looking for answers and getting fuck all (including victims and their families). It defies belief that the murder of so many people should be investigated in such a slipshod manner more than a year after the event.Once again, I urge you to use the search function and stop embarrasing yourself. The bullshit you keep shoveling has been debunked numerous times. Your google video has been debunked. I'm all for free speech, but the drawback is that the gullible and those who lie to them (I'm not sure which one you are) are allowed to speak.

When were the explosives in the WTC planted? Those buildings werent' abandoned at night. Security personel, maintainance and repair personel, and businessmen working late and sometimes crashing in their offices were always present. Planting the explosives would have required man-hours and power tools. You don't drill into support structures with a bit and brace. You use electirc drills, maybe hammer drills, which make noise. You need to finish all your work in time to cover up the holes you've made in the drywall and in the concrete before anyone notices it. How the fuck could anyone get away with it?

Floors were evacuated prior to the attacks for security reasons.

Larry Silverstein discussed on tape the decision being made to 'pull' WTC7, which subsequently collapsed into it's own footprint without having been hit by a plane.

Hammer drills? Are you in the demolition business?

Witnesses and firefighters reported additional explosions. There are several expert physicians and structural engineers that find it impossible to believe any other explanation for the perfect collapse of those THREE WTC buildings than controlled demolition. If those guys ARE correct then you are very right to question who could have had access to planting the cutter charges and on what pretext. I doubt that a bunch of Arabs with beards and mobile phones could.

If you look into the subject with an open mind there are genuine questions that need to be asked. The 9/11 Commission was an absolute farse, which is why New Yorkers are looking for a PROPER enquiry.

Floors were evacuated prior to the attacks for security reasons.

Larry Silverstein discussed on tape the decision being made to 'pull' WTC7, which subsequently collapsed into it's own footprint without having been hit by a plane.

Hammer drills? Are you in the demolition business?

Witnesses and firefighters reported additional explosions. There are several expert physicians and structural engineers that find it possible to believe it possible to believe any other explanation for the perfect collapse of those THREE WTC buildings than controlled demolition. If those guys ARE correct then you are very right to question who could have had access to planting the cutter charges and on what pretext. I doubt that a bunch of Arabs with beards and mobile phones could.

If you look into the subject with an open mind there are genuine questions that need to be asked. The 9/11 Commission was an absolute farse, which is why New Yorkers are looking for a PROPER enquiry.

I see only one fact in this entire rant. That fact is about the 9/11 commission. Outside of that though....

Conspiracy theory or just plain fucking obvious?!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- most of it must be.
Not this shit again! N00b ... you need to get a frakkin' GRIP! :headbang:

Floors were evacuated prior to the attacks for security reasons.

Larry Silverstein discussed on tape the decision being made to 'pull' WTC7, which subsequently collapsed into it's own footprint without having been hit by a plane.

Hammer drills? Are you in the demolition business?

Witnesses and firefighters reported additional explosions. There are several expert physicians and structural engineers that find it possible to believe it possible to believe any other explanation for the perfect collapse of those THREE WTC buildings than controlled demolition. If those guys ARE correct then you are very right to question who could have had access to planting the cutter charges and on what pretext. I doubt that a bunch of Arabs with beards and mobile phones could.

If you look into the subject with an open mind there are genuine questions that need to be asked. The 9/11 Commission was an absolute farse, which is why New Yorkers are looking for a PROPER enquiry.
How long were they evacuated for? The days it would have taken to set up a demolition?

I've done some demolition, I've never handled the explosives, but I've been present when they were used. I've used jackhammers and hammer drills to break up and drill into concrete. They're not very quiet.

MIT physicists have found that unless the WTC buildings were pulled 100 feet off center at the time of the collapse that they had no choice but to fall straight down.

MIT physicists have found that unless the WTC buildings were pulled 100 feet off center at the time of the collapse that they had no choice but to fall straight down.

And the designers stated that they were designed to fall straight to the ground anyway. They even stated that in interviews.

hmmmm and yet when i read


it says to ME that he thinks that the terrorists PLANNED to have the towers fall straight down.

that starts him out as stupid. why should i bother with anything else he has to say?

In other words, you'll find any excuse to dismiss an entire article without reading it because it's much more comfortable to declare someone as stupid than to actually ask questions, or answer 'em.

Personally I think *that* is stupid.

I see only one fact in this entire rant. That fact is about the 9/11 commission. Outside of that though....

Larry Silverstein's interview is a fact.

Several matching witness reports of additional explosions(including camera footage of squibs prior to collapse)- fact.

Video of a right-handed chubby-faced Osama Bin-Laden confessing to masterminding 9/11 found in Afghanistan by the US Army- a complete piss-take. Seriously you have to watch that before blindly accepting the pretext for war on Afghanistan and Iraq (oh and Iran- well, while we're down there right!)

Larry Silverstein's interview is a fact.

Several matching witness reports of additional explosions(including camera footage of squibs prior to collapse)- fact.

Video of a right-handed chubby-faced Osama Bin-Laden confessing to masterminding 9/11 found in Afghanistan by the US Army- a complete piss-take. Seriously you have to watch that before blindly accepting the pretext for war on Afghanistan and Iraq (oh and Iran- well, while we're down there right!)
Squibs? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Squib_%28explosive%29

You don't bring down a building with squibs. You bring it down with dynamite or det cord.

So which are you, the gullible sap taken in by lies, or the liar who is looking to fool some gullible saps?

Larry Silverstein's interview is a fact.

Several matching witness reports of additional explosions(including camera footage of squibs prior to collapse)- fact.

Video of a right-handed chubby-faced Osama Bin-Laden confessing to masterminding 9/11 found in Afghanistan by the US Army- a complete piss-take. Seriously you have to watch that before blindly accepting the pretext for war on Afghanistan and Iraq (oh and Iran- well, while we're down there right!)

1) You can stop bolding at anytime. It doesn't do anything to make your points anymore clearer and it really is getting annoying.

2) Your arguement is so far out in left field that it isn't even in the stadium. This has been debunked so many times, I do not know how many times. You have discounted the Bin Laden video because it doesn't fit into this conspiracy theory. You are discounting all the other evidence that has been presented in this debate debunking everything you have said because it doesn't agree with you.

Face it, no matter what the evidence is, your going to go right on believing this. You asked us what we think. We told you what we thought and backed it up with evidence proving our assertions. You have not provided any evidence to back up your assertions and the evidence you did bring up has been debunked many times before.

In other words, you'll find any excuse to dismiss an entire article without reading it because it's much more comfortable to declare someone as stupid than to actually ask questions, or answer 'em.

Personally I think *that* is stupid.

well ya know, there are so many stupid things written in the world that i dont have as much patience with them as you claim to have.

Larry Silverstein's interview is a fact.

Several matching witness reports of additional explosions(including camera footage of squibs prior to collapse)- fact.

Video of a right-handed chubby-faced Osama Bin-Laden confessing to masterminding 9/11 found in Afghanistan by the US Army- a complete piss-take. Seriously you have to watch that before blindly accepting the pretext for war on Afghanistan and Iraq (oh and Iran- well, while we're down there right!)

If you have facts that you wish for us to look at, please provide links. Due to the nature of your arguments, I will even allow the links to be from questionably credible sources, provided the information therein is the type of information that can be scientifically evaluated.

You cannot look at that Bin Laden video and honestly say it is him. If you think it is him- you haven't seen it. I would be overjoyed to see evidence that truly debunks. All you have provided is derision and scorn. See no evil, hear no evil right?

You cannot look at that Bin Laden video and honestly say it is him. If you think it is him- you haven't seen it. I would be overjoyed to see evidence that truly debunks. All you have provided is derision and scorn. See no evil, hear no evil right?

I saw the video. It was blasted around the world so don't assume that I did not see it. That's a class A mistake on this forum. Don't assume to much.

And we have told you to go search the other thousand or so threads on this very issue. The evidence is there. I doubt you'll believe it anyway considering your prejudices.

Larry Silverstein's interview is a fact.

Several matching witness reports of additional explosions(including camera footage of squibs prior to collapse)- fact.

Video of a right-handed chubby-faced Osama Bin-Laden confessing to masterminding 9/11 found in Afghanistan by the US Army- a complete piss-take. Seriously you have to watch that before blindly accepting the pretext for war on Afghanistan and Iraq (oh and Iran- well, while we're down there right!)
hey man, do you mind not typing in bold? it's a little annoying. and as far as the osama video, someone kinda disproved that on fark.com, but i can't find the friggin' image.

You're so great on "reading," read this:

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/fema.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/mayblum.htm

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/israel.htm

He's a heartless insane person....9/11 wasn't inside at all. It'd be too expensive and too terrible to do inside. Let alone too hard. He's trying to find something to stop himself from being wrong....and its not working.

You cannot look at that Bin Laden video and honestly say it is him. If you think it is him- you haven't seen it. I would be overjoyed to see evidence that truly debunks. All you have provided is derision and scorn. See no evil, hear no evil right?
Since you're too lazy, or maybe too afraid to be proven wrong, here's the link to where your arguments have been debunked before in this forum.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467914&highlight=9%2F11+conspiracy+theory

I'm not going to repost the incredible ammount of evidence that proves that you're either a liar or just too gullible for words. It's all in the other thread.

Maybe you'd be so kind as to post a link to the bin laden tape so we can prove you wrong there too.

Since you're too lazy, or maybe too afraid to be proven wrong, here's the link to where your arguments have been debunked before in this forum.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=467914&highlight=9%2F11+conspiracy+theory

I'm not going to repost the incredible ammount of evidence that proves that you're either a liar or just too gullible for words. It's all in the other thread.

Maybe you'd be so kind as to post a link to the bin laden tape so we can prove you wrong there too.

Come think of it...where is this link anyways? We can probably tell really easily if its real or fake.

If you have facts that you wish for us to look at, please provide links. Due to the nature of your arguments, I will even allow the links to be from questionably credible sources, provided the information therein is the type of information that can be scientifically evaluated.

Apologies Gift-of-god. Forwarding to 1 hour 8 mins 45 secs into this lecture shows you the Bin Laden fake guy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586)

The video of him is also on the original link in the thread starter.

Apologies Gift-of-god. Forwarding to 1 hour 8 mins 45 secs into this lecture shows you the Bin Laden fake guy.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586 (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=964034652002408586)

The video of him is also on the original link in the thread starter.

Ya.....but this is a photoshopped poor quality video...its not real.

Ya.....but this is a photoshopped poor quality video...its not real.


OK click into this vid and forward to 1:12:00 and look at the Bin Laden bullshit confession vid there:

Click Here And Fast Forward up to 1:12:00 onward (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose)

OK click into this vid and forward to 1:12:00 and look at the Bin Laden bullshit confession vid there:

Click Here And Fast Forward up to 1:12:00 onward (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose)
Real convincing. We get to see what, half of a minute of the tape? We get no sound, just the moron who was criticizing the tape. Meanwhile there are other tapes, like the one covered in this article http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html in which Bin Laden claims responsibility, and those didn't come from the US government. They were delivered by Bin Laden's bitches to Al Jazeera. Are you now going to argue that Al Jazeera is a US government front?

Real convincing. We get to see what, half of a minute of the tape? We get no sound, just the moron who was criticizing the tape. Meanwhile there are other tapes, like the one covered in this article http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html in which Bin Laden claims responsibility, and those didn't come from the US government. They were delivered by Bin Laden's bitches to Al Jazeera. Are you now going to argue that Al Jazeera is a US government front?

I normally do not use this phrase but in this case, I'll make an exception.

So pwned.

Real convincing. We get to see what, half of a minute of the tape? We get no sound, just the moron who was criticizing the tape. Meanwhile there are other tapes, like the one covered in this article http://www.cbc.ca/story/world/national/2004/10/29/binladen_message041029.html in which Bin Laden claims responsibility, and those didn't come from the US government. They were delivered by Bin Laden's bitches to Al Jazeera. Are you now going to argue that Al Jazeera is a US government front?

You dick.

Did that look like Bin Laden?

Your clip relies on- 'according to translaters'

You dick.

Did that look like Bin Laden?

Your clip relies on- 'according to translaters'

Oh my god!

YOu do realize that Bin Laden speaks ARABIC and NOT English I hope! Because of this, they have to have translators translate the messege.

And no need to call people names. I shows a lack of intelligence and it detracts from your arguement.

You dick.

Did that look like Bin Laden?

Your clip relies on- 'according to translaters'
Yep. It looked like bin Laden. Bin Laden doesn't issue his messages in english. You can check Al Jazeera's english site for translations independent of the US government. Just because you're as gullible as a three year old doesn't mean you have to resort to insults, unless that's all you've got left. In that case just give up and shut up.

Yep. It looked like bin Laden. Bin Laden doesn't issue his messages in english. You can check Al Jazeera's english site for translations independent of the US government. Just because you're as gullible as a three year old doesn't mean you have to resort to insults, unless that's all you've got left. In that case just give up and shut up.

Now now, no need to insult the 3 yos :D

corneliu and drunk commies are apologists. Every credit?

corneliu and drunk commies are apologists. Every credit?
And you're a silly, naive child. Got any evidence that hasn't been debunked?

You're the type of gullible fool who believes Elvis is alive, UFOs kidnap people constantly, and astrology works. Congrats, you've I didn't know suckers like you still existed. Since part of my job is sales this warms my heart. I hope to see alot of customers just like you real soon. I need the commission.

corneliu and drunk commies are apologists. Every credit?

Apologist? Dude, I wanted the head of whoever ordered that attack on a plate after we draw and quartered him infront of the media I doubt I'll get me wish though so I'll just settle for the next best thing. Democracy in Afghanistan.

Apologist? Dude, I wanted the head of whoever ordered that attack on a plate after we draw and quartered him infront of the media I doubt I'll get me wish though so I'll just settle for the next best thing. Democracy in Afghanistan.
That works. :D And that's why I don't see how Iraq had anything to do with it other than the fact Saddam was bad.

I doubt that a bunch of Arabs with beards and mobile phones could.
Haha, what?

I'm half Arabian, you disgusting idiot. Thank you so much for the racial slur you just tossed at me. As if I didn't have enough from the dumbasses who went after my family after the whole 9/11 thing and the occasional insults from thereon out. I even wear a turbin, 'cause they're cool. Seriously. Keeps my head from being too hot in the summer and too cold in the winter. =/

So take your bullshit and your cockamamie idiocy and stick it up your ass along with the rest of your brains.

That works. :D And that's why I don't see how Iraq had anything to do with it other than the fact Saddam was bad.

I never said it did :D

That works. :D And that's why I don't see how Iraq had anything to do with it other than the fact Saddam was bad.
We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush just used the climate of fear to argue that Iraq was a threat to the US so he could get the war he wanted.

any body who says that nine eleven was planned by the government is a stupid asshole, its been 5 years, let it die

I never said it did :D
Well Bush has, so if he's going to argue that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, I'll argue against it until I see solid proof otherwise. It's just my nature, as you know.

Well Bush has, so if he's going to argue that Iraq had something to do with 9/11, I'll argue against it until I see solid proof otherwise. It's just my nature, as you know.

Yea I know. That is one thing I like about ya :) You are a fair debator :D

We know Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11. Bush just used the climate of fear to argue that Iraq was a threat to the US so he could get the war he wanted.
You know, there are times I think you're a staunch conservative, even more so than Corneliu or Eut, but this is one of those redeeming times. :p Well said.

Yea I know. That is one thing I like about ya :) You are a fair debator :D
Right back at ya, buddy!

You know, there are times I think you're a staunch conservative, even more so than Corneliu or Eut, but this is one of those redeeming times. :p Well said.
Eutrusca is a centrist.

Eutrusca is a centrist.
So I've heard...

So I've heard...
Meanwhile I'm a psycho. I've got some right wing ideas in foreign policy that might make Hitler flinch, but I'm mainly on the left economically and socially.

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/

You think the size of your link makes a different? And for a blog too. Go figure. Face it, you have been thoroughly trashed in this thread and now your getting desperate. It really is starting to get pathetic.

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/

Sorry to be harsh, my friend, but have you ever actually argued anything about the fall of the towers specifically? All I've seen is random 9/11 Conspiracy Links being posted and vague references to Bin Laden, which has been refuted. To argue with these chappies you need more solid arguments. IE, argument, backed up by evidence multiple times in a post, that sort of thing.

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/
Nice website. I liked the Illuminat theme song that went with this page.

Illuminati


Beneath the broad tide of human history there flow the stealthy undercurrents of the secret societies, which frequently determine in the depths the changes that take place on the surface.

— Arthur Edward Waite


Some say that there are Secret Societies, Powerful International Bankers and Satanic Cabal's behind much of what our government does, including the events of September 11th.




click on photo to see it larger.


. . . Just something to think about . . .



For more than a century, ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as "internationalists" and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it.

— David Rockefeller

Permit me to issue and control the money of a nation and I care not who makes its laws.

— Mayer Amschel Rothschild


There are many sources available for information about the Illuminati, Rockefeller's, Rothschild's, Bilderbergers, Skull and Bones, Secret Societies, Secret Combinations, International Bankers, New World Order, United Nations, and more...

www.infowars.com
www.conspiracyarchive.com
www.illuminati-and-911.com
www.excerptsandevidences.com


(these are just a few of the sites on this subject. There are some sites about the Illuminati that I don't like to reference because they ignorantly try to associate the LDS Church (Mormons) with the Illuminati or Satanic Rituals. Those conclusions are completely false and inacurate. One of the best books on this subject is written by Ken Bowers, an LDS author. He wrote "Hiding in Plain Sight" & "Beneath the Tide"

(The Song playing in the background is by Gamma Ray - www.gamma-ray.com - from their album "No World Order")



CLICK HERE FOR MANY QUOTES AND SOURCES ABOUT SECRET COMBNIATIONS (SECRET SOCIETIES, ILLUMINATI, ETC.






Scurry along now little troll. We're sick of you.

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/
meh, the WTC is a bit of a stretch, the Pentagon story is what I don't undertand. Supposedly it was an engine that penetrated three rings of the Pentagon, while the rest of the aircraft vaporized less a few unburnt pieces of metal on the unscathed Pentagon lawn. And when seeing the video, there is no evidence of an aircraft flying into the Pentagon.

meh, the WTC is a bit of a stretch, the Pentagon story is what I don't undertand. Supposedly it was an engine that penetrated three rings of the Pentagon, while the rest of the aircraft vaporized less a few unburnt pieces of metal on the unscathed Pentagon lawn. And when seeing the video, there is no evidence of an aircraft flying into the Pentagon.
Eyewitnesses were there.

meh, the WTC is a bit of a stretch, the Pentagon story is what I don't undertand. Supposedly it was an engine that penetrated three rings of the Pentagon, while the rest of the aircraft vaporized less a few unburnt pieces of metal on the unscathed Pentagon lawn. And when seeing the video, there is no evidence of an aircraft flying into the Pentagon.

I've often wondered if the one that hit the Pentagon got hit by some secret Pentagon defense system - SAMs or Hand-held Stingers or something, thus explaining how only the engine hit, and they don't want to reveal it, thus making it seem odd.

It seems plausible - well, moreso than 'Conspiracy!!!'

http://www.911truthseekers.org/modules/weblog/
What did I tell you about sticking that shit back up your ass?

Eyewitnesses were there.
and they said "it was what sounded like a missile" others said "the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building."

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main

I've often wondered if the one that hit the Pentagon got hit by some secret Pentagon defense system - SAMs or Hand-held Stingers or something, thus explaining how only the engine hit, and they don't want to reveal it, thus making it seem odd.

It seems plausible - well, moreso than 'Conspiracy!!!'
There are no SAM launchers or even buried missile tubes, I've been there. And if there were, where did the rest of the aircraft go? Much more, the mere physics of the missile to lock on and shoot down a plane travelling at the supposed vectors and speed it was at doesn't work. Missiles aren't nearly as agile as some might believe from the movies. It's not like the body of the 757 has ever been found. Pretty interesting flash I linked to, if you're looking at it.

Another site questioning the validity of the government's story. (http://911research.wtc7.net/talks/pentagon/)

And another. (http://www.freedomfiles.org/war/pentagon.htm)

There are no SAM launchers or even buried missile tubes, I've been there. And if there were, where did the rest of the aircraft go? Much more, the mere physics of the missile to lock on and shoot down a plane travelling at the supposed vectors and speed it was at doesn't work. Missiles aren't nearly as agile as some might believe from the movies. It's not like the body of the 757 has ever been found. Pretty interesting flash I linked to, if you're looking at it.

Ummm....

It was an Illuminati-Controlled missile!

*Nods Sagely*

Seriously, actually no idea then. Maybe the wreckage just got moved really quickly?

OK, this BYU professor and any of the posters here buying the trash are idiots. Let me explain this in simple terms. I may not have a degree yet, but I am an engineering student at Purdue University so I do have some knowledge of Physics.

The WTC towers weren't constructed like normal skyscapers. Most buildings have your regular skeletal structure. That is why skyscrapers often have poles in the middle of the floors. The World Trade Center was built differently. The building's architect wanted an open floor plan that removed these ugly poles.

The answer was to build the most important load bearing poles into the exterior wall. This explains the thick lines of steel and the small windows on the building's exterior. The building's exterior acted as an exoskeleton for the whole building. There were some support poles inside the structure. These were placed on the interior of the building by the stairwells and elevators.

WHen the planes hit the WTC, they penetrated the exterior wall that held much of the load bearing steel. The first plane took out almost all of the supports on the side it hit. It also took out all of the supports in the center of the building and some on the side opposite of where it hit. Other support structures were damaged by the impact. The force of the impact and the explosion of the jet fuel created a pressure wave that blew the flame retardent coating that covered support beams off of the steel. This left the undamaged steel columns were leftunprotected.

The damage to the South Tower was even worse. 2 sides had almost all of their supports out in addition to the center supports. The damage to both buildings where the major load steel supports were taken out turned the surviving parts of the building into an arch structure. The building would've been able to survive this had it not been for the fire.

Steel melts are temperatures that weren't reached by the fire. But, at 800 degrees, steel loses it's strength. The fire burned between 1200 and 1500 degrees. At these temperatures steel sags and loses its strength. With the building structurally weakened, the columns could no longer support the weight on them and the floors pancaked down on eachother.

As for number 7, it got struck with many large chunks of debris and also burned. It should also be mentioned that when the towers fell, they caused a shockwave at the level of a 2.1 magnitude quake. Now imagine some of the burning chunks strong enough to do that striking a building. The building also had 42000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in it as a part of a diesel generator system. The fires were likely fueled by this.

As for the theory of controlled demolitions. Any one who has seen the process for that would know it takes months of preparation and there is no way that anyone could place the explosives there without anyone noticing. There would be miles of wires criss crossing the building that would be in plane view or wouldn't be able to escape detection by maintenance personnel.

and they said "it was what sounded like a missile" others said "the plane hit the ground and skidded into the building."

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main
If the plane was traveling at over 500 MPH, I wouldn't expect much large wreckage from it. Planes are made to be lightweight, not impact resistant. I'd assume that the aluminum would be shredded on impact. Anyway, I'd love to see the pictures from those confiscated and classified tapes.

OK, this BYU professor and any of the posters here buying the trash are idiots. Let me explain this in simple terms. I may not have a degree yet, but I am an engineering student at Purdue University so I do have some knowledge of Physics.

The WTC towers weren't constructed like normal skyscapers. Most buildings have your regular skeletal structure. That is why skyscrapers often have poles in the middle of the floors. The World Trade Center was built differently. The building's architect wanted an open floor plan that removed these ugly poles.

The answer was to build the most important load bearing poles into the exterior wall. This explains the thick lines of steel and the small windows on the building's exterior. The building's exterior acted as an exoskeleton for the whole building. There were some support poles inside the structure. These were placed on the interior of the building by the stairwells and elevators.

WHen the planes hit the WTC, they penetrated the exterior wall that held much of the load bearing steel. The first plane took out almost all of the supports on the side it hit. It also took out all of the supports in the center of the building and some on the side opposite of where it hit. Other support structures were damaged by the impact. The force of the impact and the explosion of the jet fuel created a pressure wave that blew the flame retardent coating that covered support beams off of the steel. This left the undamaged steel columns were leftunprotected.

The damage to the South Tower was even worse. 2 sides had almost all of their supports out in addition to the center supports. The damage to both buildings where the major load steel supports were taken out turned the surviving parts of the building into an arch structure. The building would've been able to survive this had it not been for the fire.

Steel melts are temperatures that weren't reached by the fire. But, at 800 degrees, steel loses it's strength. The fire burned between 1200 and 1500 degrees. At these temperatures steel sags and loses its strength. With the building structurally weakened, the columns could no longer support the weight on them and the floors pancaked down on eachother.

As for number 7, it got struck with many large chunks of debris and also burned. It should also be mentioned that when the towers fell, they caused a shockwave at the level of a 2.1 magnitude quake. Now imagine some of the burning chunks strong enough to do that striking a building. The building also had 42000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in it as a part of a diesel generator system. The fires were likely fueled by this.

As for the theory of controlled demolitions. Any one who has seen the process for that would know it takes months of preparation and there is no way that anyone could place the explosives there without anyone noticing. There would be miles of wires criss crossing the building that would be in plane view or wouldn't be able to escape detection by maintenance personnel.

THANK YOU! Common sense strikes again.

Okay, so just clear up the whole Pentagon dealie and we can finally toss this argument in the trash where it belongs.

meh, the WTC is a bit of a stretch, the Pentagon story is what I don't undertand. Supposedly it was an engine that penetrated three rings of the Pentagon, while the rest of the aircraft vaporized less a few unburnt pieces of metal on the unscathed Pentagon lawn. And when seeing the video, there is no evidence of an aircraft flying into the Pentagon.
IT actually makes sense. We've all seen video of the remains of other airline crashes. In those crashes, you can't see any major parts of the aircraft in most cases. The airplane is made of aluminum. It basically evaporates in the crash.

If you want an example, this is AA Flight 191. It crashed right after take off from O'Hare. It was going at less than 160 knots. This is between 1/3 and 1/2 the speed of the plane that struck the Pentagon. You see very little evidence of an airplane. In face, this looks much like the Pentagon crash site if the Pentagon weren't present. All you see left of the plane are tiny bits of shredded alumninum.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/AA191-crash-site.png

As for the engines punching through, that is normal. The engines are the only heavy parts of the aircraft. They are the only parts that have a chance of retaining their form after a crash. Read "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy. It was written in 1994 and featured a plane crash into the Capitol Building. Clancy did research for this part and determined that the plane would desintegrate on impact with only the engines really remaing intact to continue puncturing through the building. It's amazing how right he was 7 years before 9/11.

If the plane was traveling at over 500 MPH, I wouldn't expect much large wreckage from it. Planes are made to be lightweight, not impact resistant. I'd assume that the aluminum would be shredded on impact. Anyway, I'd love to see the pictures from those confiscated and classified tapes.
500mph is the rough cruising speed of the aircraft, not the speed it hit the pentagon at. I would still like to know how the pilot was able to hit a relatively small area while travelling at yet a very high speed and still have perfect control of the plane as to not hit the ground at all. When an aircraft is landing or crashing specifically, it will begin to pick up a lot of speed and thus make it much more harder to control. Especially travelling at the angle it was, makes it even more unimaginably difficult to control.

For those of you who think I actually believe all of this stuff. I don't. I'm merely keeping an open mind to both this theory, and the theory I've been fed by the Bush Administration, and I prefer the more interesting theory. :D

I'm probably the only person who agrees with the gov and watched the entire video. Yup I wasted over an hour of my life watching it. At the end they claim it was done for money. Several billion dollars worht in fact. So let me get this straight, a bunch of millionares adn billionares risked everything they have to make more money? And if it was the gov why go into Afaganastan? There is nothing of value there at all. Why not blame Sadam adn go get the oil right away? Too many holes in the theory, and I watched it with an open mind, or as open as I could get it. There are a few good points but with every supposed government coverup there are a few good points. If you tired hard enough you could find evidence that you didn't crash your car into a tree even though half the planet saw it.

500mph is the rough cruising speed of the aircraft, not the speed it hit the pentagon at. I would still like to know how the pilot was able to hit a relatively small area while travelling at yet a very high speed and still have perfect control of the plane as to not hit the ground at all. When an aircraft is landing or crashing specifically, it will begin to pick up a lot of speed and thus make it much more harder to control. Especially travelling at the angle it was, makes it even more unimaginably difficult to control.

For those of you who think I actually believe all of this stuff. I don't. I'm merely keeping an open mind to both this theory, and the theory I've been fed by the Bush Administration, and I prefer the more interesting theory. :D
Please respond to my above post on this matter. The plane that struck the Pentagon was going about 350-400 knots at time if impact. The plane in the picture I posted was going 150-160 knots when it crashed north of Touhy Ave in the North suburbs of Chi-town. It was a DC-10, which is even bigger than the 757 that struck the Pentagon. If you look at crash photos of similar planes that strke at 350-400 knots, you will see almost nothing left of the plane.

As for the 2 theories. It's OK to have an open mind, but to throw out all science because you don't like the President makes you nothing more than an idiot and just as bad if not worse than the people who want to throw out the science of Evolution.

As for the engines punching through, that is normal. The engines are the only heavy parts of the aircraft. They are the only parts that have a chance of retaining their form after a crash. Read "Debt of Honor" by Tom Clancy. It was written in 1994 and featured a plane crash into the Capitol Building. Clancy did research for this part and determined that the plane would desintegrate on impact with only the engines really remaing intact to continue puncturing through the building. It's amazing how right he was 7 years before 9/11.
Explain to me then, how a novice pilot was able to fly a rather large commercial airliner into a 40 foot wall while crashing at a high speed. It's incredibly hard to control an aircraft while crashing. I don't speak from experience, I speak from experience of others (such as my physics teacher who was a pilot in the AF for 20 years), my own knowledge of physics, and accounts of pilots who have indeed crashed from my various resources of Naval aviation and such.

mir, I say, mir!!! :p

Explain to me then, how a novice pilot was able to fly a rather large commercial airliner into a 40 foot wall while crashing at a high speed. It's incredibly hard to control an aircraft while crashing. I don't speak from experience, I speak from experience of others (such as my physics teacher who was a pilot in the AF for 20 years), my own knowledge of physics, and accounts of pilots who have indeed crashed from my various resources of Naval aviation and such.

I'm not a pilot, but I do have some stick time in a Cessna 182, very little time BTW, but enough to understand flight. (a far cry from a Boeing 757 I know), But, these pilots did have training in small aircraft. They knew how to fly while in flight. They weren't experience pilots and wouldn't have the ability to land an aircraft, but crashing an aircraft or navigating to an area is easy. I can tell you that turning an aircraft is extremely easy. THe wall was more than 40 feet BTW. It was much closer to 60 feet. Flying the plane was easy, but it would take months of training to properly take off or land. Turning or changing altitudes can be done by just about anybody.

As for the pilots who have crashed having problems controlling the aircaft, that is no surprise. That is why they crashed. They didn't try to crash, something went wrong in the aircraft causing them to lose control.

Think about it, if a pilot loses hydraulic pressure, he won't be able to control the plane and control where he crashes. If a pilot stalls, he won't have sufficient airflow over the control surfaces to guide the aircraft where he wants. So you can easily see here citing pilots who have crashed and then said they had trouble controlling where they were going isn't great evidence. IN fact it is crap and doesn't prove a thing.

As for high speed, that actually can make it easier. That is because you have good airflow over the control surfaces allowing the plane to do what you want it to do. The pilots did have difficulty in flying low BTW. THey clipped lightposts and the tops of trees.

Please respond to my above post on this matter. The plane that struck the Pentagon was going about 350-400 knots at time if impact. The plane in the picture I posted was going 150-160 knots when it crashed north of Touhy Ave in the North suburbs of Chi-town. It was a DC-10, which is even bigger than the 757 that struck the Pentagon. If you look at crash photos of similar planes that strke at 350-400 knots, you will see almost nothing left of the plane.
No need to get snotty about it. And from the grainy picture given, I see a lot of where the ground was messed up, and without looking at a better quality picture, or one that shows more of what looks to be the skid path, I can't really say much more. I ask you if you see a skid path outside the pentagon, then look at the height at which the hole was made. Hint: It starts about 2 feet off the ground.
As for the 2 theories. It's OK to have an open mind, but to throw out all science because you don't like the President makes you nothing more than an idiot and just as bad if not worse than the people who want to throw out the science of Evolution. I really wish I could throw out all of science to prove the President's theory correct, but it's not quite that simple. In any case, I don't really care whether or not I plane hit the Pentagon. What's done is done.

No need to get snotty about it. And from the grainy picture given, I see a lot of where the ground was messed up, and without looking at a better quality picture, or one that shows more of what looks to be the skid path, I can't really say much more. I ask you if you see a skid path outside the pentagon, then look at the height at which the hole was made. Hint: It starts about 2 feet off the ground.
I really wish I could throw out all of science to prove the President's theory correct, but it's not quite that simple. In any case, I don't really care whether or not I plane hit the Pentagon. What's done is done.

Of course the picture I showed had messed up ground. The plane hit the ground in the case of AA 191. As for the plane that hit the Pentagon, you won't have skid points if it never touched ground. The hole started low but above ground because that is where the plane was. If it hit ground, you would see that damage to the ground. I didn't post the picture for the ground. I posted it to show that a major plane crash will leave little debris because the forces involved will cause the airframe to desintigrate as it did at the Pentagon. You still haven't touched those points. The picture is grainy because this is coming out of a picture from the Tribune 27 years ago. We've all seen pictures of plane crashes so you you know damn well that planes can desintigrate on impact. If you say otherwise, you will not only be lying, but you will also be further implicating yourself as a moron.

Of course the picture I showed had messed up ground. The plane hit the ground in the case of AA 191. As for the plane that hit the Pentagon, you won't have skid points if it never touched ground. The hole started low but above ground because that is where the plane was. If it hit ground, you would see that damage to the ground. I didn't post the picture for the ground. I posted it to show that a major plane crash will leave little debris because the forces involved will cause the airframe to desintigrate as it did at the Pentagon. You still haven't touched those points. The picture is grainy because this is coming out of a picture from the Tribune 27 years ago. We've all seen pictures of plane crashes so you you know damn well that planes can desintigrate on impact. If you say otherwise, you will not only be lying, but you will also be further implicating yourself as a moron.
You know what? You're right. And you didn't even have to flame. Who knows if the pilots were indeed magical and could crash a plane into a building 2 feet of the ground without hitting it before? Perhaps they just got lucky and were able to pull it off and everything worked in their favor. Or perhaps it was indeed a missile. You can't be absolutely sure. But if you're just going to start flaming instead of opening your mind even a fraction of an inch, this discussion is over.

You know what? You're right. And you didn't even have to flame. Who knows if the pilots were indeed magical and could crash a plane into a building 2 feet of the ground without hitting it before? Perhaps they just got lucky and were able to pull it off and everything worked in their favor. Or perhaps it was indeed a missile. You can't be absolutely sure. But if you're just going to start flaming instead of opening your mind even a fraction of an inch, this discussion is over.
If you have any problems with my points (which you have been unable to debunk BTW) go check this link out. http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=6&c=y

This article cites Engineers from a real Engineering school, Purdue, where I am currently studying Engineering.

Oh and if it is a missle, then please explain to me what happened to the aircraft. I mean, a 757 can't just vanish. Until you can actually post some real evidence backed by science, please stop posting on this thread and wasting bandwith.

Oh and if it is a missle, then please explain to me what happened to the aircraft. I mean, a 757 can't just vanish. Until you can actually post some real evidence backed by science, please stop posting on this thread and wasting bandwith.
That's exactly why it would be a missile. No one found large amounts of wreckage, you yourself argued against that. I'm starting to question whether I'm supposted to be the moron here. Besides, can't you tell a concession when you see one, or are you really such a jackass you want to push it down more? Let me reiterate, I'm not arguing this completely, I'm not as stupid as you might think, hence why I have an open mind about the whole situation, and unlike Bush, I'm able to admit when I have been wrong.

You know what? You're right. And you didn't even have to flame. Who knows if the pilots were indeed magical and could crash a plane into a building 2 feet of the ground without hitting it before? Perhaps they just got lucky and were able to pull it off and everything worked in their favor. Or perhaps it was indeed a missile. You can't be absolutely sure. But if you're just going to start flaming instead of opening your mind even a fraction of an inch, this discussion is over.

Explain the lamp posts the UFO (because folks it was an object that was flying adn we are now debating it's identification. UFO doesn't mean aliens) knocked down. The movie said they weren't damaged enough so what happened? Did a bunch of men in black suits come out and take out the lamp posts and nobody saw them?

That's exactly why it would be a missile. No one found large amounts of wreckage, you yourself argued against that. I'm starting to question whether I'm supposted to be the moron here. Besides, can't you tell a concession when you see one, or are you really such a jackass you want to push it down more? Let me reiterate, I'm not arguing this completely, I'm not as stupid as you might think, hence why I have an open mind about the whole situation, and unlike Bush, I'm able to admit when I have been wrong.
Please reread my above posts or take a reading comprehension class (in addition to structural engineering and physics). You will see that in crashes with large objects, aircraft desintegrate leaving only small pieces of wreckage. If it's a missile, what the hell happened to AA's 757? You know, a 150+ foot aircraft doesn't just disappear in thin air. This is really sad if you take your hate of the President to such a level you throw out all science. It is just as bad as wacko supporters of his who throw out the science of Evolution because their religion says so. You are at the same level of those people.

That's exactly why it would be a missile. No one found large amounts of wreckage, you yourself argued against that. I'm starting to question whether I'm supposted to be the moron here. Besides, can't you tell a concession when you see one, or are you really such a jackass you want to push it down more? Let me reiterate, I'm not arguing this completely, I'm not as stupid as you might think, hence why I have an open mind about the whole situation, and unlike Bush, I'm able to admit when I have been wrong.
Did you even read the link? It explained the lack of reckage. The link was there for a reason.

Please reread my above posts or take a reading comprehension class (in addition to structural engineering and physics). You will see that in crashes with large objects, aircraft desintegrate leaving only small pieces of wreckage. If it's a missile, what the hell happened to AA's 757? You know, a 150+ foot aircraft doesn't just disappear in thin air. This is really sad if you take your hate of the President to such a level you throw out all science. It is just as bad as wacko supporters of his who throw out the science of Evolution because their religion says so. You are at the same level of those people.
My aren't we feeling rather smug.

Please reread my above posts or take a reading comprehension class (in addition to structural engineering and physics). You will see that in crashes with large objects, aircraft desintegrate leaving only small pieces of wreckage. If it's a missile, what the hell happened to AA's 757? You know, a 150+ foot aircraft doesn't just disappear in thin air. This is really sad if you take your hate of the President to such a level you throw out all science. It is just as bad as wacko supporters of his who throw out the science of Evolution because their religion says so. You are at the same level of those people.
You're an idiot. Why don't you read my posts? Give it up, I agree with you. That's the third time I've said that now in three seperate posts and you've failed to acknowledge both of the previous ones. Perhaps you'll actually read this one. (A military jet would shoot the missile hence the reason for no wreckage. That's almost the entire reasoning behind it.)

Did you even read the link? It explained the lack of reckage. The link was there for a reason.
I'm sorry, I have an idiot and a bunch of other stuff to deal with right now. In case you weren't aware, I was merely arguing the whole thing as a possibility, I'm not saying I beleive 100% that that's what happened.

I'm sorry, I have an idiot and a bunch of other stuff to deal with right now. In case you weren't aware, I was merely arguing the whole thing as a possibility, I'm not saying I beleive 100% that that's what happened.

Its what we call Achtungium Debatitise

Its what we call Achtungium Debatitise
lol, it's a disease now? Achtungium Debatitise: (n) The uncertainty of accepting a conspiracy theory. I like it! :D

lol, it's a disease now? I like it! :D

I thought you might :D

Its what I get when I debate a conspiracy theory with you. :D

I thought you might :D

Its what I get when I debate a conspiracy theory with you. :D
ah, lol

ah, lol

And considering it was a spur of the moment post with Achtungium Debatitis, It was pretty good :D

And considering it was a spur of the moment post with Achtungium Debatitis, It was pretty good :D
indeed it was!

I bet whoever believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories also believe in the Pearl Harbor, and Moon Landings, and anyone else that claims the US Government is evil and will kill it's own ctizens and troops just to get what it wants.

Besides, if I was the US government, and the theories were true, I would attack another country and blame terrorists. Besides, if we really wanted to invade Iraq for some other reason, we would just do that, the US has done that before.

I think my posts show one thing, the best way to disarm any crack pot conspiracy theory is science and the truth.

All you need to form a conspiracy theory is some really selective research. Thanks, but I'm not giving this asshole a thumbs up. Instead, I'll reserve this digit for him.

:upyours:

I haven’t finished watching it, but my God, it's irrefutable.

What about this (http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pm/), then?

I don't know what to think about this all. It's a tad hard to accept either side.

What about it? It doesn't seem terribly relevant to me. That "refutation" states that no serious 9/11 skeptic believes in most of the claims that Popular Mechanics debunks, yet virtually all of those claims are in the video originally posted.

I haven’t finished watching it, but my God, it's irrefutable.

Despite the fact that it has been refuted throughout this thread and other previous threads on this board....

Your statement is 100% false.

Despite the fact that it has been refuted throughout this thread and other previous threads on this board....

Your statement is 100% false.
Point me to one post that adequately refutes anything substantial, especially about the Pentagon attack. Why won’t they government release the confiscated footage. What are they so afraid of?

Point me to one post that adequately refutes anything substantial, especially about the Pentagon attack.

You can start with any post that cited the Popular Mechanics article.

Why won’t they government release the confiscated footage. What are they so afraid of?

Why would they release the footage? Is there any precedent at all for something like that?

Why would they release the footage? Is there any precedent at all for something like that?
They unclassify and reclassify things all the time.

They unclassify and reclassify things all the time.
Such as the JFK documents that supposedly say who killed him... :eek:

I bet whoever believes in 9/11 conspiracy theories also believe in the Pearl Harbor, and Moon Landings, and anyone else that claims the US Government is evil and will kill it's own ctizens and troops just to get what it wants.

Besides, if I was the US government, and the theories were true, I would attack another country and blame terrorists. Besides, if we really wanted to invade Iraq for some other reason, we would just do that, the US has done that before.

Iraq was not connected to 9/11....and no you can't launch a missile from that type of airplane.

They unclassify and reclassify things all the time.

When unclassified its public, and naturally you can't reclassify it.

Papers from 1945 were unclassified as late as the 1980's-1990's for the invasion of japan. Although useless post-war, what's the point of holding them? Who knows. Nothing was of 'importance' in them.

When unclassified its public, and naturally you can't reclassify it.

Papers from 1945 were unclassified as late as the 1980's-1990's for the invasion of japan. Although useless post-war, what's the point of holding them? Who knows. Nothing was of 'importance' in them.
A more accurate statement then: they extend the classification period, as in the case regarding the JFK papers, effectively reclassifying them.

A more accurate statement then: they extend the classification period, as in the case regarding the JFK papers, effectively reclassifying them.

How would you know the existance of such documents? The so-called, unsolvable conspiracy around JFK, is just heresay and rumors. It's easy to start a rumor that can never ever be proven. 9/11 will have the same to.

How would you know the existance of such documents? The so-called, unsolvable conspiracy around JFK, is just heresay and rumors. It's easy to start a rumor that can never ever be proven. 9/11 will have the same to.

The records will be kept at the National Archives. Some still must be processed before the public can inspect them. Remaining blacked-out sections on some records will come to light at different dates between now and 2017 when all redacted records will be fully disclosed, the board says. A selection of those records were supposed to be released after the death of a specific Kennedy, I can't remember which, obviously, that date has been extended? Why? So all the baby-boomers and people who might have remembered that even first hand will never see those documents.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9809/29/jfk.board/

Here's a looooooong list of already unclassified documents: http://www.nsa.gov/jfk/index.cfm

Some support what we're told and some raise further questions, either way, by such meticulous scrutiny they go through declassifying each and every document is a little interesting.

Such as the JFK documents that supposedly say who killed him... :eek:
Laugh all you want, but they recently just reclassified a shit load of documents, and didn’t tell anybody what they reclassified, because that would defeat the purpose.

What’s interesting is that the creators of this film are not afraid of this Popular Mechanicals article. They show it at the end. Contrast this with the government’s fear of the people seeing a few tapes.

Laugh all you want, but they recently just reclassified a shit load of documents, and didn’t tell anybody what they reclassified, because that would defeat the purpose.

What’s interesting is that the creators of this film are not afraid of this Popular Mechanicals article. They show it at the end. Contrast this with the government’s fear of the people seeing a few tapes.

Tapes that can be used in a trial actually. You do not want evidence leaked out to the general population. That'll contaminate the evidence and it'll be thrown out of court on those grounds.

Tapes that can be used in a trial actually. You do not want evidence leaked out to the general population. That'll contaminate the evidence and it'll be thrown out of court on those grounds.
You actually think anybody’s going to trial?
Sorry, but nine of the “hijackers” have been seen alive since 9/11.

By the way, I believe the government should fully disclose all information they have.

You actually think anybody’s going to trial?
Sorry, but nine of the “hijackers” have been seen alive since 9/11.

I would like to see proof of the last statement. As to your first, one has gone to trial in case you have not been following the news.

By the way, I believe the government should fully disclose all information they have.

I believe somethings should remain secret. Its bad for someone to show all of your cards then your opponets will have time to prepare and take advantage of it. Not to mention, in this case, reveal our intelligence net. That would not be to cool.

I would like to see proof of the last statement.
Watch the video.
As to your first, one has gone to trial in case you have not been following the news.

Please, the trial was a circus.
I believe somethings should remain secret. Its bad for someone to show all of your cards then your opponets will have time to prepare and take advantage of it. Not to mention, in this case, reveal our intelligence net. That would not be to cool.
We wouldn't need an intelligence net if we stopped playing the neo-imperialist game of world police. Besides, what opponents are you referring to, the people?

Watch the video.

Sorry, not wasting my time on a conspiracy that has already been debunked.

Please, the trial was a circus.

Actually it went quick since it was a guilty plea.

We wouldn't need an intelligence net if we stopped playing the neo-imperialist game of world police. Besides, what opponents are you referring to, the people?

I was actually referring to the Enemies of the United States. If you do not know who those are then you really are not up on politics. Actually, I already know you are not up on politics and can only hope that your playing the ignorant game online and you are not like this in real life.

I was actually referring to the Enemies of the United States.
But the neo-cons already have the information. Nobody is keeping it from them.:confused:
Sorry, not wasting my time on a conspiracy that has already been debunked.

It hasn't been debunked. As I said, they aren't afraid of some uber-patriots in some car magazine.

The bombing of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were also inside jobs! Big bad evil American aspirin companies needed to get rid of their Sudanese competition, and that's why Clinton bombed that Sudanese aspirin factory in response to the Kenya/Tanzania attacks. :rolleyes:

But the neo-cons already have the information. Nobody is keeping it from them.:confused:

:rolleyes:

It hasn't been debunked. As I said, they aren't afraid of some uber-patriots in some car magazine.

It has been thoroughly debunked. Both here in this thread and in many other threads on this very topic. Not my fault you can't understand what we're saying.

It has been thoroughly debunked. Both here in this thread and in many other threads on this very topic. Not my fault you can't understand what we're saying.
All anybody’s doing is using common consensus and saying it couldn’t have been that way because everybody who I listen to says it’s another way.

The fact that you all won’t even consider that your leaders could be vile evil human beings (unless they happen to be in the other political party with practically the same views) is disgusting to me.

We must always question our leaders. If Thomas Paine was alive today, he would be making videos like that. If Jefferson was alive today, he would be writing books like “In Plane Site,” in between banging black prostitutes of course. If Washington was alive today, he would be the head of an anti government militia group.

All anybody’s doing is using common consensus and saying it couldn’t have been that way because everybody who I listen to says it’s another way.

We are using common sense. Common Sense that says that this is thoroughly wrong and evidence was provided debunking everything that the OP of this thread has been saying.

The fact that you all won’t even consider that your leaders could be vile evil human beings (unless they happen to be in the other political party with practically the same views) is disgusting to me.

:rolleyes: Be disgusted all you like. Not my problem that the facts are trumping whatever BS you believe.

We must always question our leaders. If Thomas Paine was alive today, he would be making videos like that. If Jefferson was alive today, he would be writing books like “In Plane Site,” in between banging black prostitutes of course. If Washington was alive today, he would be the head of an anti government militia group.

Your right. We must question our leaders. And on election day, hold them to account if we are not satisfied with the job they are doing.

We are using common sense. Common Sense that says that this is thoroughly wrong and evidence was provided debunking everything that the OP of this thread has been saying.
Sorry, but common sense tells us that neo-imperialist talking points are bullshit.
We must question our leaders. And on election day, hold them to account if we are not satisfied with the job they are doing.
Popular consensus doesn't make something right.

Sorry, but common sense tells us that neo-imperialist talking points are bullshit.

Well believe what you want. I don't care. The rest of us who actually decided to take the time to look at the facts knows that the government had nothing to do with this at all.

Popular consensus doesn't make something right.

Be that as it may, it is the voters responsibility to know what their elected leaders are doing. I make sure I know what my Senators and congressman is voting on. If I do not like how they voted, I write to them. If I really do not like what they are doing, I'll vote against them in the next election.

Problem is Undelia is not thinking logically and has been sucked into the world of missiles on civilian planes with supposed blacked out windows. When anyone in the world would not be able to accurately say anything about the windows, if they were open or not or if they had people in them, when it is traveling in excess of 300 mph high above your head at various angles. Even the speed alone is akin to reading a small advertisement on a Nascar sports car as it zooms past infront of you from thousands of feet away, in the middle of a wreck!

To fire a missile from a plane is not exactly smart....espically at the less then twice then half the length of the airplane into a building. A missile wouldn't even be armed yet for safety reasons, if it would explode it'd destroy the plane. Even more unlikely would be the ability to fire a missile and NOT have an explosion of considerable size, or damage that would not be clearly seen.

Why? Why go to all the trouble of hijacking airplanes and launching missiles and whatever else the US Government supposedly did, when there are far easier ways to do this sort of thing? A few truck bombs would have been less trouble; if you really want to scare people, repeat it again the next week, and use that as evidence that unless an immediate military response is launched, the terrorists will continue their attacks.

So why engage in all these intricate conspiracies? What's the point?

And why haven't any of those in on the secret said anything? In regard to foreign policy the government can be very close-mouthed (though even that is sometimes undermined), but this sort of conspiracy necessitates a secrecy that is patently unrealistic, considering that allegedly this was a terrorist attack committed by the US government against its own people.

The US regularly engages in atrocities; in the few years since 9/11/01 it has engaged in ones far more egregious than that one. It's easy enough to point out its criminality without resorting to conspiracist nonsense.

how many people were in on watergate? 50? and that got out inside a few months

do you know how many people would have to be in on something this big?

Ya...that's another against the conspiracy theory. Oh and it was a large media event recorded by thousands and seen live around the world....hard to fake that huh?

Conspiracy theory or just plain fucking obvious?!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- most of it must be.

To be honest, I'm getting sick of hearing about the destruction of the World Trade Centre. Evil it was but I think it's time to just get over it and concentrate on the future and not ti discriminate against everyone we might have speculated may have done it. There have been more tragic incidents since and before that that haven't got the same attention. Same goes for the holocaust, please let it go and quit blaming individuals around today - it happens, I've seen it often!

The weird case, in Austria, of that historian fella being inprisoned for expressing his beliefs, which were contrary to what most of us believe to be the truth about the Nazi mass murders of Jews. We are sacrificing our freedoms of speech here, our right to have opinions that differ from the norm, irrespective of how ridiculous these opinions might be!

Point me to one post that adequately refutes anything substantial, especially about the Pentagon attack. Why won’t they government release the confiscated footage. What are they so afraid of?
Well there's the post by IDF that confirms that a plane hitting the pentagon at high speed wouldn't leave any large wreckage, meanwhile the conspiracy theorists claim that the wings or tail should have been present.

Schrandtopia']how many people were in on watergate? 50? and that got out inside a few months

do you know how many people would have to be in on something this big?

Exactly. Something this big and so widespread, something would have leaked out. A Federal agent with a bad conscience, or a construction worker who feels guilty at the deaths. Or a confession or a deathbed copnfession - something like that.

You actually think anybody’s going to trial?
Sorry, but nine of the “hijackers” have been seen alive since 9/11.

By the way, I believe the government should fully disclose all information they have.
Bullshit. The "evidence" for those people being alive is crap like someone using a fake passport with the dead terrorist's name on it.

All anybody’s doing is using common consensus and saying it couldn’t have been that way because everybody who I listen to says it’s another way.

The fact that you all won’t even consider that your leaders could be vile evil human beings (unless they happen to be in the other political party with practically the same views) is disgusting to me.

We must always question our leaders. If Thomas Paine was alive today, he would be making videos like that. If Jefferson was alive today, he would be writing books like “In Plane Site,” in between banging black prostitutes of course. If Washington was alive today, he would be the head of an anti government militia group.
Actually if you would bother to read the posts on the previous bullshit 9/11 conspiracy thread, a link to which can be found within this thread, you'll find that we're using physics, not common consensus.

Actually if you would bother to read the posts on the previous bullshit 9/11 conspiracy thread, a link to which can be found within this thread, you'll find that we're using physics, not common consensus.

Numbers do not lie. :D

This is an animated .gif made from a video released (confirm?) by the DoD of the pentagon crash.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentanimorig.gif

Conspiracists claim that because one can't see a Boeing in it, it must have been a missile or a smaller plane.


(And that therefore all 9/11 was a hoax perpetuated by the masonic Jewish international cabal of bankers and governments.)

This is an animated .gif made from a video released (confirm?) by the DoD of the pentagon crash.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentanimorig.gif

Conspiracists claim that because one can't see a Boeing in it, it must have been a missile or a smaller plane.


(And that therefore all 9/11 was a hoax perpetuated by the masonic Jewish international cabal of bankers and governments.)
They conveniently ignore the fact that the frames are one full second apart. A plane traveling at some 500 miles per hour moves something like 733 and a third feet in one second. The ammount of space in that frame that the plane would have passed through would be less than 200 feet in my estimation. The plane would cover that in less than a third of a second. Are conspiracy theorists just bad at math?

This is an animated .gif made from a video released (confirm?) by the DoD of the pentagon crash.

http://0911.site.voila.fr/pentanimorig.gif

Conspiracists claim that because one can't see a Boeing in it, it must have been a missile or a smaller plane.


(And that therefore all 9/11 was a hoax perpetuated by the masonic Jewish international cabal of bankers and governments.)

Hmmm...looks like the front end of a jumbo jet, sans engines and tail, as well as wings. Seems legit.

Incorrect it goes from 19 to 21 for the frames...

Meaning 3 seconds possible. The proof is in the picture, the shock from it is seen in the camera when a missile would not produce the same effect from such close distance. The apparent fact that its edited and spliced is proof against it in the first place.

They conveniently ignore the fact that the frames are one full second apart. A plane traveling at some 500 miles per hour moves something like 733 and a third feet in one second. The ammount of space in that frame that the plane would have passed through would be less than 200 feet in my estimation. The plane would cover that in less than a third of a second. Are conspiracy theorists just bad at math?

I'm sorry, but math is an invention of the Jewish cabal that secretly mind-controls our nation's leaders, businesses, media, religion and children and as such, I completely reject your well-reasoned response.

IT WUZ A MISSUL11!!

Hmmm...looks like the front end of a jumbo jet, sans engines and tail, as well as wings. Seems legit.

And look at the little bits of debris flying away from the building. No ordinary explosion would have that small bits of debris launching like that. Also, no fake explosion can have a fireball that massive. Notice the coloring on the explosion? That's most definitely jet fuel exploding.

Schrandtopia']how many people were in on watergate? 50? and that got out inside a few months

do you know how many people would have to be in on something this big?

We are supposed to believe that 19 evil Muslims planned 9/11 in a cave!

We are supposed to believe that 19 evil Muslims planned 9/11 in a cave!

That's far easier and much more sensible than an entire government operation thaty would have involved thousands of people. 19 hijackers and maybe thirty, fourty other people would have been involved in the hijacking - not so many, and many wouldn't have known everything that was going on - compartmentalisation and such.

We are supposed to believe that 19 evil Muslims planned 9/11 in a cave!

Actually, this is also inaccurate.

donald rumsfield created osama ben lauden and sadam husain. i don't mean fathered them physicly of course. or made them up. but bankrolled and facilitated their movements and rise to power. and misled and entraped them into the actions they are dispised in corporate media for.

much of this proccess, going back to the raygun era and before, is a matter of public record.

labeling a sequence of events a conspiracy to discredit the likielyhood of its haveing happened makes no more sense then the most rube goldberg of conspiracies themselves.

there is simply too much blatant, in everyone's face, in front of god and everybody, all but defacto, not just admissions, but outright bragging about it, on the part of pseudoconservatism, for it to deny its having usurped the american govenment or used the events in question as an excuse for doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

donald rumsfield created osama ben lauden and sadam husain. i don't mean fathered them physicly of course. or made them up. but bankrolled and facilitated their movements and rise to power. and misled and entraped them into the actions they are dispised in corporate media for.

much of this proccess, going back to the raygun era and before, is a matter of public record.

labeling a sequence of events a conspiracy to discredit the likielyhood of its haveing happened makes no more sense then the most rube goldberg of conspiracies themselves.

there is simply too much blatant, in everyone's face, in front of god and everybody, all but defacto, not just admissions, but outright bragging about it, on the part of pseudoconservatism, for it to deny its having usurped the american govenment or used the events in question as an excuse for doing so.

=^^=
.../\...


It took me several minutes to translate what the hell you just said. Before I start laying into it, could you explain if you're joking or not?

donald rumsfield created osama ben lauden and sadam husain. i don't mean fathered them physicly of course. or made them up. but bankrolled and facilitated their movements and rise to power. and misled and entraped them into the actions they are dispised in corporate media for.

much of this proccess, going back to the raygun era and before, is a matter of public record.

labeling a sequence of events a conspiracy to discredit the likielyhood of its haveing happened makes no more sense then the most rube goldberg of conspiracies themselves.

there is simply too much blatant, in everyone's face, in front of god and everybody, all but defacto, not just admissions, but outright bragging about it, on the part of pseudoconservatism, for it to deny its having usurped the american govenment or used the events in question as an excuse for doing so.

=^^=
.../\...

I couldn't have said it better myself! (honestly)

http://www.physics911.net/ (http://www.physics911.net/)

I couldn't have said it better myself! (honestly)

http://www.physics911.net/ (http://www.physics911.net/)

I see someone here as a learning disability because we have already debunked all of your arguements to date.

I see someone here as a learning disability because we have already debunked all of your arguements to date.

No, you haven't explained how a big aeroplane with a high tail and wide wings completely disappeared into a small hole (surrounded by intact windows), completely vapourising, and yet still managing to punch through 3 layers of the pentagon with no plane pieces on the other/either side or damage to the lawn. The US Government have released 5 frames which only adds to the mystery and yet are in possession of video footage which they refuse to release. They could easily answer these questions that refuse to go away if they had nothing to conceal by releasing this footage.

Plane hits Pentagon? (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main)

No, you haven't explained how a big aeroplane with a high tail and wide wings completely disappeared into a small hole (surrounded by intact windows), completely vapourising, and yet still managing to punch through 3 layers of the pentagon with no plane pieces on the other/either side or damage to the lawn. The US Government have released 5 frames which only adds to the mystery and yet are in possession of video footage which they refuse to release. They could easily answer these questions that refuse to go away if they had nothing to conceal by releasing this footage.

Plane hits Pentagon? (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main)

You silly person! Obviously the explanation is too obvious to be dignified with the obvious answer. Consider yourself flamed.

Conspiracy theory or just plain fucking obvious?!

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8260059923762628848&q=loose

Turn the volume up and watch this film folks before you reply and send the link to your to your friends. You might not believe all of it, but if any of it is true- most of it must be.

interesting stuff - some of its a bit far fetched and convoluted but the flight 93/pentagon attack stuff is pretty convincing as are the comparisons with other high rise disasters that didn't result in complete collapse, especially that smaller wtc building, theres no way that hould have come down.

No, you haven't explained how a big aeroplane with a high tail and wide wings completely disappeared into a small hole (surrounded by intact windows), completely vapourising, and yet still managing to punch through 3 layers of the pentagon with no plane pieces on the other/either side or damage to the lawn.

Your right. I didn't. Someone else already did that. Why don't you actually try reading other people's posts and you might actually learn that this has been thoroughly discredited.

The US Government have released 5 frames which only adds to the mystery and yet are in possession of video footage which they refuse to release. They could easily answer these questions that refuse to go away if they had nothing to conceal by releasing this footage.

Plane hits Pentagon? (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main)

Go back and read the parts that have thoroughly discredit you before you make yourself look more like a fool than you already have.

interesting stuff - some of its a bit far fetched and convoluted but the flight 93/pentagon attack stuff is pretty convincing as are the comparisons with other high rise disasters that didn't result in complete collapse, especially that smaller wtc building, theres no way that hould have come down.

:rolleyes:

Is it just me or don't people know how to read?

:rolleyes:

Is it just me or don't people know how to read?
It's because the conspiracy loons keep posting the same error-riddled "evidence" and people just arriving on the thread don't bother to read through the whole damn thing, so they don't see the conspiracy taken apart and destroyed by the actual evidence.

No, you haven't explained how a big aeroplane with a high tail and wide wings completely disappeared into a small hole (surrounded by intact windows), completely vapourising, and yet still managing to punch through 3 layers of the pentagon with no plane pieces on the other/either side or damage to the lawn. The US Government have released 5 frames which only adds to the mystery and yet are in possession of video footage which they refuse to release. They could easily answer these questions that refuse to go away if they had nothing to conceal by releasing this footage.

Plane hits Pentagon? (http://www.freedomunderground.org/memoryhole/pentagon.php#Main)
IDF did. He posted a photo of another crash site as evidence. A plane isn't built to survive impact. It's built to be light. The aluminum wings and tail don't survive high-speed impact with steel reinforced concrete in one piece. They break up into very small pieces. Only the engines, the densest and most solid part of the plane, continue through the pentagon.

I know you've read the evidence that proves you wrong. I guess you just chose to ignore it and stick to your argument. That makes you a lying SOB.

It's because the conspiracy loons keep posting the same error-riddled "evidence" and people just arriving on the thread don't bother to read through the whole damn thing, so they don't see the conspiracy taken apart and destroyed by the actual evidence.

Its depressing that we have that many gullible people running around loose with a computer.

Its depressing that we have that many gullible people running around loose with a computer.
Don't worry. They're being watched.

IDF did. He posted a photo of another crash site as evidence. A plane isn't built to survive impact. It's built to be light. The aluminum wings and tail don't survive high-speed impact with steel reinforced concrete in one piece. They break up into very small pieces. Only the engines, the densest and most solid part of the plane, continue through the pentagon.

I know you've read the evidence that proves you wrong. I guess you just chose to ignore it and stick to your argument. That makes you a lying SOB.

Thanks for that! Unfortunately the engines didn't make any holes, and if one of them made that neat circular exit hole 3 sections in, how come that didn't survive intact?

Also, I struggle to believe the popular theory that the alleged 757's wings folded back like an umbrella without hitting the walls- especially as whatever did strike the building did so at an angle.

That other crash site photo is shot from very high up and fails to show the entire scene.

Thanks for that! Unfortunately the engines didn't make any holes, and if one of them made that neat circular exit hole 3 sections in, how come that didn't survive intact?

uh probably because the engines exploded perhaps? *shrugs*

Also, I struggle to believe the popular theory that the alleged 757's wings folded back like an umbrella without hitting the walls- especially as whatever did strike the building did so at an angle.

You do know that there are stresses on an airplane right? Go to fast.....

That other crash site photo is shot from very high up and fails to show the entire scene.

Go back and actually look at the evidence. It destroys everything you have said.

Its depressing that we have that many gullible people running around loose with a computer.
Now I know why pop-up ads and spam email are so common. Gullible people with computers click on them.

Thanks for that! Unfortunately the engines didn't make any holes, and if one of them made that neat circular exit hole 3 sections in, how come that didn't survive intact?

Also, I struggle to believe the popular theory that the alleged 757's wings folded back like an umbrella without hitting the walls- especially as whatever did strike the building did so at an angle.

That other crash site photo is shot from very high up and fails to show the entire scene.
Bullets dont' survive intact when they hit their targets. They deform and fragment. That doesn't mean that they don't penetrate. Imagine an engine punching through a few concrete walls at high speed. As it's penetrating it's falling apart as well.

Who claims that the wings folded back without hitting the walls? Got a link or are you lying again?

Bullshit. You can't have it both ways. If it was taken from an altitude where wings and tail of the aircraft wouldn't have been visible it would have to take in the whole crash scene unless the wreckage were strewn over a huge area, like the size of a state.

IT actually makes sense. We've all seen video of the remains of other airline crashes. In those crashes, you can't see any major parts of the aircraft in most cases. The airplane is made of aluminum. It basically evaporates in the crash.

If you want an example, this is AA Flight 191. It crashed right after take off from O'Hare. It was going at less than 160 knots. This is between 1/3 and 1/2 the speed of the plane that struck the Pentagon. You see very little evidence of an airplane. In face, this looks much like the Pentagon crash site if the Pentagon weren't present. All you see left of the plane are tiny bits of shredded alumninum.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/83/AA191-crash-site.png



This was I.D.F.'s debunk saying that plane crashes regularly leave no debris! His example was to use the dodgy aerial shot (above) of Flight 191's crash site as proof in which motor cars look like ants.

I much prefer a closer photo of the very same scene!

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/3.shtml (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/3.shtml)

This was I.D.F.'s debunk saying that plane crashes regularly leave no debris! His example was to use the dodgy aerial shot (above) of Flight 191's crash site as proof in which motor cars look like ants.

I much prefer a closer photo of the very same scene!

http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/3.shtml (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/3.shtml)
Motorcars look like ants? I can clearly see details of the cars. I can see four door cars and two door models, for example. I can also see that there is debris, but it's small fragments. Also an airplane wing, or even a fragment the size of a car would be visible, if the wings hadn't shredded. Same goes for an airplane tail section. Those are mighty large objects. Maybe you need glasses. Or maybe you're just a damn dirty liar. After all, you say IDF claimed that airplane crashes regularly leave no debris. He didn't say that. He said that the pieces are normally small, not large chunks of wing and tail.

I'm sorry, I've not been really following this thread, but are some people really claiming the Pentagon crash didn't happen?

If you want to play games with a conspiracy theory, do it with an example where innocent people didn't give their lives simply for being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Besides, there is conclusive proof for the crash. Look at Bush's face when he's told about it. Do you really think he's that good an actor? :p

This was I.D.F.'s debunk saying that plane crashes regularly leave no debris! His example was to use the dodgy aerial shot (above) of Flight 191's crash site as proof in which motor cars look like ants.

Excuse me but I can see the motor cars very clearly. can't read the license plates but they sure as hell do not look like ants. And how is it dodgy?

Its depressing that we have that many gullible people running around loose with a computer.
what is even scarier is that these dumbasses cancel out your vote.

I'm reposting my main refutation post here because people who haven't bothered to read the thread are spewing the same shit.

---------------------------------

OK, this BYU professor and any of the posters here buying the trash are idiots. Let me explain this in simple terms. I may not have a degree yet, but I am an engineering student at Purdue University so I do have some knowledge of Physics.

The WTC towers weren't constructed like normal skyscapers. Most buildings have your regular skeletal structure. That is why skyscrapers often have poles in the middle of the floors. The World Trade Center was built differently. The building's architect wanted an open floor plan that removed these ugly poles.

The answer was to build the most important load bearing poles into the exterior wall. This explains the thick lines of steel and the small windows on the building's exterior. The building's exterior acted as an exoskeleton for the whole building. There were some support poles inside the structure. These were placed on the interior of the building by the stairwells and elevators.

WHen the planes hit the WTC, they penetrated the exterior wall that held much of the load bearing steel. The first plane took out almost all of the supports on the side it hit. It also took out all of the supports in the center of the building and some on the side opposite of where it hit. Other support structures were damaged by the impact. The force of the impact and the explosion of the jet fuel created a pressure wave that blew the flame retardent coating that covered support beams off of the steel. This left the undamaged steel columns were leftunprotected.

The damage to the South Tower was even worse. 2 sides had almost all of their supports out in addition to the center supports. The damage to both buildings where the major load steel supports were taken out turned the surviving parts of the building into an arch structure. The building would've been able to survive this had it not been for the fire.

Steel melts are temperatures that weren't reached by the fire. But, at 800 degrees, steel loses it's strength. The fire burned between 1200 and 1500 degrees. At these temperatures steel sags and loses its strength. With the building structurally weakened, the columns could no longer support the weight on them and the floors pancaked down on eachother.

As for number 7, it got struck with many large chunks of debris and also burned. It should also be mentioned that when the towers fell, they caused a shockwave at the level of a 2.1 magnitude quake. Now imagine some of the burning chunks strong enough to do that striking a building. The building also had 42000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in it as a part of a diesel generator system. The fires were likely fueled by this.

As for the theory of controlled demolitions. Any one who has seen the process for that would know it takes months of preparation and there is no way that anyone could place the explosives there without anyone noticing. There would be miles of wires criss crossing the building that would be in plane view or wouldn't be able to escape detection by maintenance personnel.

I'm reposting my main refutation post here because people who haven't bothered to read the thread are spewing the same shit.

---------------------------------

OK, this BYU professor and any of the posters here buying the trash are idiots. Let me explain this in simple terms. I may not have a degree yet, but I am an engineering student at Purdue University so I do have some knowledge of Physics.

The WTC towers weren't constructed like normal skyscapers. Most buildings have your regular skeletal structure. That is why skyscrapers often have poles in the middle of the floors. The World Trade Center was built differently. The building's architect wanted an open floor plan that removed these ugly poles.

The answer was to build the most important load bearing poles into the exterior wall. This explains the thick lines of steel and the small windows on the building's exterior. The building's exterior acted as an exoskeleton for the whole building. There were some support poles inside the structure. These were placed on the interior of the building by the stairwells and elevators.

WHen the planes hit the WTC, they penetrated the exterior wall that held much of the load bearing steel. The first plane took out almost all of the supports on the side it hit. It also took out all of the supports in the center of the building and some on the side opposite of where it hit. Other support structures were damaged by the impact. The force of the impact and the explosion of the jet fuel created a pressure wave that blew the flame retardent coating that covered support beams off of the steel. This left the undamaged steel columns were leftunprotected.

The damage to the South Tower was even worse. 2 sides had almost all of their supports out in addition to the center supports. The damage to both buildings where the major load steel supports were taken out turned the surviving parts of the building into an arch structure. The building would've been able to survive this had it not been for the fire.

Steel melts are temperatures that weren't reached by the fire. But, at 800 degrees, steel loses it's strength. The fire burned between 1200 and 1500 degrees. At these temperatures steel sags and loses its strength. With the building structurally weakened, the columns could no longer support the weight on them and the floors pancaked down on eachother.

As for number 7, it got struck with many large chunks of debris and also burned. It should also be mentioned that when the towers fell, they caused a shockwave at the level of a 2.1 magnitude quake. Now imagine some of the burning chunks strong enough to do that striking a building. The building also had 42000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in it as a part of a diesel generator system. The fires were likely fueled by this.

As for the theory of controlled demolitions. Any one who has seen the process for that would know it takes months of preparation and there is no way that anyone could place the explosives there without anyone noticing. There would be miles of wires criss crossing the building that would be in plane view or wouldn't be able to escape detection by maintenance personnel.

Those builings were designed to withstand being hit by planes, partly thanks to lessons learnt when the Empire State Building was hit by one (it subsequently burned for several hours without falling down)

Also- the main support for the WTC towers was NOT around the exterior, but on the 47 solid strengthened steel columns in the central core. The 2nd plane to hit only struck the corner of the tower with the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside of the building. This plane could not have compromised the central columns and yet this building collapsed first!

Also, your explanation does not account for the collapse of WTC7- which I must remind people also collapsed perfectly down at freefall speed without being struck by a plane! What was the reason for that again? Oh yes- diesel fuel tanks in the building! A must for any skyscraper! Fuel tanks that can collapse a building in the event of a fire! Nice design.

Oh and by the way- Do not use photos of crash scenes with no debris to explain the strange lack of debris at the pentagon- when the crash scene you use as an example DID have debris.
A different photo of your example crash scene of Flight 191shows that there was plenty of debris:

Debunks your earlier photo showing a crash with no debris (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/3.shtml)

Are you just debunking for the sake of it or should I be worrying about your motives?

I'm reposting my main refutation post here because people who haven't bothered to read the thread are spewing the same shit.

---------------------------------

OK, this BYU professor and any of the posters here buying the trash are idiots. Let me explain this in simple terms. I may not have a degree yet, but I am an engineering student at Purdue University so I do have some knowledge of Physics.

The WTC towers weren't constructed like normal skyscapers. Most buildings have your regular skeletal structure. That is why skyscrapers often have poles in the middle of the floors. The World Trade Center was built differently. The building's architect wanted an open floor plan that removed these ugly poles.

The answer was to build the most important load bearing poles into the exterior wall. This explains the thick lines of steel and the small windows on the building's exterior. The building's exterior acted as an exoskeleton for the whole building. There were some support poles inside the structure. These were placed on the interior of the building by the stairwells and elevators.

WHen the planes hit the WTC, they penetrated the exterior wall that held much of the load bearing steel. The first plane took out almost all of the supports on the side it hit. It also took out all of the supports in the center of the building and some on the side opposite of where it hit. Other support structures were damaged by the impact. The force of the impact and the explosion of the jet fuel created a pressure wave that blew the flame retardent coating that covered support beams off of the steel. This left the undamaged steel columns were leftunprotected.

The damage to the South Tower was even worse. 2 sides had almost all of their supports out in addition to the center supports. The damage to both buildings where the major load steel supports were taken out turned the surviving parts of the building into an arch structure. The building would've been able to survive this had it not been for the fire.

Steel melts are temperatures that weren't reached by the fire. But, at 800 degrees, steel loses it's strength. The fire burned between 1200 and 1500 degrees. At these temperatures steel sags and loses its strength. With the building structurally weakened, the columns could no longer support the weight on them and the floors pancaked down on eachother.

As for number 7, it got struck with many large chunks of debris and also burned. It should also be mentioned that when the towers fell, they caused a shockwave at the level of a 2.1 magnitude quake. Now imagine some of the burning chunks strong enough to do that striking a building. The building also had 42000 gallons of diesel fuel stored in it as a part of a diesel generator system. The fires were likely fueled by this.

As for the theory of controlled demolitions. Any one who has seen the process for that would know it takes months of preparation and there is no way that anyone could place the explosives there without anyone noticing. There would be miles of wires criss crossing the building that would be in plane view or wouldn't be able to escape detection by maintenance personnel.[/

Those builings were designed to withstand being hit by planes, partly thanks to lessons learnt when the Empire State Building was hit by one (it subsequently burned for several hours without falling down)

Also- the main support for the WTC towers was NOT around the exterior, but on the 47 solid strengthened steel columns in the central core. The 2nd plane to hit only struck the corner of the tower with the majority of the jet fuel exploding outside of the building. This plane could not have compromised the central columns and yet this building collapsed first!

Also, your explanation does not account for the collapse of WTC7- which I must remind people also collapsed perfectly down at freefall speed without being struck by a plane! What was the reason for that again? Oh yes- diesel fuel tanks in the building! A must for any skyscraper! Fuel tanks that can collapse a building in the event of a fire! Nice design.

Oh and by the way- Do not use photos of crash scenes with no debris to explain the strange lack of debris at the pentagon- when the crash scene you use as an example DID have debris.
A different photo of your example crash scene of Flight 191shows that there was plenty of debris:

Debunks your earlier photo showing a crash with no debris (http://www.airdisaster.com/photos/aa191/3.shtml)

Are you just debunking for the sake of it or should I be worrying about your motives?
Those buildings DIDwithstand being hit by planes. What they couldn't withstand was the long term exposure of steel support structures to high temperature after the insulation was knocked off of them by the impact.

If you had bothered to read the evidence presented in the other thread I linked to you'd already know that. But then you probably did and you're spreading your lies for some stupid reason.

You're wrong on the structure of the WTC. It was a new type of skyscraper construction in which the sides were important load-bearing structures.

Once again, if you had bothered to read the thread I linked to earlier you wouldn't look like such an ignorant liar.

None of the buildings collapse at free-fall speed. In fact you can see debris falling faster than the building is collapsing.

This too was dealt with in the earlier thread.

Quit shoveling this bullshit onto my forum. It only makes you look stupid and dishonest.

Interesting...

So that plane flying into the corner of the tower 'knocked of the insulation' from the thick steel support columns all the way round enabling those briefly burning fires to melt/weaken the steel in under 1 hour causing them to remain molten for over 3 weeks after- right. Next you'll be saying that diesel fuel fires collapsed WTC7!

What do you mean by 'my forum'? Ooops man- if you own this forum I apologise and will post government-friendly opinions from now on.

So that plane flying into the corner of the tower 'knocked of the insulation' from the thick steel support columns all the way round enabling those briefly burning fires to melt/weaken the steel in under 1 hour causing them to remain molten for over 3 weeks after- right. Next you'll be saying that diesel fuel fires collapsed WTC7!

What do you mean by 'my forum'? Ooops man- if you own this forum I apologise and will post government-friendly opinions from now on.

:rolleyes:

Why don't you try debunking the evidence? Oh wait, I forgot that you can't. We already proven this conspiracy false but yet you continue to insist that it is accurate. I do not know wether to pity you or question where you are getting your news from.

Wow...I saw the whole thing. Amazing. If these facts are true...this man is a genius. I always saw Bush as using 9/11 for power. Never considered it might be intentional.

Wow...I saw the whole thing. Amazing. If these facts are true...this man is a genius. I always saw Bush as using 9/11 for power. Never considered it might be intentional.

Then I guess you looked over the evidence that debunks this whole conspiracy?

Then I guess you looked over the evidence that debunks this whole conspiracy?
No. Didn't read the whole thread. What page is it on?

No. Didn't read the whole thread. What page is it on?

All throughout the thread.

No. Didn't read the whole thread. What page is it on?
1-6 (40/page). Even I doubt that Bush had any part in it.

1-6 (40/page). Even I doubt that Bush had any part in it.

And if Achtung doesn't think he had anything to do with it, he didn't have anything to do with it...

I think Achtung's probably right- Bush is a puppet.

I think Achtung's probably right- Bush is a puppet.

Now once again, I'm going to have to ask for proof.

I think you're probably right- he's just a puppet.

Yay! Conspiracy theory time! So, is Bush a puppet of:

A: The Jews
B: The Illuminati
C: PNAC
D: Generic Neo-Conservatives
E: Space Lizards dressed as Queen Elizabeth and Bush himself
F: All of the above!

First to buzz in wins!

And if Achtung doesn't think he had anything to do with it, he didn't have anything to do with it...
You got that right ;)

Yay! Conspiracy theory time! So, is Bush a puppet of:

A: The Jews
B: The Illuminati
C: PNAC
D: Generic Neo-Conservatives
E: Space Lizards dressed as Queen Elizabeth and Bush himself
F: All of the above!

First to buzz in wins!
You forgot the Neo-Communist Soviet Intelligence Forces.

I think Achtung's probably right- Bush is a puppet.
Bush is most definately a puppet, but lemme rephrase my comment then: I don't think the Bush Administration had anything to do with it.

Proof of what?

That Bush didn't have anything to do with it?

I thought you agreed at least on that.

Anyway- I said probably. Which means I doubt that he did. Do I have to prove that I doubt something??