911 Conspiracy discusion

For instance, people say that 9/11 (I know I shouldn't bring this up today of all days, but it is the best example) was a government conspiracy.

What was the motive they give? - So we could invade the Middle East and get oil.

The Middle East has been proven to have oil, and it doesn't rely on the conspiracy to be true for that to change, so the motive is a valid one.

It was a motive because it put our country in fear, and didn't deny Bushe's decisions. They went to afghanistan and did nothing, (except now they grow more opium then ever before) and they go to Iraq for no yet explained reason. Also, while in afghanistan, they built a large pipeline, for a company. Sure, they where all ready giving us oil, but it wasn't through a company that was owned by Dick Cheney.

Also, I don't even agree with alot of those previous statements, but I still believe that it wasn't just the plains that took down those towers. There is no way those planes could of made those 2 towers collapse the way it did, it just denies physics.

There is no way those planes could of made those 2 towers collapse the way it did, it just denies physics.

So does a Flat Earth.

No it doesnt, weve been over it, it works fine with physics, Newtonian physics.

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

There is no way those planes could of made those 2 towers collapse the way it did, it just denies physics.

So does a Flat Earth.

These are sperate. The heat that it would take to make the support beams brake, is far beyond, the heat that the fire from the planes made, that's been   proven through tests they had to do on all metals before they made the building. Even then, it wouldn't make it fall from the bottom.

but let's us not debate about this here, make a new topic, if you must.

OT: visit ww.infowars.com for some interesting government conspiracy information on 9/11 and much more.

Possible Thoery

It could likely be to prevent terrorism. You could easily put a huge whole in our Ice Wall, and guess would happen? Massive changes, if not an END to our culture as we know it. The government could easily be doing this to prevent any chance of this ever happening. It'd be like hiding the existance of bombs, how could they bomb us if it's not possible? They might just be saving our lives.

Well, if the ice wall is only 150 feet high, and really, really thick

1- The atmosphere would have to be held in by something other than the ice wall, or else there would be no atmoshpere above 150 feet

2- It would be impossible to blast a hole through the ice wall. It is many miles thick if it exists, as shown by people who have been on cruises to Antartica.


Also, it is perfectly possible for the WTC to fail like it did. The beams were covered in foam fire retardant. It was blasted off when the fuel tanks of the planes exploded. the steel girders melted, and when the first ones failed, the rest were so weak that the extra stress caused them to fail almost instantaneously. Therefore the buildings failed by the top falling straight downwards onto the bottom, which failed due to several thousand tonnes for steel and concrete falling on it.

These conspiracy theories are very disrespectful to the innocent people who died in the terrorist attacks. I'm no fan of US foreign policy, but the killing of 3000 non-combatants is sickening.

not only 3000 non-combatents, 3000 of your own non-combatants, and I agree, it is extremely disrespectful

You can believe it's a conspiracy, I personally don't. I was just saying that it was possible for the buildings to fail the way they did because of the impact of the planes alone- remember Osama Bin Laden is a qualified civil engineer, and he would have known this was the likely outcome, if it was he who planned the attacks.

actually, it was mostly KSM, a person whos name I cannot pronounce or write correctly

So was it a conspiracy or not?! Make up your mind!

Ha, I already said I don't believe it to be.

Oh, sorry!

Search function moment!

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

There is no way those planes could of made those 2 towers collapse the way it did, it just denies physics.

So does a Flat Earth.

These are sperate. The heat that it would take to make the support beams brake, is far beyond, the heat that the fire from the planes made, that's been   proven through tests they had to do on all metals before they made the building. Even then, it wouldn't make it fall from the bottom.

but let's us not debate about this here, make a new topic, if you must.

Jet fuel burns at 825C and, while steel melts at 1525C, it loses half its strength and structural integrity at 648C.

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

There is no way those planes could of made those 2 towers collapse the way it did, it just denies physics.

So does a Flat Earth.

These are sperate. The heat that it would take to make the support beams brake, is far beyond, the heat that the fire from the planes made, that's been   proven through tests they had to do on all metals before they made the building. Even then, it wouldn't make it fall from the bottom.

but let's us not debate about this here, make a new topic, if you must.

Jet fuel burns at 825C and, while steel melts at 1525C, it loses half its strength and structural integrity at 648C.

Hmm, I don't (any longer, since a couple years ago) subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but weren't the towers actually intended to take the heat of burning jet fuel?
What made it extra confusing for me was that the media said it was not the burning of the jet fuel that brought the buildings down, but secondary fires ignited by the jet-fuel-fire; I am unable to think of anything that would be found in an office building that burns hotter than jet fuel.

Quote from: "Bugman"

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

Quote from: "DrPoodle"

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

There is no way those planes could of made those 2 towers collapse the way it did, it just denies physics.

So does a Flat Earth.

These are sperate. The heat that it would take to make the support beams brake, is far beyond, the heat that the fire from the planes made, that's been   proven through tests they had to do on all metals before they made the building. Even then, it wouldn't make it fall from the bottom.

but let's us not debate about this here, make a new topic, if you must.

Jet fuel burns at 825C and, while steel melts at 1525C, it loses half its strength and structural integrity at 648C.

Hmm, I don't (any longer, since a couple years ago) subscribe to the 9/11 conspiracy theories, but weren't the towers actually intended to take the heat of burning jet fuel?
What made it extra confusing for me was that the media said it was not the burning of the jet fuel that brought the buildings down, but secondary fires ignited by the jet-fuel-fire; I am unable to think of anything that would be found in an office building that burns hotter than jet fuel.

WOuldn't the secondary fires have brunt things other than the centre beams (materials inside the building) which would/could have caused the rest of the building (celings, floors etc) to be structually comprimised? The office bulding I work in has wodden boards under the carpet (obviously they aren't the load-bearing materials, but If these went up, I have to suspect that it wouldn't be good for the rest of the building...)

There could be heaps of stuff in an office that is flammable...maybe not as high heat as jet fuel, but imagine a storage of chemicals....sulfur etc. THat would go up pretty fast. then consider all the electrical material and hardware etc, that all makes for a pretty big fire....considering there were how many stories??

 Even then, it wouldn't make it fall from the bottom.

Have you seen the footage of them collapsing? They didnt fall from the bottom. They fell from the floors of impact.

They were designed to take the heat of the jet fuel, but the explosion caused by the impact blasted the fire retardant from the steel support beams, leaving them vulnerable

Quote from: "WisconsinAmmo"

 Even then, it wouldn't make it fall from the bottom.

Have you seen the footage of them collapsing? They didnt fall from the bottom. They fell from the floors of impact.

Bulding 7 was the only building to fall from the bottom, the two WTC towers both fell from the top.

however it is almost impossible for Fires from jetfuel or otherwise to bring down a skyscraper, many physics proffesors and demolitions experts have since gone public, stating how ludicrus the idea that jet fuel brought down those buildings is.


and the conspiracys are disrespectful? what can be more respectful than trying to bring the perpertrators to justice.

www.infowars.com

many physics proffesors and demolitions experts have since gone public, stating how ludicrus the idea that jet fuel brought down those buildings is.

I think a physics professor has gone public.  And not to denigrate that noble field, but i'm not sure that a physicist -- who often considers situations in which many variables have been neglected for simplicity -- is the right person with the final say on how ludricrous the effects of burning jet fuel from an airplane that crashed into a building.  There are just too many variables to consider, and as usual in such conspiracy theories, this researcher's approach was to look at isolated features of the event without considering the relationship between all the effects that the crash had.

Anyway, I've read way more refutations of his claims (molten metal stuff, freefall timing stuff, and temperature/strain stuff) than support of them.

the 3 buildings that collapsed on 9/11 are the only modern buildings ever to collapse totally because of fire even though a building in madrid burned for over 19 hours and only a few floors partially collapsed.

and the company that designed the WTC built it to withstand Multiple impacts from commercial aircraft. and the company that tested the steel have said that there is NO WAY that jet fuesl could have caused the whole building to collapse.

fireman in one of the buildings said that the fires were almost completely out just moments before an explosion was heard and the building collapsed.

on the day even some of the mainstreem media reported multiple explosions after the aircraft hit, but was soon dropped like a hot potato.

there is also immense prrof that the US Govt. had detailed prior knowledge and helped it happen, that can be found here:

http://www.infowars.com/sept11_archive.htm

not all the articles in the above show major significance, although many do.

if you read all of them its undeniable that the US Govt. was involved.

I just have to wonder what kind of damage the impact of the planes caused.  Can a 747 hit a building like the WTC and not even harm the structure itself?

yes it can, as the architects that designed it have said and a director of a big engineering/architectual firm has said, but was soon fired after going public.

well, it would obvioulsy harm the structure but no where near enough to cause teh WHOLE building to collapse.

When would the bombs have been placed without anybody at all knowing?  In the seventies when the towers were being built?

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270&hl=en

another interesting video.

from www.911speakout.org

Obviously the companies who designed the towers, poured the steel, etc. designed them to withstand such an attack.  If they didn't, people might see them as culpable, no?  They wouldn't want to be seen as culpable.

they still have teh orignal documents stating the specifications the building was designed to and what temo the steel was tested to etc.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270&hl=en

For those of you who didn't watch the video, they state that 4-ton girders ended up 600 ft. from the base of the WTC.  There's a lot of hoo-hah, but the guts is a calculation that shows how fast they'd have to have flown as a function of height in order to reach that distance, assuming that the girder flew horizontally.  The calculations show that if they flew from the top of the building, they would have to move 50 mph or so, and if they came from the bottom of the building they would have to have flown 250 mph or so.  The narrator then blithely points out that air being pushed out of the building as it collapsed could not have provided the necessary force to accelerate the girders to those speeds (noting that if the building was falling more slowly when it started (near the top) than at the end (near the bottom)).  Thus, he concludes, it must be the work of explosives.

He then goes on to distract you with a philosophical discussion of facts and theories and crying out for the truth etc.

What he doesn't consider:

1)  the possibility that the girders were not launched horizontally, the least efficient possible direction that isn't actually downward.

2)  the possibility that the girders might have been pushed out not by the air escaping but by the compressive force of the building above it snapping the girders.  Like when you break a stick and the pieces fly away, you don't blame the wind, you blame the snaping of the stick.

3)  any computation involving the energy that actually went into the girders as the building collapsed.

4)  the possibility that the girders were displaced not during the collapse but during the initial impact of the rather large airplane or the subsequent explosion.

5)  the fact that girders bounce.

See, this is the problem with oversimplifying the scenario.  The video basically encapsulates a high-school physics approach to the question.  This is why teams of scientists, not conspiracy theorists, are hired to investigate stuff like this, and why they take three years and a thousand interviews and a million pages of research.  There's a data asymmetry here that conspiracy theorists will always use to their advantage.

Quote from: "Hamaz"

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7304846209709908270&hl=en

For those of you who didn't watch the video, they state that 4-ton girders ended up 600 ft. from the base of the WTC.  There's a lot of hoo-hah, but the guts is a calculation that shows how fast they'd have to have flown as a function of height in order to reach that distance, assuming that the girder flew horizontally.  The calculations show that if they flew from the top of the building, they would have to move 50 mph or so, and if they came from the bottom of the building they would have to have flown 250 mph or so.  The narrator then blithely points out that air being pushed out of the building as it collapsed could not have provided the necessary force to accelerate the girders to those speeds (noting that if the building was falling more slowly when it started (near the top) than at the end (near the bottom)).  Thus, he concludes, it must be the work of explosives.

He then goes on to distract you with a philosophical discussion of facts and theories and crying out for the truth etc.

What he doesn't consider:

1)  the possibility that the girders were not launched horizontally, the least efficient possible direction that isn't actually downward.

2)  the possibility that the girders might have been pushed out not by the air escaping but by the compressive force of the building above it snapping the girders.  Like when you break a stick and the pieces fly away, you don't blame the wind, you blame the snaping of the stick.

3)  any computation involving the energy that actually went into the girders as the building collapsed.

4)  the possibility that the girders were displaced not during the collapse but during the initial impact of the rather large airplane or the subsequent explosion.

5)  the fact that girders bounce.

See, this is the problem with oversimplifying the scenario.  The video basically encapsulates a high-school physics approach to the question.  This is why teams of scientists, not conspiracy theorists, are hired to investigate stuff like this, and why they take three years and a thousand interviews and a million pages of research.  There's a data asymmetry here that conspiracy theorists will always use to their advantage.

i agree perhaps that was not the best video to show.

however the evidence for an intimate knowledge of 9/11 by the US Govt. priro to the event is undeniable.

and i will go as far as to say that anyone who has seen articles like those on infowars, that still believes the official story as a dissilusioned idiot.

and Eserasmus, surely if you believe teh Govt. is capable of hiding the fact that the earth is flat, what is so hard to believe about a 9/11 coverup when the evidence is incredible.