Debate and Discussion

Another 9/11 Conspiracy thread.
ozoneocean at 7:40AM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
A lot of people like to debate this. Ideas like the U.S. government secretly planning the terrorist attacks on the trade centre buildings themselves just so they could have their wars and things.


Justifications posed in questions like:
“How could the third tower have fallen?”
-well, there was a lot of fire and destruction all around it…
or:
"The fire couldn't have burned hot enough to melt STEEL"
-Trust me, it's not hard. It's the time that you heat it, not just the heat source itself. ;)

So, please discuss it all here. Have a blast! :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
subcultured at 8:14AM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
well, i kept thinking of this video…either he is really stupid or he's lying about something.

J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
lothar at 8:50AM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
subcultured
well, i kept thinking of this video…either he is really stupid or he's lying about something.



he sux at the american language ! what he prolly meant to say was " saw that a plane had hit the tower. "
that was on tv at the time , wasn't it . i was playing anarchy online at the time , i don't know.

anyway , there are many , much more compelling, arguments than this one

like ; Where is all the GOLD ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
StaceyMontgomery at 1:10PM, Aug. 7, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
I'm afraid i find the theories about the US government causing 9/11 to be kind of silly.

What's much more interesting is the way that 9/11 was exploited. First, the “Patriot Act” was unveiled in like 20 days - but it was huge and complex and filled with all kinds of carefully crafted details. The Patriot Act had been sitting on a shelf for 20 years, waiting for a big terrorist attack.

And BTW, Richard Alan Clarke, the former counter-terrorism Czar, has said as much (in a conversation with Lawrence Lessig) and says there are more of these plans just waiting for events that will make them plausible. For instance, there's a sort of “i-patriot act” that will totally clamp down on the internet (a very bad thing if you have a webcomic) and it's just sitting on a shelf, waiting for some kind of serious “internet 9/11,” some act of cyber-terrorism that will provide a justification for giving up yet more our rights.

If you had told me years ago that if a bunch of Saudis were going to blow up the world trade center and the event would be used as a pretext to invade Iraq, I would have honestly said “the American people aren't that stupid.”

I was wrong about that, and it breaks my heart.
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Faliat at 6:24PM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
The chances of all three towers falling down in the exact same way is pretty slim.
And seeing the way Bush reacted to New Orleans, a couple thousand people being crushed and blown to bits without sincere sympathy or remorse from their “elected” government leader I wouldn't run it past him, either.

And if you check the eyewitness interviews, how many actually say they heard explosions as the towers collapsed? Why was debris blown so far away? Why, if you look at photographs and videos of people being rescued from the debris, are the remainders of the beams cut at diagonal angles like used in the demolition of tall buildings? Why is it that there weren't helicopter rescue plans in place and the roof access doors locked in both towers?

Too many why questions are left behind.

There's no doubt in my mind that there's a conspiracy. Question is, how big is it? Is it simply covering up a fail in security/safety procedure and a massive delay in reacting to it by US forces? Or was it something much worse? I doubt I'll ever know. But a lot pf pieces don't fit. And becuse of that, people will always question it.

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
kyupol at 7:20PM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006

Believe it or not, I used to laugh out loud at those conspiracy theories about 9-11. Even after seeing Loose Change (the 1st edition) and other conspiracy videos that got posted in other message boards I visit.

But the biggest smoking gun in 9-11 is the fact that 3 towers fell but only 2 buildings were hit by planes.

http://www.ae911truth.org/wtc7.php

Also consider this. Even if you believe the official story that some men in a cave were responsible for this, why did Bush… err… correctly speaking (Bush doesnt run anything), the shadow government… attack Iraq even if Iraq clearly didnt have any links to Al Quaeda and had completely ZERO WMDs. Even if Saddam and al Quaeda were enemies.

Its even acknowledged by mainstream news, that Osama offered to help kick out Saddam from Kuwait. So where is the link between Osama and Saddam?


And why are the alleged hijackers still alive and well? Shouldnt they be totally incinerated by now? Man… what are these hijackers made of? Are they supermen? Are they super saiyans? It doesnt make any sense.





NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
cartoonprofessor at 11:19PM, Aug. 7, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
ozoneocean
Justifications posed in questions like:

"The fire couldn't have burned hot enough to melt STEEL"
-Trust me, it's not hard. It's the time that you heat it, not just the heat source itself. ;)

Exactly!

Have you ever watched fuel burn?

It goes up in a WHOOSH! It does not burn slowly. Av-gas, in particular, burns very very fast. It is physically impossible for fuel to ever maintain high enough temperatures to melt steel.

And even if it did, the towers would have collapsed outwards, not in a ‘pancake’ fashion (something that explosives engineers take a very long time to plan when they purposely demolish buildings).
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
ozoneocean at 2:19AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Well Cartoonprofessor, from what I know of steel and fire, I reason like this: Steel is a good conductor, it heats up FAST. It also dumps heat via conduction to what it's in contact with (other steel structures, concrete), and air which will cool it via convection. But if you lay on a lot of heat during a period of time, you very quickly exceed it's ability to cool down again. The maximum temp of the heat source doesn't really matter since the metal cannot cool down faster than it heats up, keep on heating that steel and it'll keep getting hotter and hotter.

You don't HAVE to melt steel to break it. Heat it enough and it softens. That's enough. It's fatal if they're load bearing structures. Game over -_-

Besides, you apply a destructive, hot, explosive environment to any set of materials and you'll get a bunch of strange things happening. At certain temps things that don't normally burn will actually explode or start to burn hotter than anything around them. I still remember watching a carpet factory burn down when I was younger, it was exciting watching portions of the asbestos roof burst in little explosions and the steel power-lines wire catch fire, melt and break in half, swinging wildly like electrified vipers…
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
cartoonprofessor at 3:00AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
Yeah sure, but not fast enough to be heated by instantaneous combustion. Like I said, fuel goes up instantly and immediately stops burning… it literally explodes, using all the available air practically instantaneously… that is why it is used as fuel for vehicles.

Put some fuel into a pot and light it… then see how hot the pot got when it burned… you will be able to hold your hand against the metal.

Melt or soften steel so that the whole building pancakes in a neat pile?

No way.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
ozoneocean at 3:28AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Only the gas burns, the fuel is actually liquid. The heat of the burning gas helps the rest of the liquid to evaporate as well… In an aircraft engine, as I understand it, the liquid fuel is sprayed into those turbofan engines and combusted inside, while a massive stream of air is forced through it via the huge fan… They don't work like car motors .and it's not gas.

As for the building and the environment inside there, I'm sure that fuel would have burned continuously for some time as is MIXED with AIR, which is what it NEEDS more than anything else to burn.

You can hold you hand to hot metal and not get burned straight away because skin is a bad conductor, full of water. Burning fuel in a pot is hardly a good analogue. Try spraying a burning stream of superheated air and gaseous high octane fuel for 5, 10 or 20 minutes against your pot and see what happens…

YES soften steel and pancake a building: ALL the entire weight of those upper floors were resting on those supports. That's enough weight to start to deform steel without it having to be burned yet. Then you soften that just a tiny little bit over the space of a few floors, just a small little bit is all you need and it's done for. You get a chain reaction then.

That reminds me of the propaganda videos they made for the Star wars program to get funding out of the U.S. government: They showed a video of an empty rocket booster, hit it with a high strength laser and it collapsed flat into nothing. The TRICK was they there was a massive weight on the top of it, you're not looking at that because you just look at the structure collapsing. But once the structure is weakened it can't hold up the weight any longer and flattens down.

Your mistake is thinking of a skyscraper like the WTC as a huge strong, monolithic structure. But they're not. Modern buildings like that just aren't. Rather than a pile of bricks, they're more like a cardboard box or a rolled up paper tube, -those things can support a LOT of weight. If I stand just right, a small paper structure or an empty coke can holds my weight. But bend one side just slightly and it goes down in a flash ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
cartoonprofessor at 4:27AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
But it won't pancake directly down.
There have been plenty of documented aircraft crashes into large buildings, they never go down.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that the jet fuel did ‘soften’ the steel in the upper stories. The lower stories would not be effected by heat but by the impact of upper stories collapsing on top of each other.

In that scenario the upper floors would buckle and slide outwards, not continue to pancake downwards in a neat pile… particularly as the planes did not hit the very top. The weight of the many upper floors would only exacerbate the impact and be even more likely to ‘slide’ and buckle to one side as they impacted the floors beneath, in turn causing those floors to buckle even more as the impacts and stresses continued.

Any engineer would tell you that.

And indeed there were many who risked their careers by stating exactly that. Of course the mainstream media did not/would not report on these ‘anti-patriotic’ ‘conspiracy nuts’. ('Conspiracy nuts' with many years of engineering expertise, some even from the demolition industrys)

How many more experts simply shut their mouths, knowing the damage speaking out could cause in the fear-ridden, patriotic, indignant and righteous anger of the time?

My own brother, an engineer in Australia's mining industry, has said it would be physically impossible to bring down a building in that fashion without using controlled explosions.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
cartoonprofessor at 4:37AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007
ozoneocean
Your mistake is thinking of a skyscraper like the WTC as a huge strong, monolithic structure. But they're not. Modern buildings like that just aren't. Rather than a pile of bricks, they're more like a cardboard box or a rolled up paper tube, -those things can support a LOT of weight. If I stand just right, a small paper structure or an empty coke can holds my weight. But bend one side just slightly and it goes down in a flash ;)

Your paper tube will bend in the middle as it collapses. It will not collapse in on itself into a neat pile. Try standing on a coke can and collapsing it neatly into a pancake… it won't happen. A can will only crush neatly if you carefully and precisely impact it very hard and suddenly, and even then it will often twist and ‘pancake’ into an oval shape rather than a neat circle. If you apply the weight slowly it will often just bend and twist in the middle and splay sideways.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
ozoneocean at 7:05AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
Sorry man. I've done that with cans and boxes etc for fun and they can go down in the centre.

It does depend on factors though, just like with the WTC. The structure particular to those buildings helped them fall that way. There are many ways to build something and it all makes for different ways to support weight, and of course when they're demolished they fall differently. There are some structures you couldn't even dent with a jet, Others that'd spill over crazily. The Fact is the WTC buildings were piles of crap.. They couldn't be expected to be designed for two jet aeroplanes hitting them, but I'm sure lots of other better constructed buildings would have taken it and not collapsed like that.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Hawk at 9:42AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,760
joined: 1-2-2006
A paranoid guy at work had me watch a video about 9-11 theories. I'm sure it's one of the ones mentioned earlier in this thread, but I don't remember the name.

Interestingly enough a lot of the stuff they said made sense, and would certainly be convincing if it wasn't for the fact that they're simply asking me to take the word of one scientist over another. The makers of the video certainly had an agenda–just as much as the alleged conspirators they were trying to expose.

But I think the video did its damage, even if I'm skeptical. I no longer take the government's explanation at face value and I don't automatically protest when people question the events that happened that day.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:46PM
Inkmonkey at 11:03AM, Aug. 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 2,220
joined: 1-3-2006
How many times has a huge building been blind-sided by a commercial airplane? All I'm saying is that we actually have very little practical knowledge about what would happen to something of that size and scale. Things just get different after a while; maybe most buildings would even out to a flat, internal collapse if they had enough falling space to do so.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:00PM
StaceyMontgomery at 12:34PM, Aug. 8, 2008
(offline)
posts: 520
joined: 4-7-2007
If the government had wanted an excuse to invade Iraq so badly that they were going to blow up the WTC, wouldn't they have made it actually look like Iraq did it?

Personally, I think that even the President was surprised that they could use 9/11 to invade Iraq.

I tend to believe the insiders who report that Bush's neocons were looking for an excuse to start a real cold war with China. They wanted a new “USSR” and they were sticking close to the playbook. China looked like a more promising “enemy” than Islamic terrorists. The evidence seems to be that when the Bush people came to power they totally ignored the Clinton team's assessments of the growing danger of al-Qaeda.

9-11 was the result of the administration's incompetence, not their being super masterminds. Honestly - do they really look that clever to you?

The key to any conspiracy theory is that you have to ask yourself - are they really *that* smart?
last edited on July 14, 2011 3:55PM
Faliat at 1:07PM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 582
joined: 10-17-2006
I was pretty shocked by the fact that they still found bone fragments from the dead in damaged areas of nearby buildings five years on.

If the buildings collapsed after the planes hit, wouldn't that mean the bones would be CRUSHED in the lower levels and not blown across the street?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5fH7c8H6SNw

The third last video. While the tower's collapsing at 5:43. Look at it! A comparatively tiny puff of smoke. But still very visible. and it's below where it should be if it was just collapsing.

The more I look into the amateur video footage, the more I become certain that something was up.

But I'm absolutely disgusted by the way some people say that those aren't REAL planes crashing into the towers.

What did the US government do, eh? Steal the camcorder of everyone that filmed the footage, killed the cameramen/women and replaced them with robot clones so they can't claim the footage was edited?

Call that jumped up metal rod a knife?
Watch mine go straight through a kevlar table, and if it dunt do the same to a certain gaixan's skull in my immediate vicinity after, I GET A F*****G REFUND! BUKKO, AH?!

- Rekkiy (NerveWire)
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:25PM
dueeast at 3:49PM, Aug. 8, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,093
joined: 5-6-2007
I was doing IT work for an engineering firm when 911 happened, and they explained two factors to me concerning the WTC collapse. First, the metal infrastructure had no chance (much for the same reasons OO described), the way it was designed, it folded in on itself like a deck of cards. It was not a very good design, unfortunately.

Secondly, once the first buildings fell, the stress placed upon the whole complex (via the foundation that connected them) was enormous and could have potentially brought all of the buildings down, depending on how much damage they sustained. As it happened, only building 7 had enough damage that it could no longer sustain its own structure.

I'm not the government's biggest fan but this is explainable without going into these conspiracy theories. Did the politicians take advantage of the situation after 911? Absolutely. Did they push legislation and take away rights? Absolutely. Are they responsible for 911? I truly don't think so.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:18PM
bravo1102 at 6:38AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,323
joined: 1-21-2008
When JP explodes it leaves little collasped fragments of plane and generates such heat that everything is incinerated in seconds.

The WTC was not build very well and city officials were paid off to allow certain practices. However, the engineers who built it acknowledged that because of their height the WTC towers were designed to fall in on themselves NOT fall over on the surrounding area.

The major crash into a building by an aircraft was the B-25 into the Empire State building. A B-25 is a great deal smaller than a jet airliner and used 100 octane gasoline NOT JP. The Empire State Building was not steel and glass. It was steel and stone. The same applies to the Pentagon. The Pentagon was built to withstand a WWII era bombing raid. The extreme heat of jet fuel and the composites and light metal of a jetliner couldn't and didn't do much damage.

The WTC was completely different. Once the steel hit the flash temperature good-bye building.

This is from architechts, NYC officials, civil engineers and aero engineers. The building codes have changed significantly since the WTC was built and the building would have not collapsed if built to modern standards. Built to indifferent and lax 1970's standards it collapsed like the engineers designed it for safety to the surrounding area because they couldn't add (or afford and time was tight) the necessary damage control infrastructure.

Besides nothing can ever be kept a secret among three people unless two of them are dead. The great majority of conspiracies collapse because someone talks. What has been gained for the destruction of the WTC is miniscule for what was accomplished. An indifferent Congressional Resolution? An attack on Iraq? Why not the invasion of Saudi Arabia and grabbing the main oil fields in the world?

I can see sacrificing a few 30 year old battleships to get America into WWII, but destroying the WTC to occupy Iraq and not even trying for an open ended Declaration of War? (like against the Barbary Pirates)

You do something big you better get something big. Why not just blow up another ship in an Arab harbor? (comepletely like the USS Maine or HMS Sheffield not blowing off the bow and a big ship. If an AEGIS class cruiser went up you'd get the same reaction as the WTC with a lot less cost. Maybe a few jet airliners just blowing up on the tarmac, not crashing into a major building.)

A good hijack would have been just as effective. Remember the Aquili Lauro? Of course not, memory in these conspiracy debates goes back to last Tuesday and doesn't look at these things in a long term historical perspective, because then the conspiracy theories would collapse just like the WTC did.

But it does make for facinating reading. ;) (Again back to the book Why People Believe Weird Things and the 60 Greatest Conspiracies)
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
ozoneocean at 8:04AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,995
joined: 1-2-2004
bravo1102
\Remember the Aquili Lauro?
I do… They used to advertise cruises on it on TV all the time here. Before the hijack.
And even after it, which shocked me a bit at the time, considering what had happened. But then those things are a business and have to make money.

–I think with the WTC attacks it's been such a strange series of wildly escalating events and unintended consequences, lots of things going wildly chaotically wrong and people trying to capitalise on them at every stage- all that has made it seem like it must have been planned to the pattern seekers, the theorists, the cynical observers of government dealings…

I mean, you've got this teeny little pathetic independent group hiding away in the wastes of Afghanistan that are nevertheless extremely clever and resourceful, with abilities akin to and maybe exceeding that of many major intelligence organisations. They plan and execute this symbolic attack that succeeds beyond their wildest imaginings.
-We all know the WTC was crap now, but nobody at the time, including Bin Laden and chums expected the result.

-Bin laden and gang took advantage of the situation, claimed a great success and have ridden on it since knowing they can never, ever, ever match it.
-Some homicidal disaffected American biologist (they're not really 100% who) took advantage of the chaos to send anthrax letters to people he hated to try and stir up more terror and make it look like part of the whole thing.
-Bush was stuffed, he had no one to strike back at directly for the attacks. The Saudis were off-limits, Iraq wasn't anything to do with it, it wasn't Afghanistan either… But they were good scapegoats and the U.S. public demanded revenge. The world didn't like the administration of Afghanistan either so there was no protest. Hence the largely accidental deaths of over 3000 (malicious though the cause was), were avenged many times over on the innocent civilians of a distant pathetic country.
-Bush was eventually able to use the momentum begun with Afghanistan to go after Iraq like he wanted to all along.
-Meanwhile Osama is still out there, but the terrorist gangs have mutated and changed again; going back to what their original role was in Afghanistan against the Russians, except now it's in Afghanistan against the US, British, Australians and many others, and in Iraq and Pakistan, Chechnyia, Ingusetia, the Philippines too.
-With the flipside being the wannabe disaffected zealots who take the Al Quida brand and franchise it in Spain, Indonesia, and Britain.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Lemur_Bacon at 9:32AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(offline)
posts: 31
joined: 8-6-2008
Very interesting thread and subject. I find the idea of the government being behind it somewhat far fetched though. Anyone seen Zeitgeist, just out of interest? *Will now read more of other's posts and comment :)*
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:34PM
subcultured at 9:59AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 5,392
joined: 1-7-2006
the brooklyn bridge is next…so that we can attack iran.
that's why we attacked iraq, cause they blew up the buildings…wait no they didn't. saddam wasn't even involved.

i call shinnanigans.
J
last edited on July 14, 2011 4:03PM
bravo1102 at 11:18AM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,323
joined: 1-21-2008
subcultured
the brooklyn bridge is next…so that we can attack iran.
that's why we attacked iraq, cause they blew up the buildings…wait no they didn't. saddam wasn't even involved.

i call shinnanigans.


The powers that be will just claim that Iran has WMDs and invade… to… stop them… oh wait, can't get fooled again?

And they could even just reuse all the same documents and news stories just change the “q” to “n”.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
cartoonprofessor at 8:31PM, Aug. 9, 2008
(online)
posts: 396
joined: 9-2-2007

subcultured
the brooklyn bridge is next…so that we can attack iran.
that's why we attacked iraq, cause they blew up the buildings…wait no they didn't. saddam wasn't even involved.

i call shinnanigans.

While I still am of the opinion that the buildings were not brought down by airliners, I am not sure BUsh and co were directly involved… they may have ‘allowed’ it to proceed.

Sadly, I tend to think the motives for the ‘attacks’ were more inhuman than an attempt to sway public opinion for what followed… the new owner of these buildings bought them cheap because they were known as toxic ‘white elephants’. It was going to cost huge amounts of money to remove the tonnes of asbestos that coated the entire frame so he took out massive amounts of insurance to protect them from ‘terrorist attack’ (a matter of weeks before the attacks) and hey, presto, cheap demolition job accomplished without all of that expensive asbestos removal.

Most likely the attacks served several people in several ways… people that while not necessarily directly involved nontheless knew of them and were ready for it when it happened.

I hope I am wrong, that no human could be that evil, but how come most of the supposed hijackers are alive in various countries?

And what happened to the tonnes of gold that was stored in the basements?

And where is the wreckage from ‘whatever’ hit the Pentagon?


And in regards to “someone (always) talks”… they still could, although if ever, it will be so far in the future that the whistleblower won't be totally incinerated by public opinion for being involved, and hence guilt may force them forward.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:36AM
lothar at 5:06AM, Aug. 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
Lemur_Bacon
Very interesting thread and subject. I find the idea of the government being behind it somewhat far fetched though. Anyone seen Zeitgeist, just out of interest? *Will now read more of other's posts and comment :)*


http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm

everybody go watch it
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
bravo1102 at 10:08AM, Aug. 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,323
joined: 1-21-2008
cartoon professor
And what happened to the tonnes of gold that was stored in the basements?

And where is the wreckage from ‘whatever’ hit the Pentagon?


And in regards to “someone (always) talks”… they still could, although if ever, it will be so far in the future that the whistleblower won't be totally incinerated by public opinion for being involved, and hence guilt may force them forward.



1. The gold was in the basement. As such it was moved as it is accessable from below like the train station. Also there wasn't that much there. Urban myth.

2.(to quote myself)
me
The major crash into a building by an aircraft was the B-25 into the Empire State building. A B-25 is a great deal smaller than a jet airliner and used 100 octane gasoline NOT JP. The Empire State Building was not steel and glass. It was steel and stone. The same applies to the Pentagon. The Pentagon was built to withstand a WWII era bombing raid. The extreme heat of jet fuel and the composites and light metal of a jetliner couldn't and didn't do much damage.
(emphasis added)

We're talking 1000 heavy WWII era bombers here with about 12,000 pounds of bombs apiece, do you think that an airliner would cause all that much damage? Also:

me
When JP explodes it leaves little collasped fragments of plane and generates such heat that everything is incinerated in seconds.

Those little collapsed pieces of plane were found. It doesn't show up in photographs very well. I doubt the relatives wanted to see the little bits of ash their loved ones had become. That is the reality of an airplane crash at full speed where the fuel vaporizes most everything.

9/11 was a conspiracy. A conspiracy of highjackers who wanted to make a statement to the world. Of course people are that evil, compared to so many others in history this group was relatively benign. And the highjackers who “survived” the crash are as well documented as the little grey aliens from Roswell and guys on the grassy knoll. The ones who carried out the deed are ashes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 11:33AM
kyupol at 8:04PM, Aug. 10, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
Lemur_Bacon
Very interesting thread and subject. I find the idea of the government being behind it somewhat far fetched though. Anyone seen Zeitgeist, just out of interest? *Will now read more of other's posts and comment :)*

Saw it. Though I warn anyone here that you may be offended if you are a strong Christian.

Other film recommendations:

- Dark Secrets: The Bohemian Grove
- Loose Change
- Endgame
- 911 Chronicles: Truth Rising
- Freedom or Fascism
- Prison to Paradise
- Esoteric Agenda
- Dangers of Vaccines
- Big Brother, The Big Picture
- David Icke: Was he right? (balanced documentary)
- David Icke: The Lizards and the Jews (balanced documentary)
- Popular Mechanics vs Loose Change (balanced documentary)
NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
KingRidley at 6:47PM, Sept. 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 151
joined: 9-28-2008
ozoneocean
"The fire couldn't have burned hot enough to melt STEEL"
-Trust me, it's not hard. It's the time that you heat it, not just the heat source itself. ;)
I'm only going to comment about this fact, or else I will start flaming people. I hate conspiracy theories with a fierce passion.

The steel did not need to be hot enough to melt. Once it gets warmer and warmer, it looses strength. Once it is weak enough, it bends. With alot of building above where the fires were, it didn't need to get very hot for the steel to weaken and collapse.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
kyupol at 7:46PM, Sept. 28, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,712
joined: 1-12-2006
KingRidley
ozoneocean
"The fire couldn't have burned hot enough to melt STEEL"
-Trust me, it's not hard. It's the time that you heat it, not just the heat source itself. ;)
I'm only going to comment about this fact, or else I will start flaming people. I hate conspiracy theories with a fierce passion.

The steel did not need to be hot enough to melt. Once it gets warmer and warmer, it looses strength. Once it is weak enough, it bends. With alot of building above where the fires were, it didn't need to get very hot for the steel to weaken and collapse.

So if you heat up your barbecue grill, the heat of the flames will cause it to weaken and collapse?

Anyway, 9-11 truth is difficult to dismiss and ignore as a product of a bunch of lunatics who wanna make money and be famous.

Because you got…

Physicists:
http://www.physics911.net/

Architects and Engineers:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

Pilots:
http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

Also, we have a list of prominent people speaking out for 9-11 truth:
http://www.911truthskipton.com/inside_job.htm


And most of all… it doesnt take rocket science to figure this out:



NOW UPDATING!!!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:26PM
KingRidley at 9:44PM, Sept. 28, 2008
(offline)
posts: 151
joined: 9-28-2008
kyupol
So if you heat up your barbecue grill, the heat of the flames will cause it to weaken and collapse?
Your barbecue grill is not holding the weight of a building. That, and the fire in the grill is very small.

Your logic fails.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved