NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
What do you think?

It's a conspiracy theory, therefore no.

The number of conspiracy theories that have been correct: well, I can count them on the fingers of one head.

I don't agree with the response to the attacks, I don't think that we got the whole story, I think there is more to what went on. I do not think it was faked.

-_-


Was the crash a cover-up?
Cover-up for what?

Unless they hit a clerk carrying a bunch of classified papers, how does an explosion cover anything up?

That video had cool music and the colors were aesthetically pleasing.

This is the first time I've heard anyone claim it was a 757.

No. And your poll fails.

It's a conspiracy theory, therefore no.

The number of conspiracy theories that have been correct: well, I can count them on the fingers of one head.

LOL!

Oh, and good to see you back.

Was the 9/11 Pentagon crash a government cover-up?

No.

This has been another round of "Simple answers to stupid questions". Tune in next time, when we tackle such difficult questions as "is water wet?"

Was the 9/11 Pentagon crash a government cover-up?

No.

This has been another round of "Simple answers to stupid questions". Tune in next time, when we tackle such difficult questions as "is water wet?"

/thread.

No more to see here, move along, nothing to see, keep it moving, just another 9/11 thread.

No. And your poll fails.



LOL!

Oh, and good to see you back.

Thanks. Good to see you again. :)

-_-


Was the crash a cover-up?
Cover-up for what?

Unless they hit a clerk carrying a bunch of classified papers, how does an explosion cover anything up?

gotta go with this one

so..... we took the opportunity to hit our OWN military headquarters in the confusion following the 2 planes hitting the WTC and one ending in a field in pa? (i dont remember if the pentagon was hit before or after the one hit the ground in pa)

why would we do that?

and no, it wasnt a missle

Further proof that 1/4 people are retarded. I mean how could a bunch of really really pissed off people that believe that if they die in service to their religion they are heros and have been raised from birth to believe it possibly carry out a simple attack in all you have to do is crash a plan into a building.

Rouge clowns?
Was that intentional? :p

Well is it wet??? Dammit man, I must know now! ;)The answer is so surprising it will knock you out of your shoes: Yes AND no!

And what's even more stunning, which of the two possibilities is correct is influenced by such trivial things as temperature (Gosh!) and pressure (say it ain't so!).

;)

Was the 9/11 Pentagon crash a government cover-up?

No.

This has been another round of "Simple answers to stupid questions". Tune in next time, when we tackle such difficult questions as "is water wet?"

Well is it wet??? Dammit man, I must know now! ;)

Rouge clowns?
Was that intentional? :p

I wondered that too! :p

Well is it wet??? Dammit man, I must know now!
From a strictly scientific definition, not particularly.

The problem here is that everyone focuses on the wrong clues.

You'll note that E Wing had been under renovation for 2 years prior to the crash so here's what really happened.

In buying the paint for the renovated wing, the Pentagon bought Alabama Red, thinking it would highlight their macho culture. Of course, paint on the tin looks nothing like it does on the actual wall, especially when you have white primer underneath.

On the wall, the colour was closer to Horrendously Gay Pink and this freaked the Pentagon out because, being military men, they're of a Republican nature so they're clearly all closet homosexuals. So, being totally paranoid about being outed, they worried that the choice of what seemed to be Horrendously Gay Pink would be taken as evidence of their true sexual persuasion.

Of course, they couldn't really ask for a complete repaint, they couldn't even pretend to notice because that would mean they saw it was Horrendously Gay Pink, which would lay whichever individual who raised the point open to accusations that he himself was gay, which he would be, everyone in the Pentagon is, Secret Service takes on a far deeper meaning here.

How lucky it was that on the morning of September 11th, two planes crashed into the WTC. Quickly the decision was taken to fire a missile into E Wing, therefore necessitating a complete new renovation and therefore the ability to repaint the wing. They could then say it was a plane - 'oh well, what can we do, tragic, now let's get to repainting the E Wing'.

There's your smoking gun, there's your reason and that's why it was a cover-up - 'cover up' alludes to far more than you think.

Wow, our first prophet.

Truther/Holocaust denier, it's all the same monster.

Well is it wet??? Dammit man, I must know now! ;)

I'm sorry, we're not allowed to give out answers before the show airs.

Either way, the humor is found in America leaving itself vulnerable to attack, whether it be by itself or otherwise.

The answer is so surprising it will knock you out of your shoes: Yes AND no!

And what's even more stunning, which of the two possibilities is correct is influenced by such trivial things as temperature (Gosh!) and pressure (say it ain't so!).

;)

From a strictly scientific definition, not particularly.

I'm sorry, we're not allowed to give out answers before the show airs.

So there's a conspiracy & cover-up about water too. :eek:

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
What do you think?

NTSA!! :headbang:

NO!!!!

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
What do you think?

I think if the government had the audacity to order the military to send a cruise missile into their own command center, they would definitely have the audacity to eliminate that film and send the producer to Gitmo.


I did like how they put a speech by Hitler in the first few seconds of the film. Completely irrelevant to anything.

I think if the government had the audacity to order the military to send a cruise missile into their own command center, they would definitely have the audacity to eliminate that film and send the producer to Gitmo.


I did like how they put a speech by Hitler in the first few seconds of the film. Completely irrelevant to anything.

QFT

most of the time....
associating who you are against with Nazism = automatic "good-guy" status for you

Okay, since there has been no serious answers, I feel obliged to be the first one. First of all, we should look at the evidence.

Usama Bin laden and al-qaeda clearly exists, and they clearly hate the USA. So the attacks on 9/11 may very well have been commited by al-qaeda. Furthermore, much points to the existence of a widespred taliban network, which makes the logistics and resources required to perform a 9/11 strike possible.

Since there (to my knowledge, I might be wrong) isn't proved and agreed upon exactly who (al-qaida or US gov) hit the pentagon and wtc, we have to turn to other sources to explain 9/11's mysteries that has caused so many conspiracy theories to arise, most of them silly but some of them plausible.

I choose to analyse the controversy around the wtc in an attempt to understand the pentagon crash, clearly these three attacks had a connection. We can all agree that two planes hit the WTC (or thousands of new yorkers were temporarily insane) but what is the problem then? Why the towers fell.

In short words, the main arguments for WTC being rigged is that the heat created from the plane impacts would not even be close to what is required to melt steel. Since the WTC had an extremely stable core made of a web of steel, it would be highly unlikely for it to collapse in such a way that it did, namely falling straight down and collapsing in on itself. The steel web would have survived this without any problems.

The second argument is that a series of explosions was heard, and also seen, as the tower collapsed. Either the falling mass hit something explosive, or the tower was rigged with explosives, a series of controlled demolitions to ensure that it falls after the attack.

This would indicate that the wtc attacks were prepared beforehand. Again, al-qaeda may have had the manpower to pull this off, but Usama has never admitted to these placed demolitions, just that they drove airplanes into the wtc, so it might as well has been the US gov if demolitions really were in place on wtc.

Either Usama isn't telling us the whole story because he is smart enough to see that the US government would be suspected due to the evidence of a prepared attack, and thus bush will lose faith from the public.

OR the US gov did prepare the demolitions, was somehow involved in the attacks (in co-op with al qaeda?) and then FEMA did a bad job in covering it up. They would certainly have the motives and the means necessary. Without 9/11, the fascism/big brother surveillance boom would never have been accepted by western democracies. Now it is, because the terrorist threat is so huge. Also, the oil in Iraq is also a factor to count in, economic gain for the US.

Or the third option, the ones doubting the details of the official explanation and even thinks of the possibility of the government being wrong or lying are complete idiots.


I cannot tell if the wtc was a coverup, but if it was, the pentagon most certainly was too. It is impossible to tell due to the current evidence, but in time we will know what happened for sure. I hope that concludes it!

Karsloon, planes hit the towers. I'd say that that's going to do a helluva lot of damage to the structure, wouldn't you?

Also:

http://debunking911.com/impact.htm
The impact brought a 500 mile an hour wind to the impact floors as a wall of debris traveled from one end of the buildings to the other. The jet fuel blast added to the event with more than just a pyrotechnic show. This high wind (debris and blast) blew the debris into the furthest corners of the building. It obviously stripped the ceiling tile system off in an instant. Photographic evidence shows no sign of ceiling tiles on the impact floors. In that same instant the all important "blown on" fire proofing was removed from the trusses and some columns (http://wtc.nist.gov/NISTNCSTAR1-3.pdf)(LINK). This could be seen from photographic evidence in the NIST report. The NIST also replicated the fireproofing and conditions during impact and found the fireproofing easily blew off. As with all the NIST tests anyone can replicate them if they doubt the conclusion.

http://debunking911.com/sag.htm
With the fire proofing blown off, the fire only needed as little as 600 degrees C to deform the naked truss steel.

The irony of all this is that even if there was a conspiracy, there'd be no need to hide it very well. More people would ridicule the believers of said conspiracy than actually believe it and thusly the conspirators have no need to enforce the secrecy too much.


Me, though, I really don't care. No matter who hit what with what with what intent, the fact that it allowed all sorts of stupid things to occur is bad enough. Let's focus on that instead of an over glorified 'He said she said' game, eh?

Ilaer, you are the first person on this thread that states the obvious that it was terrorist, on the US Government that attack the United States on 9/11.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
What do you think?

It was a plane. It's not a cover-up. Sorry to disappoint.

It'd be pretty damned stupid of the American Government to launch a massive terrorist attack like that on its own people.
Some people will point to the Reichstag fire as historical precedent, but I counter: have we seen an Enabling Act that actually gives the idiot in charge dictatorial powers? Did the Reichstag fire involve the deaths of more than 3,000 people, and would it have been as hard to cover up?

I hate conspiracy theories and those who support them. I really do detest them above anything else; they're the one group of people who I truly am intolerant of, because they spread dangerous lies and abuse the name of science in trying to come up with stupid, false 'counter-arguments' which could be seen through by any halfway competent science student in minutes. :mad:

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

This flash has got me thinking. There was very little if any airplane wreckage found in the debris of the WTC towers. It must have been a cover-up. My theory is that a giant, cloaked Will Smith robot stomped the towers into the ground and I have proof to back it up. The following video was shot with a special anti-cloaking device lense.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3645/prince911br1.gif

Karsloon, planes hit the towers. I'd say that that's going to do a helluva lot of damage to the structure, wouldn't you?


Yes, i am very aware of that fact, but it would likely NOT destroy the steel core on it's own.

The controversy lies in the official versions failure to give a plausible explanation for how the heat from the intitial fireball, while perhaps warm enough to deform steel in the imediate surroundings, could have melted enough steel to destabilise the entire core of steel webbings and cause the tower to collapse.

And if so is the case and it did melt the steel core, why didnt wtc collapse immideatly, instead of an hour after the attack? What was holding the building standing? Nothing as far as I see, so obviosly the steel structure must have held for the plane crash. And sure, wtc was burning until it collapsed, but if the heat generated by flames fueled by aircraft fuel wasnt strong enough to destroy the wtc steel core, why would some burning furniture do the trick an hour later, and in such a dramatic, explosive way?

This is a BIG question mark, it leads me to think that FEMA missed something out and that the initial investigation was faulty and incomplete.

Thus, i am forced to conclude that the theory of demolitions and a prepared attack is more plausible because it explains these problems.

My conclusion is that someone rigged wtc, either al-qaeda or the US gov (most likely al-qaeda). Both had the resources to do so, so it could have been anyone of them.

Usama is still not an idiot, the attacks were planned for years so that the towers actually WOULD fall, so it is very plausible that al-qaeda managed to sneak in demolitions into wtc before the attack. It does NOT take years to plan a coordinated hijacking of three airplanes, but it may take years to come up with the foolproof way of making wtc fall.

I do not promote or try to create paranoid conspiracy theories, the things that i write here are just hypotheses, and i may be wrong. But i am not an ignorant idiot who blindly believe everything i see on the news either, the people in power are still humans, and humans can lie, simple as that.

I just try to think for my self, i do not wanna be led.

I live in Sweden, so i am not led by my feelings about americas invulnerability or anything like that. I just ask questions about the things i find odd, i only try to listen to logic and try to avoid propaganda as much as possible. And logic tells me that there IS something strange about 9/11, some aspects of it just doesn't make sense. Therefore this discussion will go on until the truth is out and public.

*snip*

Here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)

...so it is very plausible that al-qaeda managed to sneak in demolitions into wtc before the attack. It does NOT take years to plan a coordinated hijacking of three airplanes, but it may take years to come up with the foolproof way of making wtc fall.

When you write something like this, it's best to pause, think for a bit and revisit because it is simply ridiculous speculation to suggest that, given the '93 attacks, that a bunch of terrorists could casually place explosives in the WTC without some security checks being done.

Sure there were severe omissions of intelligence work leading up to the attacks, mainly from a lack of coordination between agencies but, even as idle speculation, this is just, well I hate to use even minor swear words unless they add a certain 'I don't know what' but it's just pure crap.

Here (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm)



When you write something like this, it's best to pause, think for a bit and revisit because it is simply ridiculous speculation to suggest that, given the '93 attacks, that a bunch of terrorists could casually place explosives in the WTC without some security checks being done.

Sure there were severe omissions of intelligence work leading up to the attacks, mainly from a lack of coordination between agencies but, even as idle speculation, this is just, well I hate to use even minor swear words unless they add a certain 'I don't know what' but it's just pure crap.



Yes, that was why i wrote "this is only an hypothesis, i MAY be wrong".

But think about it.. what if the airplanes werent enough to bring the towers down, what if explosives were used? It would certainly explain some things.

I then assumed that if explosives HAD been used (which is plausible, i might be wrong on this too) it was al-qaeda who sneaked in the explosives because there isn't much that says that they didnt commit the 9/11 attacks, although the US government surely would have a much better chance at succeding in sneaking in the explosives due to the security that would be a problem that you pointed out.

I do not know who it was that "prepared" the wtc, but i believe that it is plausible that the wtc WAS prepared, and that is a thought to consider and not just dismiss by hand.

The fact that the Pentagon also was attacked further points to al-qaeda as guilty, it would be irrational and totally pointless for the US gov to attack the Pentagon.

After reading the NIST faq, I feel that I am wrong. What they say does make sense. But i am confused by one of their answers.


13. Why did the NIST investigation not consider reports of molten steel in the wreckage from the WTC towers?

NIST investigators and experts from the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) and the Structural Engineers Association of New York (SEONY)—who inspected the WTC steel at the WTC site and the salvage yards—found no evidence that would support the melting of steel in a jet-fuel ignited fire in the towers prior to collapse. The condition of the steel in the wreckage of the WTC towers (i.e., whether it was in a molten state or not) was irrelevant to the investigation of the collapse since it does not provide any conclusive information on the condition of the steel when the WTC towers were standing.

NIST considered the damage to the steel structure and its fireproofing caused by the aircraft impact and the subsequent fires when the buildings were still standing since that damage was responsible for initiating the collapse of the WTC towers.

Under certain circumstances it is conceivable for some of the steel in the wreckage to have melted after the buildings collapsed. Any molten steel in the wreckage was more likely due to the high temperature resulting from long exposure to combustion within the pile than to short exposure to fires or explosions while the buildings were standing.

This flash has got me thinking. There was very little if any airplane wreckage found in the debris of the WTC towers. It must have been a cover-up. My theory is that a giant, cloaked Will Smith robot stomped the towers into the ground and I have proof to back it up. The following video was shot with a special anti-cloaking device lense.

http://img90.imageshack.us/img90/3645/prince911br1.gif

:eek:

My design works!!! YAY! :D


Wait...they stole my design! Those Bastards!!! :mad:

After reading the NIST faq, I feel that I am wrong. What they say does make sense. But i am confused by one of their answers.

They're simply saying that 'reports', as opposed to conclusive evidence, of molten steel was not their concern in understanding how the WTC fell. If there was molten steel, they proffer a possible explanation for it but it was highly unlikely to have been molten during the collapse because, well any conspiracy theorist will tell you that steel wouldn't have melted prior to collapse.

If there was molten steel, it was most likely to have occurred after the collapse.

:eek:

My design works!!! YAY! :D


Wait...they stole my design! Those Bastards!!! :mad:

Hence my Grandma's wise proverb - Never trust a terrorist.

Only in hindsight do we understand her wisdom

:confused:

Oh for fuck's sake, not this shit again.

NO.

IT.

WAS.

NOT.

ROTTEN POLL!

It's a conspiracy theory, therefore no.

The number of conspiracy theories that have been correct: well, I can count them on the fingers of one head.

That one always makes me laugh.

The idea that, if there IS a conspiracy, all you have to do is claim a theory about it, and no one will believe it happened....

Wasn't the watergate thing a conspiracy? Erm... and Gonzales-Ashcroft backdoor authorisation fiasco... wouldn't that be a conspiracy too?

Couldn't the US governments use of anti-Iran propaganda (despite the December 2007 NIE admitting that the US government has actually known that Iran is NOT pursuing nuclear arms, at least as far back as 2003) be pigeonholed under conspiracy somewhere?

I don't know. Maybe sometimes things that look like conspiracies.. really are.

I put "Old news" but there's no clear "this video is full of errors" options:

"Undamaged cable spools" seem very much like firehoses. "No Boeing". Are we supposed to believe that was the primary crash site just because of that hole? Any burning piece of debris could have blown that. It could have been something inside the pentagon. I stopped because It was clear it wasn't going to get better. The Washington post quote would have been helped enormously by a pcture of the Washington post saying that. Even better: a picture of this little missile snapped on 9/11 in Washington. Or a filmed interview with these witnesses.

Not to mention that that music practically disqualifies it from the start. Be serious, people!:rolleyes:

...who'd buy a conspiracy theory enough to post it here after it's been soundly rejected here numerous times couldn't possibly know how to spell "rogue".... shredded more times than Oliver North's personal files. Forgive us if we reacts...

Snipped for the purposes of semi-delicious-ish irony.

Rouge clowns?
Was that intentional? :p

Of course it was. Those clowns were both red AND French.

No, seriously, it had to have been intentional because anyone who'd buy a conspiracy theory enough to post it here after it's been soundly rejected here numerous times couldn't possibly know how to spell "rogue".

Okay, since there has been no serious answers, I feel obliged to be the first one. First of all, we should look at the evidence.

*snip the insanity*



Everyone HAS looked at the evidence. MANY times. This horseshit has been thoroughly shredded more times than Oliver North's personal files. Forgive us if we reacts as though we've been through this many times before, because, well, we have. I'm tired of it.

And if so is the case and it did melt the steel core, why didnt wtc collapse immideatly, instead of an hour after the attack?

I don't remember the exact melting point of steel, but based on observations in smithy's, metal doesn't have to be molten to lose its strength. At a certain temperature, rule of thumb is say, half that of the melting point, metal starts to become soft, becoming pliable and less resistant to external forces. The steel core is constantly under whatever potential energy the upper floors is exerting on it. Initial temperatures would not melt the core, but continued fires increased overall thermal energy, and continued to soften the metal to the point where it failed.

Remember, it doesn't have to melt. It only has to soften to the point where it can't support the weight it's holding up.

Conspiracy debunked.

It was obviously a front for seizing power, because George Bush and John Kerry are both skull and bones which is somehow linked to the masons and the illuminati, half of which is run by international Jewry, who are in cooperation with the aliens the government is housing (Area 51 is really a giant alien resort), to rule the world and brainwash us all, though their mind altering beams can be blocked with the use of a tin foil hat. Further investigation will reveal that John Lennon and Elvis are both actually aliens themselves, but in disguise, and because Paul McCartney caught on to this sinister plot, John killed him and buried him. Since then he's been replaced with an alien. How is this so convincing? Because they used classified technology to download his memory while he was unaware (that's actually what all the LSD was for). One should also know that John F. Kennedy was an alien, but he was about to defect and that's why the other aliens, Illuminati, Masons and Jews killed him, so that he wouldn't reveal the master plan. Careful study of Nostradamus will reveal all of this horrible truth. Be on guard, in case the dastardly New World Order and international Communist Conspiracy try to contaminate your precious bodily fluids (through flouridation of drinking water).

I don't remember the exact melting point of steel, but based on observations in smithy's, metal doesn't have to be molten to lose its strength. At a certain temperature, rule of thumb is say, half that of the melting point, metal starts to become soft, becoming pliable and less resistant to external forces. The steel core is constantly under whatever potential energy the upper floors is exerting on it. Initial temperatures would not melt the core, but continued fires increased overall thermal energy, and continued to soften the metal to the point where it failed.

Remember, it doesn't have to melt. It only has to soften to the point where it can't support the weight it's holding up.

Conspiracy debunked.

The weakpoints would be near the heat. Thus, strutural collapse should be centred around weakpoints near the most intense burning, and progressively less weakness with increasing distance. Shouldn't it?

Wouldn't that make the upper extremities of the structure likely to collapse long before the remainder of the structure, and fall in irregular patterns based on heat sources? Rather than - for example - neatly collapsing in on an area not much bigger than the building footprint?

:eek:

My design works!!! YAY! :D


Wait...they stole my design! Those Bastards!!! :mad:

You never patented it. And the design's old. Where have you been? Japan has cornered the market on giant cloaked machines ever since the days of mecha-godzilla.

It was obviously a front for seizing power, because George Bush and John Kerry are both skull and bones which is somehow linked to the masons and the illuminati, half of which is run by international Jewry, who are in cooperation with the aliens the government is housing (Area 51 is really a giant alien resort), to rule the world and brainwash us all, though their mind altering beams can be blocked with the use of a tin foil hat. Further investigation will reveal that John Lennon and Elvis are both actually aliens themselves, but in disguise, and because Paul McCartney caught on to this sinister plot, John killed him and buried him. Since then he's been replaced with an alien. How is this so convincing? Because they used classified technology to download his memory while he was unaware (that's actually what all the LSD was for). One should also know that John F. Kennedy was an alien, but he was about to defect and that's why the other aliens, Illuminati, Masons and Jews killed him, so that he wouldn't reveal the master plan. Careful study of Nostradamus will reveal all of this horrible truth. Be on guard, in case the dastardly New World Order and international Communist Conspiracy try to contaminate your precious bodily fluids (through flouridation of drinking water).

Tase him, bro.

The weakpoints would be near the heat. Thus, strutural collapse should be centred around weakpoints near the most intense burning, and progressively less weakness with increasing distance. Shouldn't it?

Wouldn't that make the upper extremities of the structure likely to collapse long before the remainder of the structure, and fall in irregular patterns based on heat sources? Rather than - for example - neatly collapsing in on an area not much bigger than the building footprint?

Look, for the nth time, the initial kinetic energy and blast from the planes' impacts blew the spray-on insulation off the steel trusses that were the floors of the WTC towers. Without that protection, the fire only had to heat up to about 650F for the steel t lose structral integrity and sag in the middle. Once it sagged far enough -- and that is the process that took some time -- the edges of the trusses, instead of being flush with the supports pointing inward from the outer steel frame, lifted off of them at an ange which increased as the sagging progressed. At the time of collapse, the angle was too steep to maintain any one of the truss floors in the impact area. Once that floor gave way, it pancaked down onto the floor below. That added weight coupled with already weakened and sagging trusses meant that the whole set of trusses continued that pancaking. The lower floors, which were not directly involved in the impact or fire, could not hope to hold up the weight of 10 or more collapsing floors. Those lower floors then gaveway in succession just like the upper floors did, and FOOMP, the whole thing comes down like dropping a set of coasters...only much bigger, and with offices and stuff inside.

The whole Loose Change crap about pre-set explosions running down the outside of the frame is the air pressure released from each successive floor squeezing out the air present in what ued to be a floor of offices. If you don't think a steel truss floor with the square area of the WTC towers' won't displace a lot of air with enough pressure to blow out windows if it's falling like those did, you're crazy.

I'm beginning to think that Loose Change was some film student's final project. I hope those asshats failed.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
What do you think?

http://www.afunnystuff.com/forumpics/notagain.jpg

Honestly, these 9/11 conspiracy theories have been so thoroughly debunked, it's not even funny.

The weakpoints would be near the heat. Thus, strutural collapse should be centred around weakpoints near the most intense burning, and progressively less weakness with increasing distance. Shouldn't it?

Wouldn't that make the upper extremities of the structure likely to collapse long before the remainder of the structure, and fall in irregular patterns based on heat sources? Rather than - for example - neatly collapsing in on an area not much bigger than the building footprint?

Intangelon explains the reasons quite well. It's not rocket science.

There was no cover up, most of the conspiracy theorist's arguments have been debunked time and time again.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html
http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html
http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

It'd be pretty damned stupid of the American Government to launch a massive terrorist attack like that on its own people.
Some people will point to the Reichstag fire as historical precedent, but I counter: have we seen an Enabling Act that actually gives the idiot in charge dictatorial powers?
Yep, at least two of them. Although to be fair, those are merely acts that, if abused, could lead to dictatorship or at least heavily curtailed liberty.


I hate conspiracy theories and those who support them. I really do detest them above anything else; they're the one group of people who I truly am intolerant of, because they spread dangerous lies and abuse the name of science in trying to come up with stupid, false 'counter-arguments' which could be seen through by any halfway competent science student in minutes. :mad:
Agreed on the rest of this.

It was obviously a front for seizing power, because George Bush and John Kerry are both skull and bones which is somehow linked to the masons and the illuminati, half of which is run by international Jewry, who are in cooperation with the aliens the government is housing (Area 51 is really a giant alien resort), to rule the world and brainwash us all, though their mind altering beams can be blocked with the use of a tin foil hat. Further investigation will reveal that John Lennon and Elvis are both actually aliens themselves, but in disguise, and because Paul McCartney caught on to this sinister plot, John killed him and buried him. Since then he's been replaced with an alien. How is this so convincing? Because they used classified technology to download his memory while he was unaware (that's actually what all the LSD was for). One should also know that John F. Kennedy was an alien, but he was about to defect and that's why the other aliens, Illuminati, Masons and Jews killed him, so that he wouldn't reveal the master plan. Careful study of Nostradamus will reveal all of this horrible truth. Be on guard, in case the dastardly New World Order and international Communist Conspiracy try to contaminate your precious bodily fluids (through flouridation of drinking water).
This one needs a stronger dose of MK Ultra. Next he'll be onto the moon landings too!

It seems that the discussion is dead.. I'd recommend everyone to read the formerly posted NIST link, it does provide some very good answers to questions about wtc. I was under the impression that these questions had simply been ignored in the official explanation, but I have to admit that i was wrong.

Damn it, i was misled, seems that the official explanation in fact does hold up under investigation :headbang:

Again, sorry :rolleyes:

It was a plane. It's not a cover-up. Sorry to disappoint.

They did bring up a good question, if it was a plane where's the plane parts?

They did bring up a good question, if it was a plane where's the plane parts?

The pentagon is actually a series of concentric buildings. When the fuselage hit, the wings sheared off/ folded back, and the damage was larger inside the building than is apparent from some of the pics taken.

If you look at the pics, there IS wreckage on the lawn. A good deal of the wreckage, though, went into the buildings and fell into and between them.

Again, debunked many times, if people actually cared to investigate it.

While I wait for the movie to load, I'll say no. Watch this space for what I think after the movie :)

The usual "A plane couldn't have done that evar" - Random bystander. This even had out takes from a speech by Hitler. Decently made film. I still say no.

The pentagon is actually a series of concentric buildings. When the fuselage hit, the wings sheared off/ folded back, and the damage was larger inside the building than is apparent from some of the pics taken.

If you look at the pics, there IS wreckage on the lawn. A good deal of the wreckage, though, went into the buildings and fell into and between them.

Again, debunked many times, if people actually cared to investigate it.

I didn't say I believed the crap, just that they brought up one good question (which can't be answered based on the photo evidence they provided) surprise, surprise

I didn't say I believed the crap, just that they brought up one good question (which can't be answered based on the photo evidence they provided) surprise, surprise

Well, see for yourself:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

http://www.rense.com/general32/phot.htm

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

Dammit, I`m going to get pissed off yet again. My brother-in-law was in there when it happened. IF your conspiracy theory is real, what happened to the third plane that was hi-jacked that day? Let`s see.......two into WTC, one in Pa and now one that landed at Imaginationland Internation Airport? We were attacked by Islamic whackjobs and I hope they are burning in hell right now. I am also perfectly fine with the idea of throwing out the entire bushel because of a few bad apples and cutting down the tree for good measure. You may call me blindly loyal, I`ll call you insane.

Intangelon explains the reasons quite well. It's not rocket science.

Offering an explanation isn't proof. That's not rocket science.

Look, for the nth time, the initial kinetic energy and blast from the planes' impacts blew the spray-on insulation off the steel trusses that were the floors of the WTC towers. Without that protection, the fire only had to heat up to about 650F for the steel t lose structral integrity and sag in the middle. Once it sagged far enough -- and that is the process that took some time -- the edges of the trusses, instead of being flush with the supports pointing inward from the outer steel frame, lifted off of them at an ange which increased as the sagging progressed. At the time of collapse, the angle was too steep to maintain any one of the truss floors in the impact area. Once that floor gave way, it pancaked down onto the floor below. That added weight coupled with already weakened and sagging trusses meant that the whole set of trusses continued that pancaking. The lower floors, which were not directly involved in the impact or fire, could not hope to hold up the weight of 10 or more collapsing floors. Those lower floors then gaveway in succession just like the upper floors did, and FOOMP, the whole thing comes down like dropping a set of coasters...only much bigger, and with offices and stuff inside.


Gosh! I never saw an explantion like that before!

No... wait... I did. And it was flawed then, too. If you drop a floor of a building onto another floor, there's no reason to assume they'll just concertina in on their footprint, UNLESS the whole structure is equally weakened. Why do you think controlled demolitions involve setting explosives at various points? To control the fall, and make it fall in a small area - otherwise, shit follows the path of least resistance, and you end up with your building in other buildings.

The tower was hit offcentre, yet it's structural weakness is uniform throughout the level? It caused trusses to sag, causing 'pancaking'... yet the trusses far below the crashsite failed in the exact same way?

Gosh! I never saw an explantion like that before!

No... wait... I did. And it was flawed then, too. If you drop a floor of a building onto another floor, there's no reason to assume they'll just concertina in on their footprint, UNLESS the whole structure is equally weakened. Why do you think controlled demolitions involve setting explosives at various points? To control the fall, and make it fall in a small area - otherwise, shit follows the path of least resistance, and you end up with your building in other buildings.

The tower was hit offcentre, yet it's structural weakness is uniform throughout the level? It caused trusses to sag, causing 'pancaking'... yet the trusses far below the crashsite failed in the exact same way?


I don't know if I am wrong, but I read the NIST report linked to earlier and my personal intepretation was that through some complicated but not implausible chain of events the most stress was placed on the middle of the building, thus making it pancake in on itself, not just straight down.

This would induce more stress to the inner steel webbing, and even if it is undamaged by the heat it would still have a hard time withstanding the force of the building collapsing in on itself from all sides.

Sure, 9/11 is surrounded by controversies, but I don't think that gives us the right to point at Bush screaming guilty. Bush is a complete moron, but it would still be irrational to blame the US gov when there isn't enough proof that they are the ones guilty.

If wtc in fact IS found rigged, it would still be al-qaida that commited it until evidence supporting the gov conspiracy has been found.

It is important to stress this fact, since most if not all of the people questioning the official story automatically assumes that the government commited 9/11 just because the initial investigation is faulty. If the government wanted to cover this up, the cover-up would probably had been a lot better, given the problems exposure would cause for the government.

I don't know if I am wrong, but I read the NIST report linked to earlier and my personal intepretation was that through some complicated but not implausible chain of events the most stress was placed on the middle of the building, thus making it pancake in on itself, not just straight down.

This would induce more stress to the inner steel webbing, and even if it is undamaged by the heat it would still have a hard time withstanding the force of the building collapsing in on itself from all sides.

Sure, 9/11 is surrounded by controversies, but I don't think that gives us the right to point at Bush screaming guilty. Bush is a complete moron, but it would still be irrational to blame the US gov when there isn't enough proof that they are the ones guilty.

If wtc in fact IS found rigged, it would still be al-qaida that commited it until evidence supporting the gov conspiracy has been found.

It is important to stress this fact, since most if not all of the people questioning the official story automatically assumes that the government commited 9/11 just because the initial investigation is faulty. If the government wanted to cover this up, the cover-up would probably had been a lot better, given the problems exposure would cause for the government.

Perhaps as an aside - I'm not actually claimimg that it was a conspiracy. I'm not claiming any kind of complicity. All I'm doing is questioning the nature of events since, to me, they just don't seem to add up.

What I find laughable, on the other hand, is this idea that you don't need to 'prove' anything - you just say 'conspiracy theory' and people assume that there are no alternative stories.

If the government of the USA was to do something like this, don't you think that they'd make it look real so you wouldn't have this huge conspiricy going around? Honestly, the US could have done better than that. And if they were to place bombs, than why wouldn't they just say that the terrorists placed the bombs and avoid the aircrafts all together?
Honestly, every pieve of evidence I've seen for the conspiricy theory can be rebuked either with science, checking the facts or common sense. Are we getting the whole story? Do we ever? No.

We should let the Mythbusters decide.

There is one perfect way to test the WTC collapse theory: rebuild the towers exactly and fly planes into them by remote control. Do it out on the Nevada test range so no-one gets hurt.

There is an even simpler method to test the Pentagon missile theory: get everyone out of there, and fly a plane into it by remote control. If that doesn't produce a plausibly similar effect, start shooting missiles into it, starting with small ones, then bunker busters.

It would make great television, even if some people don't accept the results even with exhaustive monitoring.

No...it wasn't the attack on the Pentagon that motivated people to take up war against terrorism. It just wouldn't make a lot of sense to disrupt the nerve center of the US military at the same time you'd presumably want to use that military for actions overseas.

No...it wasn't the attack on the Pentagon that motivated people to take up war against terrorism. It just wouldn't make a lot of sense to disrupt the nerve center of the US military at the same time you'd presumably want to use that military for actions overseas.

Yeah, the whole pentagon attack was more of an afterthought on the news and all that. It was a bit like:

WTC! WTC! OH HOLY FUCK!

Oh, and pentagon.

BUT WTC! WTC!

Yeah, the whole pentagon attack was more of an afterthought on the news and all that. It was a bit like:

WTC! WTC! OH HOLY FUCK!

Oh, and pentagon.

BUT WTC! WTC!

Well, that's probably because 1) more people died at WTC 2) the destruction was a hell of a lot more apparent and OMG! 3) WTC was most definitely civilians, whereas the Pentagon is a military installation. 4) Sadly, WTC probably disrupted things a good deal more than the Pentagon did -- because WTC was pretty much in a very crowded city whereas the Pentagon is somewhat removed, if I am not mistaken.

How come a thread this stuid last's so long?!!??one1111ii!!

The irony... it burns!

How come a thread this stuid last's so long?!!??one1111ii!!

Well, that's probably because 1) more people died at WTC 2) the destruction was a hell of a lot more apparent and OMG! 3) WTC was most definitely civilians, whereas the Pentagon is a military installation. 4) Sadly, WTC probably disrupted things a good deal more than the Pentagon did -- because WTC was pretty much in a very crowded city whereas the Pentagon is somewhat removed, if I am not mistaken.

Pretty much this. See, not just a pretty av, our Katganistan.

Where the fuck is the "no" option?

Yep, at least two of them. Although to be fair, those are merely acts that, if abused, could lead to dictatorship or at least heavily curtailed liberty.


Agreed on the rest of this.


This one needs a stronger dose of MK Ultra. Next he'll be onto the moon landings too!

Of course he will, since the US also lied about that...

Everyone knows the Nazis did it first! They set up a moon base where hundreds of thousands of denizens of the Third Reich still live and work to this day! They don't even need space suits because, under the white and gray atmosphere, the Moon is quite habitable! ;)

:p

Gosh! I never saw an explantion like that before!

No... wait... I did. And it was flawed then, too. If you drop a floor of a building onto another floor, there's no reason to assume they'll just concertina in on their footprint, UNLESS the whole structure is equally weakened. Why do you think controlled demolitions involve setting explosives at various points? To control the fall, and make it fall in a small area - otherwise, shit follows the path of least resistance, and you end up with your building in other buildings.

The tower was hit offcentre, yet it's structural weakness is uniform throughout the level? It caused trusses to sag, causing 'pancaking'... yet the trusses far below the crashsite failed in the exact same way?

Let me get this straight. You think all those people that worked in the towers missed this: http://static.howstuffworks.com/gif/building-implosion-20.jpg ? Because that's the kind of setup they'd have had to work around, if the WTC towers were brought down with controlled demolition.

Who changed one of the poll options!?!??!?!?!?

The irony... it burns!

That was kind of the point if you don't get it.

Well, that's probably because 1) more people died at WTC 2) the destruction was a hell of a lot more apparent and OMG! 3) WTC was most definitely civilians, whereas the Pentagon is a military installation. 4) Sadly, WTC probably disrupted things a good deal more than the Pentagon did -- because WTC was pretty much in a very crowded city whereas the Pentagon is somewhat removed, if I am not mistaken.

Somehow, you forgot to mention that WTC was astoundingly good television, and we couldn't stop watching it for weeks.

Case 1: How could an accident like that happen? OMG, could it be not an accident? Second tower is hit, almost live to TV from many different cameras. OMG, definitely not an accident. There are live people trapped in burning buildings. Buildings collapse, first one then the other. Even the planners of the attack must have been rather amazed at such success.

Case 2: There is a smoking hole in the side of the Pentagon and a missing plane. Just how big and solid the Pentagon is rather dwarfs the terrorist effort. Casualties are a tenth of the WTC, mainly because the Pentagon is made to resist being bombed.

Now, if the fourth plane (UA 99) had taken off on time, and hit the white house or Senate dome at about the same time as WTC, there would be a comparable public reaction as to WTC, because there would be dramatic pictures as well as casualties.

The magnifying effect of television pictures is hugely significant ... and the terrorists wasted a plane and a suicide crew making that little dent on the Pentagon. The message "we attack your corporations, your military and your government" misfired, it was drowned out by the drama of WTC and the rather banal failure of the fourth plane to hit anything but the ground.

Grave-n-Idle, are you a professional structural engineer? When it comes to exceedingly complicated subjects, I prefer to resolve any confusing questions by reference to what the people who work in the field for a living think.

Grave-n-Idle, are you a professional structural engineer? When it comes to exceedingly complicated subjects, I prefer to resolve any confusing questions by reference to what the people who work in the field for a living think.

I believe someone already linked to a debunking of this conspiracy theory by Popular Mechanics magazine, if that satisfies you.

Somehow, you forgot to mention that WTC was astoundingly good television, and we couldn't stop watching it for weeks.

Case 1: How could an accident like that happen? OMG, could it be not an accident? Second tower is hit, almost live to TV from many different cameras. OMG, definitely not an accident. There are live people trapped in burning buildings. Buildings collapse, first one then the other. Even the planners of the attack must have been rather amazed at such success.

Case 2: There is a smoking hole in the side of the Pentagon and a missing plane. Just how big and solid the Pentagon is rather dwarfs the terrorist effort. Casualties are a tenth of the WTC, mainly because the Pentagon is made to resist being bombed.

Now, if the fourth plane (UA 99) had taken off on time, and hit the white house or Senate dome at about the same time as WTC, there would be a comparable public reaction as to WTC, because there would be dramatic pictures as well as casualties.

The magnifying effect of television pictures is hugely significant ... and the terrorists wasted a plane and a suicide crew making that little dent on the Pentagon. The message "we attack your corporations, your military and your government" misfired, it was drowned out by the drama of WTC and the rather banal failure of the fourth plane to hit anything but the ground.

Actually, that's why I pretty much stopped watching TV. All the over-the-airwaves stations transmitted from the WTC(yeah, I didn't and still don't have cable), and when CBS got its transmitter in Secaucus going again, all they did was 24/7 on the towers coming down. And people-rain.

Pretty horrifying -- and monotonous -- for those of us who actually saw it.

As for case two, you also have to remember the astoundingly "good" luck that where the plane hit was actually the part of the building being renovated. There were many fewer people in that section than normally would have been - not that it's any comfort to the families of those who died there.

OMG! Y'all are flippin stupid! Terrorists wanted to go after the biggest, richest, most infidelist type country....US. Therefore, it saying in the Quran to kill the infidels, they wanted to go after the biggest target of all, and then it happens, we're all scared, we get together for a day or two and then we're all against each other again still fighting about it, and then fighting about the war, (in my eyes: WAR IS PEACE), and now we just want to forget it like it never happened, BUT IT DID! That's why it makes me so angry when people say stupid stuff like that! UGH! This is also why I'm leaving America ASAP, is because we hate each other and we're like the Roman empire, getting big, yet collapsing within ourselves.

No

Gosh! I never saw an explantion like that before!

No... wait... I did. And it was flawed then, too. If you drop a floor of a building onto another floor, there's no reason to assume they'll just concertina in on their footprint, UNLESS the whole structure is equally weakened. Why do you think controlled demolitions involve setting explosives at various points? To control the fall, and make it fall in a small area - otherwise, shit follows the path of least resistance, and you end up with your building in other buildings.

The tower was hit offcentre, yet it's structural weakness is uniform throughout the level? It caused trusses to sag, causing 'pancaking'... yet the trusses far below the crashsite failed in the exact same way?


Gawd not this sh*t again

If you drop a 200 ton floor onto a floor below that has a maxium strength of 300 tons and its self weighes in at 200 tons, not only do you get the 400 ton dead load , but you also get the force of impact of the 200 ton floor dropping the 10 feet or so down.

Check out how many partially built buildings pancake straight down because the structure holding them together has failed before they were finished

Gosh! I never saw an explantion like that before!

Oh, so clever :rolleyes:

No... wait... I did. And it was flawed then, too. If you drop a floor of a building onto another floor, there's no reason to assume they'll just concertina in on their footprint, UNLESS the whole structure is equally weakened. Why do you think controlled demolitions involve setting explosives at various points? To control the fall, and make it fall in a small area - otherwise, shit follows the path of least resistance, and you end up with your building in other buildings.
The tower was hit offcentre, yet it's structural weakness is uniform throughout the level? It caused trusses to sag, causing 'pancaking'... yet the trusses far below the crashsite failed in the exact same way?

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

A thorough deconstruction of the flawed engineering and physics that some might use.

Offering an explanation isn't proof. That's not rocket science.

Well then, what kind of proof are you looking for? If official investigative reports and various other sources that have been posted here are insufficient proof, it would seem that you are looking for something more esoteric.

It has come to this - our stance toward our own gov't has become that of the U.S. toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War: trust, but verify.

1. ANSI standards are set for structural steel. If WTC was built to code, the steel used would meet certain specifications. Burning office furniture and supplies cannot generate the heat to affect steel's structural properties. The jet fuel burnt far too quickly to heat steel to the point of structural failure.

2. All THREE structures that fell in the WTC complex collapsed symmetrically into their own footprints as fast as gravity could pull - this is more characteristic of demolition than structural failure.

3. Pentagon: Not sure what to believe there. No secondary impact points from jet engines could feasibly lead to the missile hypothesis. No recognizable aircraft debris. Conflicting eyewitness accounts (although this can be reasonably explained due to the shock of what was witnessed, it's worth pointing out)

All I'm saying is that questions are reasonable when evidence does not fit the explanation. I'm not saying Bush or Cheney or Giuliani planted bombs, I'm not saying missiles or military aircraft were used, I'm not saying the CIA did it, I'm just saying questions are reasonable.

Potential explanations:
1.Al-Quaida did it all. We're so embarrassed that they pulled it off that we created the story to cover the asses of the asses who catastrophically failed in national security over the past 20 yrs or so. (might explain WTC 7 and Pentagon, but this theory is extremely improbable)

2. Explosives were placed by another nation that pretends to be our ally, and they took advantage of one act to destroy the evidence of their own similar intentions. (would explain WTC 2 plane crashes, 3 buildings collapsing, but no explanation for pentagon)

3. A secret organization did it as a step toward creating a one-world gov't that they could manipulate for personal gain (within the realm of possibility, but practically impossible to verify or disprove)

4. A bunch of terrorists pulled off the most advanced act of terrorism ever seen in the history of mankind

5. Who knows? If the truth is none of the above, it goes in this slot.

*snip*

You forgot option 6.

Questions that have been answered are systematically ignored by people unable to read and/or comprehend those answers.

You forgot option 6.

Questions that have been answered are systematically ignored by people unable to read and/or comprehend those answers.

Curious how they share traits with assorted Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers don't they?

Okay, since there has been no serious answers, I feel obliged to be the first one. First of all, we should look at the evidence.

Usama Bin laden and al-qaeda clearly exists, and they clearly hate the USA. So the attacks on 9/11 may very well have been commited by al-qaeda. Furthermore, much points to the existence of a widespred taliban network, which makes the logistics and resources required to perform a 9/11 strike possible.

Since there (to my knowledge, I might be wrong) isn't proved and agreed upon exactly who (al-qaida or US gov) hit the pentagon and wtc, we have to turn to other sources to explain 9/11's mysteries that has caused so many conspiracy theories to arise, most of them silly but some of them plausible.

I choose to analyse the controversy around the wtc in an attempt to understand the pentagon crash, clearly these three attacks had a connection. We can all agree that two planes hit the WTC (or thousands of new yorkers were temporarily insane) but what is the problem then? Why the towers fell.

In short words, the main arguments for WTC being rigged is that the heat created from the plane impacts would not even be close to what is required to melt steel. Since the WTC had an extremely stable core made of a web of steel, it would be highly unlikely for it to collapse in such a way that it did, namely falling straight down and collapsing in on itself. The steel web would have survived this without any problems.

The second argument is that a series of explosions was heard, and also seen, as the tower collapsed. Either the falling mass hit something explosive, or the tower was rigged with explosives, a series of controlled demolitions to ensure that it falls after the attack.

This would indicate that the wtc attacks were prepared beforehand. Again, al-qaeda may have had the manpower to pull this off, but Usama has never admitted to these placed demolitions, just that they drove airplanes into the wtc, so it might as well has been the US gov if demolitions really were in place on wtc.

Either Usama isn't telling us the whole story because he is smart enough to see that the US government would be suspected due to the evidence of a prepared attack, and thus bush will lose faith from the public.

OR the US gov did prepare the demolitions, was somehow involved in the attacks (in co-op with al qaeda?) and then FEMA did a bad job in covering it up. They would certainly have the motives and the means necessary. Without 9/11, the fascism/big brother surveillance boom would never have been accepted by western democracies. Now it is, because the terrorist threat is so huge. Also, the oil in Iraq is also a factor to count in, economic gain for the US.

Or the third option, the ones doubting the details of the official explanation and even thinks of the possibility of the government being wrong or lying are complete idiots.


I cannot tell if the wtc was a coverup, but if it was, the pentagon most certainly was too. It is impossible to tell due to the current evidence, but in time we will know what happened for sure. I hope that concludes it!

Emphasis added, in the quote for a reason. This is the most widely misunderstood aspects of the Twin Towers. In fact, the Twin Towers were of an experimental design with an open layout. The Outer Walls and the Inner core where completely depended upon to support the building. Otherwise, there was no support. If you notice, the building hit secondly fell first

Here is why. The first building was hit in a very flat way, and it went through he building. Because of this, the walls were able to shift the weight. At the same time, the fire-insulation on the steel was blasted off by the force of the impact, thus leaving the steel vulnerable to flame and weakening in both buildings.

The tower hit second was hit much lower than the first, and at a angle on a corner. Thus, the walls where damaged much worse on many more floors. Add on to this the damage that the first crash did to this tower, and you have a recipe for disaster. Also, that one fell over as it collapsed, it would have pancaked like the other one had if it had been brought down by explosives.

Now, at the same time, there where numerous generators located in the building in case of power failure. These where the detonation heard, as they where clogged and finally died in a burst of flame. If you look at the floor plans for the WTC they had Generators throughout the building. This could have further weakened the building.

As for the bursts of gas from the buildings. Remember that when a building collapses, the air inside gets trapped. Those spurts of gas where the air being forced out of the building as it fell.

As for WTC 7, it was brought down because it had a gaping hole on it's widest side because it's generators had exploded from clogged filters. And as for "Pull It." that is not a phrase used to detonate a building, but rather to pull people out of a dangerous situation.

And, now for the OP. As the plane came in, it plucked lightposts from the ground. All of them where found facing the building. A Cruise Missile cannot do that. Also, as for the lack of holes of the wings. They where made from Aluminum, which combined with the super-hardened concrete of the building shredded the wings. The hole was created because as the plane detonated, it sent a geyser of flame and molten metal through the building. Look up a Directed Explosion for more on why that is possible.

OMG! Y'all are flippin stupid! :eek:
By mod, you could be right!
Thanks, masked stranger!
This is also why I'm leaving America ASAP, is because we hate each other and we're like the Roman empire, getting big, yet collapsing within ourselves.
You AND America are like the Roman empire? So ... who's your Caligula?

We fortunately have math and science that clearly state that the events of Sept 11 DO NOT ADD UP. In all of the days that man has been on this earth it is only that day that the laws of physics and the composition of materials lost ther inhierent properties. If you don't want to beileve then don't, if you do then do, but it is evident to me by the degredation of our civil liberties and the newly penned enforcement of a police state that these were planned events. Look at the planes crashes - full speed in to the side of a mountain - didn't vaporize. Look at the cut steel in the towers, molten 45 degree column supports at the base - no where near the impact or fire. Building seven ????WTF was that - A man calling his mother and using his last name and then asking do you beileve its me???, as his death is eminient. 2+2=15 Please go vote for your favorite CFR member to be president. Buy a HDTV and a new car but please don't go outside and talk to your neighbors cause the tv is the truth and only the the truth. It wasn't the GOVT but a small group of Neo-cons that needed to have a war to make billions of dollars at our expense - its about the money - they have it and you don't - 800 billion in gold missing from the WTC - ohh look we recovered some in a dump truck!!! - WTF was it doing in a dump truck? It was to cost Silverman over 1 billion to remove the asbestos from the WTC but instead they just blew it up and let it drift all over New York and New Yorkers. These folks don't give a damn about us, its the new racism - rich vs poor.

*snip*

That, ladies and gentlemen, is a message brought to you by Frank Wilczek, Herman Feshbach Professor of Physics, MIT.

Oh wait...

Well, see for yourself:

http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/pentagon_20020316.html

Doesn't look like there's much if any *plane* wreckage.

Secondly, what's up with this picture:
http://www.geoffmetcalf.com/pentagon/images/17.jpg

Where's the fuselage? Wings? Why is the left side of inner ring blackened opposite side of the impact zone while the ring in the middle is intact? What's with all the garbage between inner rings?


btw. I'm pretty sure it was a plane that hit pentagon that day, it would be just interesting to find an explanation and real time footage how a plane could simply disintegrate so badly.

btw2. Weren't there any CCTV cameras inside Pentagon?

Grave-n-Idle, are you a professional structural engineer? When it comes to exceedingly complicated subjects, I prefer to resolve any confusing questions by reference to what the people who work in the field for a living think.

That's the wonderful thing about doubt. It requires no extra schooling - we are all equally qualified.

Gawd not this sh*t again

If you drop a 200 ton floor onto a floor below that has a maxium strength of 300 tons and its self weighes in at 200 tons, not only do you get the 400 ton dead load , but you also get the force of impact of the 200 ton floor dropping the 10 feet or so down.

Check out how many partially built buildings pancake straight down because the structure holding them together has failed before they were finished

Amusingly - in the post directly after yours, Andaluciae posts a source that quite clearly contradicts your argument.

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

"...the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down..."

Clearly, then - the initial floors caving in on each other, are not being caused by the process you claim - and the NIST report agrees. Whether or not there was 'pancaking' further down, well - it remains to be seen, although the 'official' body seems to have decided they got what they wanted. Clearly though - pancaking doesn't account for what we saw at the crash site.

Well then, what kind of proof are you looking for? If official investigative reports and various other sources that have been posted here are insufficient proof, it would seem that you are looking for something more esoteric.

Not really. Just looking. Again, that's the good thing about being a skeptic, you don't have a required level of 'skepticism' you have to fill.

You forgot option 6.

Questions that have been answered are systematically ignored by people unable to read and/or comprehend those answers.

You assume that all answers must automatically be true?

You're the sort of person speech-writers dream about.

Curious how they share traits with assorted Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers don't they?

Who? Anyone who doubts the 'official story'?

The flat-earth thing.. maybe, I could see that - why believe the evidence of satelittes, and all that. But then, of course, horizons already present a clear and present danger to that concept.

YEC, though? Exactly the opposite, surely? Young Earth Creationism IS the 'official story'. It's we scientists who are the 'skeptics' in that little diorama.

No, actually, we're not all equally qualified. I am amazed and saddened at people spouting off about what burning jet fuel or steel beam lattices will and will not do when they, in fact, don't have a clue WTF they are talking about.

You assume that all answers must automatically be true?

You're the sort of person speech-writers dream about.

Not at all, however I do, as far as I can, trust a vast array of experts on the matter over conspiracy theorists.

If it was a single source, I would remain healthily skeptical but given multitudes of expert opinion as well as simple common sense, I'm happy to not question whether a particular body planted explosives in anticipation of two planes smashing into the WTC, just in case they didn't quite work as some part of a conspiracy to, well, to do what, invade Iraq?

Just saying some things don't add up is fine, but it's the extrapolation of those into any theory as to why this was done, well that kind of blows it out in my opinion.

Not at all, however I do, as far as I can, trust a vast array of experts on the matter over conspiracy theorists.

If it was a single source, I would remain healthily skeptical but given multitudes of expert opinion as well as simple common sense, I'm happy to not question whether a particular body planted explosives in anticipation of two planes smashing into the WTC, just in case they didn't quite work as some part of a conspiracy to, well, to do what, invade Iraq?

Just saying some things don't add up is fine, but it's the extrapolation of those into any theory as to why this was done, well that kind of blows it out in my opinion.

I don't recall suggesting that 'this was done' to invade Iraq. Indeed, I'm not sure I've stated any reason for it. I've just said, it doesn't look like it adds up.

Now that you mention it, though... how the hell did the leap from "Al Qaeda struck us on 9/11" to "Bomb Saddam" really convince anyone...?

Who? Anyone who doubts the 'official story'?


No. People who try to work in factually void assertions after expressing doubt on the official story. Doubt is good. Doubt and proper investigative approach even better. Doubt and conspiracy theories no. That's the same kind of shtick we see creationists use, just replace conspiracy with "goddidit".


The flat-earth thing.. maybe, I could see that - why believe the evidence of satelittes, and all that. But then, of course, horizons already present a clear and present danger to that concept.

YEC, though? Exactly the opposite, surely? Young Earth Creationism IS the 'official story'. It's we scientists who are the 'skeptics' in that little diorama.

Both insist their little charade is true though, without actually going about proving it any way that stands up to scrutiny.

Now that you mention it, though... how the hell did the leap from "Al Qaeda struck us on 9/11" to "Bomb Saddam" really convince anyone...?

Catchwords, media splashes, and pretty pictures. Like American Idol, but the winner is actually the loser.

Unfortunately, the array of investigative reports lack such glamor, so some people ignore them in favor of conspiracy theories that use flashy graphics and spooky sounds.

No, actually, we're not all equally qualified. I am amazed and saddened at people spouting off about what burning jet fuel or steel beam lattices will and will not do when they, in fact, don't have a clue WTF they are talking about.

Don't be silly.We have to respect all opinions and give them all equal time in classrooms, regardless of their relation to this so called "reality". Next you are probably going to demand that the person operating on you is a doctor instead of a streetsweeper because "one is more qualified". An enemy of democratic principles - that is what you are !

People who believe they detected some in-your-face sarcasm in this post might be right ;)

It has come to this - our stance toward our own gov't has become that of the U.S. toward the Soviet Union during the Cold War: trust, but verify.

1. ANSI standards are set for structural steel. If WTC was built to code, the steel used would meet certain specifications. Burning office furniture and supplies cannot generate the heat to affect steel's structural properties. The jet fuel burnt far too quickly to heat steel to the point of structural failure.

2. All THREE structures that fell in the WTC complex collapsed symmetrically into their own footprints as fast as gravity could pull - this is more characteristic of demolition than structural failure.

3. Pentagon: Not sure what to believe there. No secondary impact points from jet engines could feasibly lead to the missile hypothesis. No recognizable aircraft debris. Conflicting eyewitness accounts (although this can be reasonably explained due to the shock of what was witnessed, it's worth pointing out)

.


How many times must I post this :headbang:

Heat affects the structrual strength of steel more than you may imagine

if you heat steel to 750C (jet fuel/office stuff fire with a good chimmney effect for example) it loses 75% of its strength compared to the strength of the steel at 20C (room temp)
Thats the reason blacksmiths tend to heat the stuff up before beating the crap outa it.
If you have a steel beam with a tensile stength of 50 tons, load it to 25 tons at 20C there is'nt a problem
If you take the same steel beam and heat to to 750C it has a strength of 12.5 tons...... then stick a 25 ton load on it

2.
Watch the video of the WTC collapse
Notice the debris AHEAD of the implosion point as the building comes down.
So if the point collapsing is behind the debris it is throwing out , then the collapse is NOT proceding in free fall.

3.
If it was'nt the named jet airliner that hit the pentagon , kindly explain what the rotor from one of it's engines was doing lodged inside the building :rolleyes:

In fact, I blame the serious lack in science education for most of these so called 'theories' which are in fact mostly hypothetical conjectures.

Science demands

Take a hypothisis eg light cannot go faster than 300 000 km/sec
Does it match any of the facts : yes light gains in frequency as the emitter gains speed
Make it a theory : Enstein was one for that
Test it again : Calaculate the predicted gain in frequency for a light emitter traveling at 600 mph, tie a light emitter to the front of an aircraft, fly it at 600 mph, does the measured light agree with the theory.

Run the same method for all your hypothisis regarding 9/11

El-Presidente Boris Bsc(Hons) and its not often I use my kwalificashuns on a sig line

Oh, so clever :rolleyes:



http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

A thorough deconstruction of the flawed engineering and physics that some might use.

Amusingly - in the post directly after yours, Andaluciae posts a source that quite clearly contradicts your argument.

http://www.debunking911.com/collapse.htm

"...the pancaking happened AFTER the building was on it's way down..."

Clearly, then - the initial floors caving in on each other, are not being caused by the process you claim - and the NIST report agrees. Whether or not there was 'pancaking' further down, well - it remains to be seen, although the 'official' body seems to have decided they got what they wanted. Clearly though - pancaking doesn't account for what we saw at the crash site.

Regardless, pancaking happened (my point in bringing it up was to explain the controlled demolition proponents' claims of explosions on the way down the outside of the building...explosions nobody heard...whether pancaking caused the collapse or not is largely irrelevant given that the same weakening that caused the connectors to let go was also affecting the structural walls), and it was decidedly NOT a controlled demolition. Reality, FTW.

Free-fall of said towers would take 9-10 seconds. They fell in 15-20 seconds. Case closed on controlled demolition.

2.
Watch the video of the WTC collapse.

Notice the debris AHEAD of the implosion point as the building comes down.
So if the point collapsing is behind the debris it is throwing out , then the collapse is NOT proceding in free fall.

Not only that, but two one-acre buildings collapsed into a 16-plus-acre footprint? That's not indicative of a controlled demolition.

So when I throw a cement block off a 5 story building it vapoizes in to dust on the way down?? I think not.

So when I throw a cement block off a 5 story building it vapoizes in to dust on the way down?? I think not.

What the flying monkey spank are you talking about? Once cement block and 5 stories is nothing compared to the forces involved in a 110+ story building's distance and mass.

http://www.pentagonstrike.co.uk/pentagon.swf
What do you think?

Too lazy to watch the video. But I know for a fact buildings don't eat planes. Where did all the wreckage go?

No. People who try to work in factually void assertions after expressing doubt on the official story.


I think this is meaningless, but I'm not sure. A 'factually void assertion' would be what?


Doubt is good. Doubt and proper investigative approach even better. Doubt and conspiracy theories no.


Why? Because as soon as someone says the word 'conspiracy' you stop listening? There have been real conspiracies, you know - it's not all made up for x-files.


That's the same kind of shtick we see creationists use, just replace conspiracy with "goddidit".


Not at all. The Creationist and his 'goddidit' routine claims a superior infallible knowledge. The cospiracy theoriest MIGHT have a schematic about how they think the pieces are being assembled, but he (she?) claims no supernatural insight.

Add to which - simply thinking that the official version doesn't add up, doesn't point any fingers, or cite any conspirators. You seem to be unable to get around the concept of doubt, without seeing a conspiracy.


Both insist their little charade is true though, without actually going about proving it any way that stands up to scrutiny.

Again, this seems intellectually dishonest. If I say the 9/11 footage doesn't add up, I don't HAVE to 'prove it stands up to scrutiny'... my claim is that the evidence isn't good enough. The burden of proof would be on the original source, not on the skeptic.

Regardless, pancaking happened (my point in bringing it up was to explain the controlled demolition proponents' claims of explosions on the way down the outside of the building...explosions nobody heard...whether pancaking caused the collapse or not is largely irrelevant given that the same weakening that caused the connectors to let go was also affecting the structural walls), and it was decidedly NOT a controlled demolition. Reality, FTW.

Free-fall of said towers would take 9-10 seconds. They fell in 15-20 seconds. Case closed on controlled demolition.

So - your position has changed?

Wasn't it you that carefully explained about each floor propelling the lower floor down with it's added mass, etc?

Regarding the free-fall thing... who said free-fall? Let's assume your numbers are true... why would we assume absolute freefall conditions? Even if there WERE demolition charges... even if they WERE rigged perfectly, it still doesn't automatically follow that the whole structure would fall in freefall, even if it WAS intended to!

What the flying monkey spank are you talking about?

Now theres something the figure out the forces of distance and mass about!!!
If you spanked off the monkey when flying would the spank rise above you and spatter a heart shaped pattern on the back of your magical flying cape?


Pancaking buildings do not pulverize into dust, falling building debris does not rise up and outward against the force of gravity. Planes to not vaporize and folks do not coware away from men with box cutters when their lives are at stake.

Not only that, but two one-acre buildings collapsed into a 16-plus-acre footprint? That's not indicative of a controlled demolition.

I believe the NIST report says that debris was largely scattered from the collapse of the last few floors - kind of a cloud expanding outwards when it hits the ground?

It has to be said, considering that planes flew into the sides of them, the buildings fell down remarkably straight, in a remarkably small area, and with little real HEAVY scatter outside of a couple of chunks of fairly large material bouncing maybe across the street.

If terrorists had the WTC rigged for demolition with explosive charges, why did they bother flying two planes into them? They could have flown the planes into secondary targets and tripled the carnage.

It has to be said, considering that planes flew into the sides of them, the buildings fell down remarkably straight, in a remarkably small area, and with little real HEAVY scatter outside of a couple of chunks of fairly large material bouncing maybe across the street.

As I recall, the towers didn't fall until some considerable time after the planes hit (because that's how long it took for the fires to weaken the steel enough to start the collapse), so the impact of the planes won't have had any direct effect on the direction of collapse.

And given that we're now looking at a pair of very big, heavy towers made of concrete and steel collapsing under the effects of nothing but their own weight, I'd actually find it surprising if much material had in fact fallen in any direction except straight down.

Even though the mental image is often harder to conjure up, concentrate on what basic physics says, not what would look right on Tom & Jerry. (That's not intended as critically as it might sound - cartoon 'physics' often feels more instantly plausible than the real thing.)

I think this is meaningless, but I'm not sure. A 'factually void assertion' would be what?


Oh come on. Don't tell me you haven't seen the people who use the "collapse not caused by planes, here's why" thereby "government did it" style?


Why? Because as soon as someone says the word 'conspiracy' you stop listening? There have been real conspiracies, you know - it's not all made up for x-files.

Sure there have been conspiracies. There are sensible conspiracies. Like cartels. The whole Gulf of Tonkin incident. The Watergate scandal. Sensible stuff that was kept known to a relatively small amount of people and didn't rely on the public knowing about any part of it except on what they could feed out.

And then there's the stupid conspiracies. Like that whole Nazi moonbase thing that was thrown around here a while back. Or heck, one of AP's threads trying to defend Stalinism.

But that's a bit off track I suppose. Exposing a conspiracy requires gobs of evidence, investigative work, and whatever expertise in various fields that are needed when trying to show how physics won't work that way.

People who argue things like how the Bush administration engineered the collapses simply fail to provide all that effort before making their assertions. Rather, they simply go for doubt, and then market their assertions as true.


Not at all. The Creationist and his 'goddidit' routine claims a superior infallible knowledge. The cospiracy theoriest MIGHT have a schematic about how they think the pieces are being assembled, but he (she?) claims no supernatural insight.

A conspiracy theorist might have a schematic, but if NSG is an example (flawed, I know), that's a very rare occurrence. Most just go "A is not true, thereby B is true".


Add to which - simply thinking that the official version doesn't add up, doesn't point any fingers, or cite any conspirators. You seem to be unable to get around the concept of doubt, without seeing a conspiracy.


What can I say? Too much exposure to people trying to peddle the two together has made them almost the same. It's like having some Jehovah's witnesses walk up to your door at unannounced 8AM in the morning, all dressed up, religious books in hand, and they're there to talk about String theory.

Anyway, you're saying the official version doesn't add up. How?


Again, this seems intellectually dishonest. If I say the 9/11 footage doesn't add up, I don't HAVE to 'prove it stands up to scrutiny'... my claim is that the evidence isn't good enough. The burden of proof would be on the original source, not on the skeptic.

On the other hand, you can't just go "it doesn't add up" and expect that statement to be true. You have to elaborate on why it doesn't add up. And if your elaboration relies on false assumptions, even in the face of conflicting evidence, then it's clear who is intellectually dishonest.

It has to be said, considering that planes flew into the sides of them, the buildings fell down remarkably straight, in a remarkably small area, and with little real HEAVY scatter outside of a couple of chunks of fairly large material bouncing maybe across the street.

The towers didn't collapse until close to an hour after impact IIRC. Planes may have kicked things off, but the internal fires did most of the damage. This means no significant external kinetic energy that would have caused it to sway to either side.

If the towers collapsed on impact by the planes, you might have a case. But that would have required something probably a dozen times bigger and dense than a passenger jet.

If terrorists had the WTC rigged for demolition with explosive charges, why did they bother flying two planes into them? They could have flown the planes into secondary targets and tripled the carnage.

Time to play Devil's Advocate.

It's conceivable, after '93, it was decided that should the WTC be successfully targeted again, as much danger was in the collapse as the initial strike.

Explosives could have been placed to ensure that, if the towers were in danger of collapse, they'd do so in a controlled manner rather than cause incalculable damage and lives lost in the surrounding area.

It would be hard to admit this against claims that collapsing the towers in such a manner meant that 3, 000 people were thus doomed to die rather than the possibility of saving more.

Of course, no evidence has come to light of such explosives but the point is that there is a viable reason beyond terrorists or a government conspiracy, much as the same sort of accusations have been leveled at the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Pancaking buildings do not pulverize into dust
Pretty funny-looking dust (http://www.firecoalition.com/images/Ground_Zero.jpg). (I'm not denying that there was a lot of dust too, but I've managed to choke an entire room of my house with dust from demolishing just a 2-cubic-yard concrete hearth place. 110 storeys will make even more mess as they concertina into the ground.)

falling building debris does not rise up and outward against the force of gravity.
Rubbish - drop just one tonne of bricks just 10 storeys and then tell me all the bits land exactly where they first hit.

Planes to not vaporize
True, but even a medium-sized airliner's wreckage is going to be hard to spot after it's been on fire for a while and then pulverised and mixed into a gazillion tonnes of wrecked skyscraper.

Or do you mean before the collapse? Because it's not actually that hard to imagine a squished up airliner inserted completely into a few storeys of skyscraper. After all, an airliner is largely space (you know, for the people and luggage and stuff), and as it happens the same applies to the skyscraper, for similar reasons.

and folks do not coware away from men with box cutters when their lives are at stake.
Nonsense: people will do all sorts of unexpected things in a crisis situation, including believing everything will be fine if they just cower away and wait it out. And that's if they even realise their lives are in much danger in the first place - traditional hijackings of course don't involve much worse than an unplanned 4-day stopover in Havana.

Time to play Devil's Advocate.

Explosives could have been placed to ensure that, if the towers were in danger of collapse, they'd do so in a controlled manner rather than cause incalculable damage and lives lost in the surrounding area.

Even if that were true, it'd be a pretty lousy conspiracy: dark forces took steps to - gasp! - minimise the casualties in the event of a terrorist attack, by altering the design of some skyscrapers. (OK, so said putative alteration consisted of strategically placed TNT; that's not actually particularly relevant detail.)

As I recall, the towers didn't fall until some considerable time after the planes hit (because that's how long it took for the fires to weaken the steel enough to start the collapse), so the impact of the planes won't have had any direct effect on the direction of collapse.

And given that we're now looking at a pair of very big, heavy towers made of concrete and steel collapsing under the effects of nothing but their own weight, I'd actually find it surprising if much material had in fact fallen in any direction except straight down.

Even though the mental image is often harder to conjure up, concentrate on what basic physics says, not what would look right on Tom & Jerry. (That's not intended as critically as it might sound - cartoon 'physics' often feels more instantly plausible than the real thing.)

Oh, I know... I'm a scientist by trade, and - although environmental chemistry is probably my forte, my training has involved quite a broad spectrum - I'm not as unfamiliar with the physics of the situation as many might be.

The reason why I mentioned the planes - simple. If you have a point of impact, you have a point from which damage radiates - from which progressive weaknesses should be capable of being traced. Both concussive forces, as well as heat damage, should radiate from somewhere close to the impact point on the skin of the structure... although, perhaps the plane got lucky and punched through what was effectively little more than a masonry membrane. Still - that interface should have had some effect on the body, as well as the body affecting the structure - and that suggests a weakness that centres NEAR the crash site, at least.

I'm not suggesting the planes 'knocked the buildings over'... just that our epicentre for destruction would SEEM to be fairly close to the impact site.

The towers didn't collapse until close to an hour after impact IIRC. Planes may have kicked things off, but the internal fires did most of the damage. This means no significant external kinetic energy that would have caused it to sway to either side.

If the towers collapsed on impact by the planes, you might have a case. But that would have required something probably a dozen times bigger and dense than a passenger jet.

Errr... no - because I wasn't suggesting that the planes pushed the towers over...? :o

But the planes provide our point of action, the point from which our reaction should be - somehow - reflected. The stresses should be offcentre, the fire effects should be asymmetric, the weakest points should be located on one face, etc.

Time to play Devil's Advocate.

It's conceivable, after '93, it was decided that should the WTC be successfully targeted again, as much danger was in the collapse as the initial strike.

Explosives could have been placed to ensure that, if the towers were in danger of collapse, they'd do so in a controlled manner rather than cause incalculable damage and lives lost in the surrounding area.

It would be hard to admit this against claims that collapsing the towers in such a manner meant that 3, 000 people were thus doomed to die rather than the possibility of saving more.

Of course, no evidence has come to light of such explosives but the point is that there is a viable reason beyond terrorists or a government conspiracy, much as the same sort of accusations have been leveled at the plane that crashed in Pennsylvania.

Actually - that's an interesting thought. The 'conspiracy' could be that the structures already contained charges - designed not for terror, but for causing the buildings to collapse into their own footprints IF they should ever happen to be critically damaged.

As for reasons why such details might not be revealed - well, as you said, it's easier to point ALL the blame for deaths at one body, rather than saying "yes, we killed most of them if you think about it, but we did it to stop the towers landing in the middle of the street and squishing ten times as many".

Or, alternatively, the 'backup' system shouldn't have gone of on 9/11... the damage wasn't bad enough. But they did anyway. How do you admit to that?

Sure there have been conspiracies. There are sensible conspiracies. Like cartels. The whole Gulf of Tonkin incident. The Watergate scandal. Sensible stuff that was kept known to a relatively small amount of people and didn't rely on the public knowing about any part of it except on what they could feed out.


Even the 'sensible' conspiracies are only as secret as they are allowed to be. They are secret on one hand, whilst open on the other, sometimes - like the 'conspiracy' of Kennedy's brinkmanship over Cuba (knowing the Soviet installations were still just short of operational - but hiding that knowledge from the home-crowd as well as his opponents).


But that's a bit off track I suppose. Exposing a conspiracy requires gobs of evidence, investigative work, and whatever expertise in various fields that are needed when trying to show how physics won't work that way.


Exposing a conspiracy.. yes. On the other hand, SUGGESTING a conspiracy requires none of that.


On the other hand, you can't just go "it doesn't add up" and expect that statement to be true. You have to elaborate on why it doesn't add up. And if your elaboration relies on false assumptions, even in the face of conflicting evidence, then it's clear who is intellectually dishonest.

To me, it doesn't add up - I actually CAN 'just go' that, because that's all I need for my doubt, and I don't have to 'prove' my doubts.

I've mentioned a number of issues I have with the premise... but the 'intellectual dishonesty' I mention is less about that, and more about the pseudo-religious suggestions every time someone suggests the government might not be playing strictly on the level. I'm sure it's some kind of fallacy you are pulling, but I'm too tired to work it out right now.

Errr... no - because I wasn't suggesting that the planes pushed the towers over...? :o


Well, that was what it sounded like. Not that they pushed it over on impact, but rather, the kinetic energy involved was the ultimate reason for its collapse.


But the planes provide our point of action, the point from which our reaction should be - somehow - reflected.


The WTC is a skyscraper. Skyscrapers, at least those with modern designs, are built to sway with strong winds that are expected in the upper areas. I'm not sure if the WTC was built with such measures in place, but if they were, the plane impacts were likely absorbed that way.


The stresses should be offcentre, the fire effects should be asymmetric, the weakest points should be located on one face, etc.

No. This is untrue. Given the speed of the plane, and the sudden stop it experienced, the force of the explosion would have been thrown forward into the tower. I won't say it's perfectly symmetrical, because that's daft, but if it's close enough to the center, some asymmetry doesn't make much of a difference.

Also, note that the fire had an hour to burn and spread. Sure, the supports closest to the fire would be weakest at the time of the collapse, but to say that those further away from the impact point wouldn't be structurally weak enough to fail is daft.

Even the 'sensible' conspiracies are only as secret as they are allowed to be. They are secret on one hand, whilst open on the other, sometimes - like the 'conspiracy' of Kennedy's brinkmanship over Cuba (knowing the Soviet installations were still just short of operational - but hiding that knowledge from the home-crowd as well as his opponents).

And? What of it? But at this point of time, I think we should call a time out until we define what exactly constitutes a conspiracy.



Exposing a conspiracy.. yes. On the other hand, SUGGESTING a conspiracy requires none of that.


Sure, any fool can suggest a conspiracy. Like there never having been a moon mission. Or that snake headed spacemen control the world. Or fluoride is a communist conspiracy to taint "precious bodily fluids".

Suggesting a conspiracy without the listed requirements, or even enough of them for reasonable doubt, is just asking for people to laugh at you.


To me, it doesn't add up - I actually CAN 'just go' that, because that's all I need for my doubt, and I don't have to 'prove' my doubts.

You could. Nobody would agree with you. But you could.


I've mentioned a number of issues I have with the premise... but the 'intellectual dishonesty' I mention is less about that, and more about the pseudo-religious suggestions every time someone suggests the government might not be playing strictly on the level. I'm sure it's some kind of fallacy you are pulling, but I'm too tired to work it out right now.

Pseudo-religious? You mean like "the government speaks only truth. All else is heresy" sort of pseudo religious?

I don't make that claim. Never have, and probably never will. Or anything close to it. However, the thing has been looked at and analyzed by not only the government but external organizations who employ people who are a lot more qualified in this matter than you or I in analyzing the matter.

If you want to say that all their results are faked, and if you want people to believe you, you had better damned well have some compelling evidence.

I believe the NIST report says that debris was largely scattered from the collapse of the last few floors - kind of a cloud expanding outwards when it hits the ground?

It has to be said, considering that planes flew into the sides of them, the buildings fell down remarkably straight, in a remarkably small area, and with little real HEAVY scatter outside of a couple of chunks of fairly large material bouncing maybe across the street.

Are you watching a WTC collapse vid that was shot in a different reality to the rest of us? :p

WTC7 was a fair distance away, and yet got a big lump of debris through its front wall....

Basic physics says that if you impart force to an item it will react to that force.
The force of the building collapsing forced the debris away from the building in conjunction with the force of gravity , once gravity took over as the primary force acting upon the debris it dropped straight down and fair distance away from the building;s footprint, until it met either another structure or the ground.
See if you can find aerial photos of the damage caused to the surrounding buildings then say it was dropped in its own footprint

Without bothering to read the thread:
Not this shit again.

I think I've figured out what makes this particular conspiracy theory so particularly tiresome.

Engineering is not nearly so sewn up as people like to think: even something as simple as a footbridge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/millennium_bridge/default.stm) can still throw up major surprises the designers didn't anticipate before it was built.

This conspiracy theory, in contrast, relies on the notion that the collapse of a 110-storey skyscraper after being hit by an airliner is such a straightforward and/or everyday event that all the physical phenomena involved can be understood in minute detail by anyone who cares to take a casual glance. To the extent, in fact, that they can pick out surprising inconsistencies and incontrovertibly point to these as evidence of something sinister.

I think I've figured out what makes this particular conspiracy theory so particularly tiresome.

Engineering is not nearly so sewn up as people like to think: even something as simple as a footbridge (http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/english/static/in_depth/uk/2000/millennium_bridge/default.stm) can still throw up major surprises the designers didn't anticipate before it was built.

This conspiracy theory, in contrast, relies on the notion that the collapse of a 110-storey skyscraper after being hit by an airliner is such a straightforward and/or everyday event that all the physical phenomena involved can be understood in minute detail by anyone who cares to take a casual glance. To the extent, in fact, that they can pick out surprising inconsistencies and incontrovertibly point to these as evidence of something sinister.
That bridge collapse in Minnesota was sure suspicious. Do you think it was the work of radical anti-Lutherans who have infiltrated our government?

I don't know about anti-Lutherans, but you can't ignore the statistical evidence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_bridge_disasters). Dark forces of some description have been at work for centuries collapsing bridges, and it's pretty clear the government is not telling us the truth.