9/11 Conspiracy thread ALLAHU AKBARRRRR ! [Archive]

View Full Version : 9/11 Conspiracy thread ALLAHU AKBARRRRR !

Pages : [1] 2

JBAE

13-09-2011, 01:26 AM

Bored and seeing as there is a little bit of interest on the topic and not wanting to poison the rememberance thread TJ started and holds dear to his heart like a shepard with a new born lamb and will wave his mighty samurai Ban stick to defend its honour against the marauding wolfish likes of Mad Aussie and Co. :)

figured id put this here... I found it interesting if it is infact accurate, about alot of photochops ect....

IF this kicks off can we try and keep the "reptillain overloard" and "New World Order" and other "political motivational" crap out of it as its boring and gay, keep it to posting more stuff like the mechanics of the events, pics, anomalies, vids, docos, scientific crap, witness accounts and stuff, credible experts oppinions ect

please ensure that your Tin Foil hats are also firmly attached for your own health and mental well being!

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies1.htm

JBAE

13-09-2011, 02:05 AM

P.S- Looks like a 300ZX got owned at the pentagon KEK!

INSINR8R

13-09-2011, 02:59 AM

It's all bullshit.

Loose Change is the most ridiculous film about it all. They've had to edit and re-release it 3 times due to factual errors and copyrighted material. The reason is because they skimmed the events of the day, made up some shit and slapped a film together.

The shit about WTC 7 having only small spot fires. The side facing the Twin Towers was hit with debris from the second tower collapsing. It gouged a huge hole on the right hand side of the building and smoke billowed out from all floors. There were news reports and even amateur video with fire fighters explaining that due to the hole and fires, the structural integrity of the building was severely compromised and they had to wait for it to collapse before they could start a rescue mission.

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/TvF_KOrRUyE" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/V3DPzY5-L54" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

JBAE

13-09-2011, 03:11 AM

In the link i posted above the author raises some epically good points and unless he is doing the editing himself to serve his own agenda there IS ALOT of photochopping of the pics surrounding the pentagon incident blatent chops at that, and how local airport fire department fucked them by accidently being in the vacinity of the pentagon when the hit happend and being first on the scene and having a whole heap of their own pics ect in which the famous "debris field" is non existant

INSINR8R

13-09-2011, 03:54 AM

But that's it. This guy says he has had so much experience in analyzing photos and such. He would also have the know how to manipulate photos to back his claims.

These conspiracy theorists made up a lot of their claims. People who believe these claims then regurgitate them without having any solid evidence to back it up. Most of them end up being put in their place when the claims are refuted.

There was a doco about the Twin Towers on Discovery a few years ago. As much as engineers said the towers were structurally solid, they said the towers may be able to withstand the impact of a passenger jet hitting them, but couldn't guarantee it. Also, these claims were made once when the towers were first built in 1973 and again after they repaired the damage from the attack on the North Tower in '91.

The engineers and architects had never accounted for the fact that the planes in the future would be a lot bigger, a lot heavier, carry a lot more fuel and have a higher top speed, nor did they ever thing someone would actually fly a plane into the towers. They had judged that the towers possibly could withstand a Jet back in the 70's hitting the towers at around 500kph.

The jets that hit in 2001 were flying in excess of 700kph. The planes are capable of up to 900+kph. The inertia is much greater than anticipated and would have caused the steel skeleton to buckle. The fires were also at the point the steel started to warp and the weight of the remaining floors above was too much for it to handle.

JBAE

13-09-2011, 06:43 AM

These guys arnt just crackpots and their arguments are strong IMO

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/OQgVCj7q49o" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Lump

13-09-2011, 07:41 AM

The inertia is much greater than anticipated and would have caused the steel skeleton to buckle. The fires were also at the point the steel started to warp and the weight of the remaining floors above was too much for it to handle.
it wasnt the inertia from the planes - it was the huge payload of fuel & resultant fire that the engineers didnt take into consideration.

the hijackers did their homework - selecting westcoast bound flights that should have lots of fuel.

shifted

13-09-2011, 07:54 AM

it wasnt the inertia from the planes - it was the huge payload of fuel & resultant fire that the engineers didnt take into consideration.

the hijackers did their homework - selecting westcoast bound flights that should have lots of fuel.

No matter the quantity of fuel, still wouldn't melt the Steel into the molten metal it was?

Lump

13-09-2011, 07:56 AM

steel doesnt have to melt or get anywhere near that temp to lose its strength - thought you would have know that lol..

ben351

13-09-2011, 08:15 AM

i still think it looks too much like a controlled demolition ... the buildings come down too accurately

coFF33

13-09-2011, 08:20 AM

MadDocker

13-09-2011, 08:22 AM

How would you expect them to fall after the top levels collapsed down? Straight to the side like a tree or something?

I always wonder how much the government knew and what they could have done to prevent the attacks but don't have much doubt about the attacks themselves.

Oversteer

13-09-2011, 08:23 AM

shifted

13-09-2011, 08:23 AM

steel doesnt have to melt or get anywhere near that temp to lose its strength - thought you would have know that lol..

Yes, but it wouldn't be a molten metal as it was regardless once on the floor. The columns free standing after the collapse showed a clear diagonal cut across the beams, just like a demolition job.

shifted

13-09-2011, 08:25 AM

So what are you getting at ? Government did ?, Compeling arguments yes but I`m sure there are many ways to interpret data and in the end most of it is just a theory......plus imo the best rebutal for the "government" would be to not directly dispute the claims(then you have the chance of being proved wrong/put on the spot)...let the crack pots screw there own arguments by getting over eager !

PS: Does the NSA CIA or ??? troll these forums....oh shit !

The FBI to this day refuse to release camera footage that would clearly show what hit the Pentagon (from a nearby Surveillance camera on a building across from it IIRC).

End of the day who knows, its all speculation though there are sides to both stories that warrant each view being correct.

I personally think it is an inside job.

Oversteer

13-09-2011, 08:32 AM

I personally think it is an inside job.

Spell it out for me ...in a little detail !?

coFF33

13-09-2011, 08:35 AM

did anyone read my post at all
lol

KAL SPL

13-09-2011, 08:41 AM

This thread will only be deleted like all the other evidence out on here thats its a cover up , whats the point of posting.

Someone on here with power is obviously in on it

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 08:44 AM

It's all an Israeli zionist jew plot. Blame Joe.

stormtrooper

13-09-2011, 08:46 AM

Im completely set that its all bullshit. All of it.

I could sit here and claim things about the WTC's getting hit by so called "terrorists"
I could also go on about the "explosions heard inside the WTC's" when they fell.

Instead ... and to those that dont believe anything wasnt a ploy.

2 things that have yet to be explained at all, and probably will never be.

1. Why did WTC7 collapse when it was never hit by anything, never should have "caught fire and fell" when it had a smoke / water system in the building to put out the small "fires" that were inside the building from god knows what? Also WTC7 is furtherest away from WTC 1 & 2 . And WTC3,4,5,6 did not fall.. ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building _7_highlighted%29.jpg/225px-WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building _7_highlighted%29.jpg

and

2. Put simply, on the live footage i saw in 2001, and in all related news stories on it on all news stations. Not once did i see any sort of Plane debris around the "crash" site at the pentagon. none. just a hole. And building debris from the hole, eg bricks etc.. which also was not large enough for a 737 plane carridge to fit through. Nothing at all ever said to me in 10 years of this debate has ever convinced me that a plane hit the pentagon.

The last part of this, the pentagon shit, is what I have always had trouble with. Jet fuel burns like a MOTHERFUCKER, and yet in the pictures where the hole is, you can see papers and shit still flitting around on the exposed office floor levels. What the fuck? I've always been in 2 minds about the whole thing however this is one of the main things that has never been properly explained.

HIKARI

13-09-2011, 08:50 AM

Never trust the government. Never trust the news story.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 08:50 AM

Hey, and you know flight 93, the one that the passengers overthrew the evil terrorists that had held up the pilots with a box cutter, and resulted in the plane going out of control and crashing in Pennsylvania? That was what they all kept telling us what happened to that flight, right?

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/k0v0_HDwg84" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Don't worry, your governments don't ever lie.

SimonR32

13-09-2011, 08:53 AM

RE: The Pentagon... Where is the Boeing 757 that took off but never landed then?

coFF33

13-09-2011, 08:54 AM

http://s60.radikal.ru/i169/1003/f7/5dbc426c4403.gif

MadDocker

13-09-2011, 09:00 AM

Some clear & damning footage there for sure...

ossie_21

13-09-2011, 09:03 AM

2. Put simply, on the live footage i saw in 2001, and in all related news stories on it on all news stations. Not once did i see any sort of Plane debris around the "crash" site at the pentagon. none. just a hole. And building debris from the hole, eg bricks etc.. which also was not large enough for a 737 plane carridge to fit through. Nothing at all ever said to me in 10 years of this debate has ever convinced me that a plane hit the pentagon.

First I remember hearing live when it happened from reporters near the pentagon was that a truck drove into the pentagon, I find that a lot more believable considering the amount of time it took before someone mentioned another plane

The FBI to this day refuse to release camera footage that would clearly show what hit the Pentagon (from a nearby Surveillance camera on a building across from it IIRC).

End of the day who knows, its all speculation though there are sides to both stories that warrant each view being correct.

I personally think it is an inside job.

I think it was from a petrol station, same story I heard was that a couple of minutes after whatever happened, a couple of dudes rocked up & confiscated the tapes. It would probably have been a fake, but I have seen an .avi file on the internet a while ago that showed footage, and if it looked like anything it was a missile. Not big enough to be a plane

crabman

13-09-2011, 09:12 AM

Looks like a korean cruise missile.

coFF33

13-09-2011, 09:13 AM

see gif image i posted on previous page.

JBAE

13-09-2011, 09:16 AM

RE: The Pentagon... Where is the Boeing 757 that took off but never landed then?Fuck knows but it sure the fucking hell wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon the pics the reagan airport firies took illustrate that very well, check the link in my first post

JBAE

13-09-2011, 09:17 AM

see gif image i posted on previous page.Yeh that's a pretty proven fake that clip mang

coFF33

13-09-2011, 09:21 AM

regardless its pretty accurate of the size of the object
ie. not a 757 which is fucking massive and has wings.

JBAE

13-09-2011, 09:27 AM

Exactly LOL planes just don't fold their wings and dissapear! Have a google about the first firefighters on the scene all their reports state they had the fire out and under control in several minutes and have pics n such to show, the funny an ironic thong is the impacts at the wtc buildings completely contradict the impact of the object at the the pentagon for it to be a 757

MadDocker

13-09-2011, 09:34 AM

If someone planned an attack, somehow got a missile close enough, set-up, launched and hit the pentagon, all while terrorists were flying planes and crashing them into buildings, why would the government not take the easy way out and claim was also a plane? Admitting they aren't good enough to stop a direct missile attack on the pentagon would scare/panic the public even more. Probably lied to keep everyone as cool as possible.

coFF33

13-09-2011, 09:42 AM

Camp David nearby has ground to ground cruise missiles available for the US to launch.
http://www.smithheggumreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/tomahawk_missile_gi.jpg

dmwill

13-09-2011, 09:44 AM

One thing that interest me is how the jet engine from one of the planes that hit the WTC landed on a foot path several blocks away and somehow did not hit anyone.

Also the talk of how the engine is smaller than what should have been on the actual plane.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 09:49 AM

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/boeing737.html

perthute555

13-09-2011, 09:54 AM

too the non belivers in 11/9

how did the passport of one of the durka's survive the crash into wtc ???

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 10:01 AM

too the non belivers in 11/9

how did the passport of one of the durka's survive the crash into wtc ???

EXACTLY!
How, when the planes vaporised to such an extent that they "were able to melt through steel superstructures" in a building, did a small block of paper survive... And not only survive, but be found under several million tons of burning rubble?

http://www.geekosystem.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/bread-toast.jpeg

shifted

13-09-2011, 10:09 AM

too the non belivers in 11/9

how did the passport of one of the durka's survive the crash into wtc ???

Was about to say the same thing!

I'll list some documentaries shortly too, one of which the guy who's passport was found actually gives an interview asking "what the fuck happened?? I am alive, how was I on the plane??"

JBAE

13-09-2011, 10:28 AM

http://911review.com/errors/pentagon/boeing737.html I doubt it was a 737 as it sufferes the same broblem as a 757 just on a smaller scale wings and fuselage dont just dissapear there would be wreckage, if you havent already have a read about these guys Reagan National Airport Firefighters and their account of being the first on scene by pure chance they were 2-3 miles away attending an accident and onsite with in minutes and the pics and the lawn is pristine ad clean of debris

JBAE

13-09-2011, 10:30 AM

some interesting points... regarding missile theory

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

EvA_

13-09-2011, 10:54 AM

i'll just like to add these :

Zeitgeist - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guXirzknYYE

The Rothschilds - http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

The Money Makers - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs

/end

JBAE

13-09-2011, 11:01 AM

Speak of the devil Doco starting on WTC 7 on BBC knowledge right NOW

coFF33

13-09-2011, 11:02 AM

some interesting points... regarding missile theory

http://www.odeion.org/cruisemissile/index.html

Read a lot of it just now... Pretty interesting stuff...

ive never heard of people seeing a plane swoop in and continue away... interesting..

crabman

13-09-2011, 11:13 AM

Rogue USAF pilot??

Ibz

13-09-2011, 11:15 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kkp-PXf_qlk

I only put 1st clip... Go through all 6..

Who ever believes al qaeda was responsible for the 9/11 attacks are just brain washed by the media...

JBAE

13-09-2011, 11:16 AM

another theory is a GLOBAL hawk was used and painted up in airline colours or an i think its designated A3 Skywarrior, as one eye witness says he seen a small passenger jet about the size that would carry 8-12 PAX fly over low before impact, which would match the discription of affore mentioned plane

JBAE

13-09-2011, 11:19 AM

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 11:21 AM

You'll like this BLAAA http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/9q_i_IMV4Sg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

KAL SPL

13-09-2011, 11:22 AM

JBAE

13-09-2011, 11:26 AM

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 11:26 AM

This

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yuC_4mGTs98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Jumanji

13-09-2011, 11:27 AM

Stealthed

13-09-2011, 11:29 AM

Pentagon thing I've never believed from the get go, How is it that it's supposed to be a plane yet the FBI confiscated hotel roof surveillance on the "Flight path" of this plane within 8 minutes of it happening, the damage was about the size a small missile or similar object would cause and I think it was a certain pentagon top notch that ordered 300m of black dirt be spread in a straight line from the point of impact... to look like a plane came down??? Seems odd.

The world trade centre’s I'm sceptical about, we all saw 2 planes go in but those buildings fell so perfectly, both of them. I mean we all know America is corrupt and we clearly all know they killed their own president, JFK with the whole 2 bullets different angles in 1.0 seconds + the 20 odd witnesses all dying within about 4 months I think. JFK was opposed the war in Vietnam and America likes war... so why not kill 3,000 people so we can fuel a 10 year invasion in Afghanistan?

/tinfoil hat mode.

Madhav

13-09-2011, 11:30 AM

Anyone who has lived in asia or africa knows that governments lie, are corrupt, and will do crazy things for money and the media will basically print what ever the government says. I find it so funny that some people in the west think it doesn't or couldn't happen in the USA. Lol what a joke. America is just as corrupt as India except the people are just too stupid and naive to believe it.

http://911expertsspeakout.org/

JBAE

13-09-2011, 11:30 AM

ATM im loving the amount of FAIL photochops that are around that have been released by the government (as its new to me as how great of a volume there is) and poor quality chops at that

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 11:32 AM

That video I just posted IMO is one of the best ones that wrap up the whole story in one... Worth watching

JBAE

13-09-2011, 11:46 AM

That Vid is awesome!

Niva

13-09-2011, 11:51 AM

good link

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26340

Gleeso

13-09-2011, 11:59 AM

did anyone read my post at all
lol

Yes! and I agree with you completely, I will give no sympathy to Amercia as a country for the events that occured but for the families who lost someone because of the bullshit.

Why was WTC 7 demolished, what is in there that they were hiding in plain sight..

PS: I love all this 'tin foil hat' shit :p

duste

13-09-2011, 12:02 PM

When the WTC fell, from what we could see. It fell straight to the floor directly down like a consetina effect. Buildings which have had a high lateral impact do not fall how those two buildings did. They should topple over but that building fell, level by level and most "planned" demolitions do not go that well. From my own mind it was linde with explosives from level to level, which means there should have been some footage of people installing it or something because doing over 80 stories or so in 24 hours when everyone comes back to work the next day would be near on impossible.

my 2c

Exactly! For a simple explanation, I would compare it to chopping down a tree. The "supports" on one side of the trunk (building) are removed by way of axe (hijacked jet), and the tree (WTC) then falls to that same side. For it to fall directly down, you would have to simultaneously take out an entire cross-sectional block (all supports on one level/floor) of the trunk (building).

Anyone who has ever done the slightest bit of engineering studies would know the mechanics behind this.

What shits me is the people who bad-mouth the conspiracy theorists because they "regurgitate (conspiracy claims) without having any solid evidence to back it up", yet they are doing the EXACT SAME thing - simply regurgitating counter-claims without any "solid evidence" to back it up.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 12:03 PM

http://i.imgur.com/S5R1B.jpg

Jumanji

13-09-2011, 12:09 PM

Exactly! For a simple explanation, I would compare it to chopping down a tree. The "supports" on one side of the trunk are removed by way of axe, and the tree then falls to that same side. For it to fall directly down, you would have to simultaneously take out an entire cross-sectional block of the trunk.

Anyone who has ever done the slightest bit of engineering studies would know the mechanics behind this.

What shits me is the people who bad-mouth the conspiracy theorists because they "regurgitate (conspiracy claims) without having any solid evidence to back it up", yet they are doing the EXACT SAME thing - simply regurgitating counter-claims without any "solid evidence" to back it up.

Precisely, AND as you put it anyone who has some knowledge of either constructioin / engineering would agree with me. Mad Aussie that vid is classic!!! :D

duste

13-09-2011, 12:09 PM

Edited for a much easier comparison between the events of a tree falling and the WTC building falling.

Gleeso

13-09-2011, 12:19 PM

good link

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=26340

Good fucking read!! I knew a few of the facts mentioned but there were so many I did not know, my eyes are opened even wider.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:36 PM

Yes, but it wouldn't be a molten metal as it was regardless once on the floor. The columns free standing after the collapse showed a clear diagonal cut across the beams, just like a demolition job.
i underlined the bit that doesnt make sense, but anyway - you saw a clear diagonal line cut across the beams so you think it must have been a demolition job?
someone must have got up there with an oxy cutter then

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:39 PM

MadDocker

13-09-2011, 12:40 PM

Exactly! For a simple explanation, I would compare it to chopping down a tree. The "supports" on one side of the trunk (building) are removed by way of axe (hijacked jet), and the tree (WTC) then falls to that same side. For it to fall directly down, you would have to simultaneously take out an entire cross-sectional block (all supports on one level/floor) of the trunk (building).

Anyone who has ever done the slightest bit of engineering studies would know the mechanics behind this.

What shits me is the people who bad-mouth the conspiracy theorists because they "regurgitate (conspiracy claims) without having any solid evidence to back it up", yet they are doing the EXACT SAME thing - simply regurgitating counter-claims without any "solid evidence" to back it up.

This comparison is weak... The building is not solid like a tree. It has structural support but is mostly layers of concrete and steel separated by thin air. If smash a layer out, everything on top comes down... Something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1XKNT5SfT0

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:42 PM

The last part of this, the pentagon shit, is what I have always had trouble with. Jet fuel burns like a MOTHERFUCKER, and yet in the pictures where the hole is, you can see papers and shit still flitting around on the exposed office floor levels. What the fuck? I've always been in 2 minds about the whole thing however this is one of the main things that has never been properly explained.
have you not seen the video footage of the plane hitting the bldg?
anyway, there is a simple explanation for the paper/books not being burned - the bldg kept colapsing after the fire/explosion exposing offices that did not get burned.

duste

13-09-2011, 12:43 PM

This comparison is weak... The building is not solid like a tree. It has structural support but is mostly layers of concrete and steel separated by thin air. If smash a layer out, everything on top comes down... Something like this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1XKNT5SfT0

Think cantilever beams.

Take out half the supports from underneath a mass but maintain them on the other side and you achieve somewhat of a cantilever "beam" with a bending moment at its centre, wanting to tip to the side with no supports. Again, I'm explaining it as simple as possible.

EDIT: Just watched the video. Umm, yes, that's what I mean by removing all the supports on a level/floor, which I said would indeed make it fall down directly. I think you need to re-read my post. :| In that video, if you removed only half that broken cinder block AND there were no side supports with MORE cinder blocks (ie. no building directly beside WTC, just 'air'), then the cinder blocks on top of the halved one would want to fall towards the "hollow" side.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:45 PM

Fuck knows but it sure the fucking hell wasn't a 757 that hit the pentagon the pics the reagan airport firies took illustrate that very well, check the link in my first post
cant remember if it was a 757, but all the plane debri collected from the site proves it was an airliner.

yeah, real hard to believe considering the other hijacked planes on the day i know.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 12:47 PM

someone must have got up there with an oxy cutter then

Thermite strips, as per usual in controlled demolitions. Hence the pools of molten metal that fire-fighters were complaining about.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:48 PM

dmwill

13-09-2011, 12:48 PM

From my own mind it was linde with explosives from level to level, which means there should have been some footage of people installing it or something because doing over 80 stories or so in 24 hours when everyone comes back to work the next day would be near on impossible.

Well apparently there was maintenance work carried out several days prior to the attacks through both towers on all levels. Some people said it was pretty odd as the power was out for a significant amount of time (longer than outages in the past) and not enough notice was given considering the server infrastructure many companies had. There is a few Youtube videos about where workers tell of this.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:50 PM

too the non belivers in 11/9

how did the passport of one of the durka's survive the crash into wtc ???
lots of paper got blown out of the building on impact, finding some of it is not hard to believe.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 12:51 PM

lots of paper got blown out of the building on impact, finding some of it is not hard to believe.

This wasn't in a building. It was in a persons pocket, in the cockpit of a plane that exploded upon impact, supposedly at high enough temperatures to liquefy steel. It is extremely hard to believe, considering they didn't even find the guys teeth.

INSINR8R

13-09-2011, 12:52 PM

Im completely set that its all bullshit. All of it.

I could sit here and claim things about the WTC's getting hit by so called "terrorists"
I could also go on about the "explosions heard inside the WTC's" when they fell.

Instead ... and to those that dont believe anything wasnt a ploy.

2 things that have yet to be explained at all, and probably will never be.

1. Why did WTC7 collapse when it was never hit by anything, never should have "caught fire and fell" when it had a smoke / water system in the building to put out the small "fires" that were inside the building from god knows what? Also WTC7 is furtherest away from WTC 1 & 2 . And WTC3,4,5,6 did not fall.. ?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d7/WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building _7_highlighted%29.jpg/225px-WTC_Building_Arrangement_and_Site_Plan_%28building _7_highlighted%29.jpg

and

2. Put simply, on the live footage i saw in 2001, and in all related news stories on it on all news stations. Not once did i see any sort of Plane debris around the "crash" site at the pentagon. none. just a hole. And building debris from the hole, eg bricks etc.. which also was not large enough for a 737 plane carridge to fit through. Nothing at all ever said to me in 10 years of this debate has ever convinced me that a plane hit the pentagon.

Watch the first video I posted, it points out where WTC7 is when the second tower came down. You can CLEARLY see debris hitting the 7th tower.

As for that gif at the bottom of the first page. Why is everything mirrored yet where the alleged missile hit is where the damage is?

Picture of where the impact occurred.
http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2007/08/pmx0305_911_001-lg.thumbnail.jpg

And lastly.
http://arcterus911.blogspot.com/2009/03/911-hoaxes-no-plane-hit-pentagon.html

That just shows it's consistent with a plane hitting. Though they believe it was an inside job.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:53 PM

[QUOTE=Mad_Aussie;898691]You'll like this BLAAA http://www.reddit.com/r/conspiracy/

lol yeah these fcukkers find it hard to stick with their lies theres been about 3 slip of the tongues, with regard to missiles and the pentagon and the shooting down of 93
shooting down of 93 LOL

for that to have happened the wreckage of the plane would have broken up in mid air and so it would have been scattered over a very large area.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:54 PM

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 12:55 PM

[QUOTE=BLAAA;898695]
shooting down of 93 LOL

for that to have happened the wreckage of the plane would have broken up in mid air and so it would have been scattered over a very large area.

As opposed to the actual crash site, where there was no wreckage? No rows and rows of seats? No turbines, fuselage, etc?
The coroner who attended the site was quoted somewhere saying he didn't believe an aircraft had crashed there.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:56 PM

Anyone who has ever done the slightest bit of engineering studies would know the mechanics behind this.
lol, see my post above.

Lump

13-09-2011, 12:58 PM

Thermite strips, as per usual in controlled demolitions. Hence the pools of molten metal that fire-fighters were complaining about.
the molten metal could have been from aluminium - plenty of that in the bldg & the planes of course..

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 12:59 PM

WTC 7 "randomly" falling down in a splendid manner due to a baby fire....

lulz.

That is all.

also, there was plenty of evidence of thermite around/'remains', none that the USA will acknowledge anyways.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 01:00 PM

the molten metal could have been from aluminium - plenty of that in the bldg & the planes of course..

You know that there's fairly telling photos and evidence that go on to support the fact that the columns were cut prior or during the event. Tell me, how do you get a cut like this in a steel beam?

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/Cut%20beam.jpg
http://piratenews.org/wtc-anglecut2-400.jpg

Lump

13-09-2011, 01:01 PM

This wasn't in a building. It was in a persons pocket, in the cockpit of a plane that exploded upon impact, supposedly at high enough temperatures to liquefy steel. It is extremely hard to believe, considering they didn't even find the guys teeth.
i didnt say it was in a building.
anyway the cockpit didnt vapourise - it was cheesegrated but the 1.5 foot wide columms at great velocity. who cares where it went & saying it was found is hardly enough for me to think it was planted..

duste

13-09-2011, 01:01 PM

lol, see my post above.

Sigh, the damage from the burning fuel, etc would have still been most concentrated at the point of impact.

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 01:03 PM

Erm,

Very black smoke coming from a fire...means it's not very hot, doesn't it? (like the smoke that was bellowing out from the buildings before they collapsed)

derp.

Lump

13-09-2011, 01:04 PM

[QUOTE=CrankY;898758]

As opposed to the actual crash site, where there was no wreckage? No rows and rows of seats? No turbines, fuselage, etc?
The coroner who attended the site was quoted somewhere saying he didn't believe an aircraft had crashed there.
if it was shot down there would have been more wreckage as the plane would have broken up.

instead it impacted into the ground in 1 piece & burnt - wreckage was found.

your argument is invalid.

duste

13-09-2011, 01:05 PM

i didnt say it was in a building.
anyway the cockpit didnt vapourise - it was cheesegrated but the 1.5 foot wide columms at great velocity. who cares where it went & saying it was found is hardly enough for me to think it was planted..

I'm genuinely not sure whether you're still being serious or just trolling...

Do you enjoy walking around with your fingers in your ears screaming "LAH LAH LAH LAH" repeatedly?

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 01:07 PM

[QUOTE=Mad_Aussie;898762]
if it was shot down there would have been more wreckage as the plane would have broken up.

instead it impacted into the ground in 1 piece & burnt - wreckage was found.

your argument is invalid.

The argument is that we aren't being told the whole story. The ground wreckage isn't consistent with a plane impact, and there is huge evidence to suggest that the heroic story of the passengers taking overpowering the terrorists is a load of bullshit. So where does it leave us then?

That's the argument, and it sure as hell isn't invalid.

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 01:08 PM

Tell me, how do you get a cut like this in a steel beam?

It was the jet fuel man, omg! (which also explains why it was scorching hot below all the rubble even months after the "attack"), I also do not acknowledge the below picture and how it works and what the outcome looks like

http://i25.tinypic.com/2mhfv5y.jpg

Lump

13-09-2011, 01:09 PM

You know that there's fairly telling photos and evidence that go on to support the fact that the columns were cut prior or during the event. Tell me, how do you get a cut like this in a steel beam?

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/Cut%20beam.jpg
http://piratenews.org/wtc-anglecut2-400.jpg

that one in the centre doesnt look like a steel beam to me - could be service ducting or anything really.

the ones in the bottom could be sheared off concrete beams or columns.

anyway, the main structure was the external steel colums - which were bolted together (end on end), so the connections could have failed anyway.
not surprising when 110 acres of floor just fell on it

Lump

13-09-2011, 01:11 PM

I'm genuinely not sure whether you're still being serious or just trolling...

Do you enjoy walking around with your fingers in your ears screaming "LAH LAH LAH LAH" repeatedly?
well you better go back to your books junior cause if you think the towers came down due to a lateral load you have alot to learn.

Lump

13-09-2011, 01:13 PM

[QUOTE=CrankY;898772]

The argument is that we aren't being told the whole story. The ground wreckage isn't consistent with a plane impact, and there is huge evidence to suggest that the heroic story of the passengers taking overpowering the terrorists is a load of bullshit. So where does it leave us then?

That's the argument, and it sure as hell isn't invalid.
i think the ground wreckage is consistant with a plane hitting the ground and not being shot down.

where is this evidence of the passengers of 93 being bs?

Tre-Cool

13-09-2011, 01:17 PM

from watching that 1hr 30 minute video. i believe the main structure was actually inside the building and all the cantelevered (spelling) floors were levelled off that.

what was said is that even if the floor's had of pancaked like they did. the internal steel structure would still be in tact.

dmwill

13-09-2011, 01:18 PM

that one in the centre doesnt look like a steel beam to me - could be service ducting or anything really.

I don't know much about ducting as such, but that looks to be pretty damn thick steel for ducting.

Having said that - how long were those photos taken after the collapse? They might have just been cut afterwards as they were towering too high - posing as a danger to workers.

Kaido

13-09-2011, 01:19 PM

[QUOTE=Mad_Aussie;898775]
i think the ground wreckage is consistant with a plane hitting the ground and not being shot down.

where is this evidence of the passengers of 93 being bs?

where is the evidence that it is not?

i'm pretty sure you would have to be trolling because its not that hard to understand the point that is trying to be made...

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 01:22 PM

that one in the centre doesnt look like a steel beam to me - could be service ducting or anything really.

the ones in the bottom could be sheared off concrete beams or columns.

anyway, the main structure was the external steel colums - which were bolted together (end on end), so the connections could have failed anyway.
not surprising when 110 acres of floor just fell on it

No, it wasn't. The WTC 1 & 2 buildings had huge steel columns inside the structure, serving as a spine for the building. The engineers who designed the towers used a 707 impact as their theoretical disaster they had to plan for, and the thing was designed to take multiple impacts. The chief engineer on the project reckoned that even IF the buildings floors failed in a 'pancake' collapse, there would be huge steel beams sticking 110 stories into the sky.

duste

13-09-2011, 01:22 PM

well you better go back to your books junior cause if you think the towers came down due to a lateral load you have alot to learn.

I thought I made it quite clear I don't think the towers came down due to a lateral load... Regardless, as I said before, that was the simplest explanation of the whole "supports being compromised" argument - of course there would be tensile forces from the remaining supports trying to pull the upper supports back, but there's a limit to which they could be sustained. Think of a rope being exposed to a HUGE force beyond its capabilities - there'll be a point at which it will fail/snap and the load will topple over.

I can make you some pretty drawings if you want...

JBAE

13-09-2011, 01:25 PM

cant remember if it was a 757, but all the plane debri collected from the site proves it was an airliner.

yeah, real hard to believe considering the other hijacked planes on the day i know.Lol look at the pics the very first responders took the Reagan airport team there is no debris field the lawn is clear and un damaged they were there with in minutes, the pics of your famous wreckage shows a massive debris field and there has been quite a few pics debunking it as a fake multiple shots where the angle of the shot changes yet the view of the debris remains the same, the guy in my very first post actually even points this out in depth

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 01:28 PM

I love how people try to defend the governments story so much, then the same people turn around and bitch that our government here is lying to us about stuff.

fourseven

13-09-2011, 01:29 PM

I love how many structural engineers are on Antilag!

SimonR32

13-09-2011, 01:29 PM

What I can't work out is why people think that the government thought that 2 planes flying into buildings and blowing up was not enough? Damn that might not scare the American public enough, we should do a controlled demo at the same time just to rub it in?

Also the people who think that it wasn't a plane that flew into the Pentagon, where is the plane and the passengers then?

JBAE

13-09-2011, 01:30 PM

the molten metal could have been from aluminium - plenty of that in the bldg & the planes of course..LOL do you know what molten ally looks like???? It's T1000 spec itdoesnt glow like steel it will ignite and burn at timed but never be orange/red molten colour

SimonR32

13-09-2011, 01:33 PM

I love how many structural engineers are on Antilag!

What's even more impressive is the number of experts on the collapse of massive uniquely built skyscrapers after being hit by commercial airlines. Must happen often :)

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 01:33 PM

http://img.alibaba.com/wsphoto/v0/450583317/Colorful_wooden_toy_children_intellect_box_13_diff erent_shapes_of_holes_matching_game.jpg_200x200.jp g

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 01:33 PM

Also the people who think that it wasn't a plane that flew into the Pentagon, where is the plane and the passengers then?

That's been a big question too. Boeing asked that exact question. Whenever a plane goes down, they ask for the turbines back to check if there were problems that could have caused the crash etc etc, but when they asked to retrieve the engines from the pentagon flight 77 impact, the official line was "They vaporised/melted in the fires". These things are designed to sit for hours and hours in pools of burning jet fuel, but this crash made them de-materialise. But, the first question Boeing asked was 'how did you retrieve dental and dna samples from the passengers, if the fire was so hot it could vaporise titanium jet engines?'

I'd dig up some references for that, but cbf. It's cited in almost everything related to this subject.

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 01:35 PM

What's even more impressive is the number of experts on the collapse of massive uniquely built skyscrapers after being hit by commercial airlines. Must happen often :)

Yeah, about as funny as the amount of times a skyscraper has come down due to a fire, especially one that didn't last that long really and wasn't actually that hot.

Has happened 3 times conveniently enough, what a coincidence!

No where are our black boxes! Oh they too have vaporised, wow, holy fuck.

JBAE

13-09-2011, 01:42 PM

The thing is all these crack pots pitting forward huge amounts of supporting evidence for the demotion theories are people that if commenting on anything other than 9/11 they would be listened to in a heart beat they are highly educated in their respected fields are using the laws of how the fucking world works aka physics and other sorts of magic to apply the theories, they arnt trying to sell a story about some alien race and mind control, also everyone's treasured firemen and Nypd are alot of the people stating alot of first hand evidence, why would these AMERICA HEROS lie?

dmwill

13-09-2011, 01:43 PM

Also the people who think that it wasn't a plane that flew into the Pentagon, where is the plane and the passengers then?

Lost in the Bermuda Triangle

Tre-Cool

13-09-2011, 01:45 PM

Thinking out loud here...

Back in 91 or whatever it was a truck bomb was set off at the WTC. it failed to topple the building. Supposably the plan was for the tower to topple over and fall on the other buildings, thus killing/creating more havoc.

Now, some bright spark thinks, shit we need to implement something just incase this happens again.

So during reconstruction/upgrades thermite/demolition charges are put in place to ensure a controlled (downward) destruction of the buildings to ensure they can't topple over.

Not that hard to think it wouldnt be possible or an idea that never came up, when you think about it. i.e imagine a 110 story building falling over.

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01432/china_1432267c.jpg but 100 x worse.

Jumanji

13-09-2011, 01:48 PM

yeah, but it wasnt a lateral impact that caused them to fall - duh.

Because a plane slamming into the Side of a Building isnt lateral force.

+1 for cut support beams, but even so it still needed to columns on each level to be blown to create the consetina effect that happened.

SimonR32

13-09-2011, 01:51 PM

That's been a big question too. Boeing asked that exact question. Whenever a plane goes down, they ask for the turbines back to check if there were problems that could have caused the crash etc etc, but when they asked to retrieve the engines from the pentagon flight 77 impact, the official line was "They vaporised/melted in the fires". These things are designed to sit for hours and hours in pools of burning jet fuel, but this crash made them de-materialise. But, the first question Boeing asked was 'how did you retrieve dental and dna samples from the passengers, if the fire was so hot it could vaporise titanium jet engines?'

I'd dig up some references for that, but cbf. It's cited in almost everything related to this subject.

Boeing asked about the turbines? Really? I'm fairly sure Boeing make don't make turbines... Nice story though!

If you have a flying bomb (plane) that is going to go "missing" why wouldn't you just use it, instead lets make it vanish into thin air and use a missile instead?

Every occur to any of you that the US government might try and cover up anything to do with the Pentagon because they don't want anyone to know anything about their top secret military building?

flamo_damo

13-09-2011, 02:01 PM

fourseven

13-09-2011, 02:06 PM

Buckets

13-09-2011, 02:23 PM

Planes are made of very light weight very flexible alloys with some awesome names I have no hope of remembering off the top of my head. (even the wing struts are very bendy) As such I'd say that the wings of the jets got owned and didn't do as much damage to the structural steel columns as people may think. The fire from the Jet A1 the airliners carried would burn like a bastard setting fire to other combustible materials the fire was able to heat parts of the major load bearing components to the point where the steel was weakened to the point where it could no longer support the weight above it and it collapsed. Very simple.

As for the idea of using linear shape charges (they are the only pocket type charge that will destroy heavy duty structural steel) as part of a controlled demolition you pingpingpingpings are out of your mind. The copper casings from the LSC's frag fucking everywhere and would have been seen and heard as they were detonated. You could take your chances with large sheet based explosives and hope the Misznay–Schardin effect helps you out but IMO all that will usually result in is a big flame ball some noise and maybe a dent or scorching on the steel. Again if they used explosives it would have been easy as fuck to pick it. PETN, RDX, HMX & co all make a fair bit of noise. The amount required to drop that building would have been huge and required several days worth of prep at least 2 days to install. As such theory is bullshit.

Ibz

13-09-2011, 02:31 PM

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 02:42 PM

Boeing asked about the turbines? Really? I'm fairly sure Boeing make don't make turbines... Nice story though!

Boeing, Pratt & Whitney, Rolls... was one of the crowd involved asking the question. Anyone here who's watched all these things and read most of these links will probably know what I'm on about.

duste

13-09-2011, 02:44 PM

The amount required to drop that building would have been huge and required several days worth of prep at least 2 days to install. As such theory is bullshit.

It's been mentioned previously in this thread there was "maintenance" being performed the days leading up to the collapse - could have been the installation of said explosives. Doesn't discard the theory as "bullshit".

From your experience though (was waiting for you to chime in actually, remembering you deal with explosives), do those columns look like they've been "professionally" demolished?

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 02:44 PM

Again if they used explosives it would have been easy as fuck to pick it. PETN, RDX, HMX & co all make a fair bit of noise. The amount required to drop that building would have been huge and required several days worth of prep at least 2 days to install. As such theory is bullshit.

People reported hearing blasts on the ground, eyewitnesses report being knocked off their feet in the ground/basement levels, and the theory is that it was prepared days ahead.

As such, that's the theory. lol.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 02:52 PM

Jumanji

13-09-2011, 02:58 PM

You know that there's fairly telling photos and evidence that go on to support the fact that the columns were cut prior or during the event. Tell me, how do you get a cut like this in a steel beam?

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/Cut%20beam.jpg
http://piratenews.org/wtc-anglecut2-400.jpg

I doubt the collumns were pre cut as they should have been "precast" concrete columns and that would remove the structural integrity to the point of a slight wind would make that building collapse. that being said if the inner columns were "cut" and the outers remained intact, maybe it would hold some form of its strength until obviously this happened. I'm no expert on Commercial Building requirements of the U.S though :D

P.S there was ALOT of black smoke coming from the buildings just after impact, this would remove the idea that the plane was burning its fuel as unless it burns alot of other things jet fuel burns clear?

mattmy99

13-09-2011, 03:05 PM

Excuse my ignorance, but aside from a planted passport and an apparent phonecall from Barbara Olson to her husband Ted, what fuel or evidence (if you will) is there that Bin Laden, Hani Hanjour, Mohammed al-Mansoori or any other Islamic person of middle easter descent was involved in these "attacks" in any way?
I seriosuly don't buy that Hani Hanjour was so frustrated that he was denied a job with Saudi national airline that he "turned his attention toward religious texts and cassette tapes of militant Islamic preachers" and flew a plane into a building.

Tocchi

13-09-2011, 03:16 PM

?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-5iFEJ1NHwpE/TgRNIzPiY2I/AAAAAAAAB1I/dpIbFsJVnJo/s1600/kumar.jpg

Buckets

13-09-2011, 03:18 PM

It's been mentioned previously in this thread there was "maintenance" being performed the days leading up to the collapse - could have been the installation of said explosives. Doesn't discard the theory as "bullshit".

From your experience though (was waiting for you to chime in actually, remembering you deal with explosives), do those columns look like they've been "professionally" demolished?

http://911blogger.com/sites/default/files/Cut%20beam.jpg

100% those pillars look gas axed. I'd say that it was cut so rescue workers could get better safer access to the area. Yes Mad_Aussie you do need to gas axe part of a pillar to install LSC's but if you look closely you'll see it went all the way thru in one cut. LSC's will leave a little bump behind above and below where they are mounted (as the energy is focused in to a very narrow path). Those pillars are too clean to have been blown.

As for hearing blasts on the ground, when metal bends and snaps it makes a hell of a noise as well. As for people being blown of their feet "HE" like the forementioned explosives delivery huge amounts of shock energy with quite a low level of gas volume. Products like ANFO, H/ANFO or Emulsions are needed to generate the large gassing volumes needed for people to get blown around for a fair distance away even in a semi confined area.

Another thing I can't believe I forgot to mention was the small problem explosives have with fire... You see explosives are sensitive to 3 main things. Heat, friction & shock. As such explosives are designed to minimize there issues to these 3 things. Assuming none of the firing circuit/s were prematurely initiated by the impact of the aircraft the resulting fire would have melted (and destroyed) 80% of the explosives on the market before they reached a temperature where they would deflagrate as high ordering would be almost impossible. The other 20% (Nitro based) would have gone off straight away. Give those products any kind of excessive heat and they go bang (hence why they are banned in Australia as day time temperatures are enough to cause them to sweat, become hyper sensitive and blow up.) There is a very small chance that they used a super high grade mil spec PE but they would still be relying on what would be a RDX or Lead Azide based detonator (# 8 (star) strength or above ) which would melt and fail.

FYI burning explosives in an open fire is the "approved method" for disposing of explosives if you don't intend to detonate them.

I'll try and dig up a Technical Data sheet for a PETN based HE and see if I can find the melting temp but I can guarantee you it will be far less than the burning temp of Jet A1. As such explosives would not have been reliable enough given the whole building on fire thing for Mad_Aussies mates to consider using them to level the building. :p

Joe

13-09-2011, 03:27 PM

^^^ P.S. guys, an actual explosives expert :D

Jumanji

13-09-2011, 03:32 PM

Be that as it may, im not saying that you do know you shit ( which you do ) my point is, one plane can not physically make a building fall how that building fell. That is certain.

Is there any explosives that you know of that would be able to create what happened there if it was a level by level explosion?

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 03:35 PM

http://i.imgur.com/hMR1s.jpg

The authorities did asbestos they could.

Chrono90

13-09-2011, 03:40 PM

I don't see why we're arguing, it's plane obvious it was an inside job.

muniom

13-09-2011, 03:51 PM

No matter how clear cut any "inside job" evidence, at worst it will become another 'JFK conspiracy', with the majority of the population either buying into what they are told, or being ignorant by choice. People open minded enough to even consider other possibilities will always be a minority. At the end of the day we will NEVER know for sure, and much like many people who don't believe in aliens purely because they can't be arsed grasping the enormity of space, the fact that they will never know is enough to convince them not to bother trying.

My opinions:
WTC7 being a demo job: zeitgeist is very biased and it is obviously structurally damaged in other videos, though I don't believe it could collapse that perfectly (only one corner was damaged yet it 'kinked' in the center). It was also the headquarters of quiet a few 'convenient' agencies.

Towers 1 & 2 being demo'd: it's a huge long-shot but plausible to assume there was pre-existing thermite on columns to prevent the building falling onto others in the event of another attack after the '93 attack. I think it's more likely that after an hour of jet fuel burning completely through multiple floors that the structural integrity of those floors was compromised, wouldn't take much to cause a domino effect after that. Analysing lateral loads or melting points of the steel is a little far fetched, a freaking airliner blew up in there, surprising shit happens. However, the 'grace' in which the towers fell struck me as odd the first time I saw it live on tv, and still does today, seeing perfectly cut steel columns is suss too, it's just too perfect. Also, rumours that all the gold was removed from the basement floors shortly before the attacks, and passports being found when the building collapsed to nothing but dust... suss as fuck.

Pentagon: Where are the wings & engines? how did pieces of engine casing end up behind the point of impact? or imprints of the wings next to the hole in the side of the building? Bit suss that that side of the pentagon was largely empty for renovations, and highly convenient that they can mention 2.3 TRILLION dollars went missing the day before, and any evidence can be lost just the next day from an unoccupied area of the building. How did someone who struggled to fly a Cesna pull manoeuvre's like that? How could dental records be recovered when the engines, black box, etc all dissappeared into thin air? Too many questions, nothing but few, very convenient answers provided.

I could go on, but my point is there are just too many questions raised that put doubt in my mind. Add all the Bin Laden goose-chase, water burial, etc and how they invaded Iraq once the general public struggled to differentiate Afghanistan & Iraq, plus what I've learned about economic hitmen (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0CofEbxtIxI), and following the US/UN involvement in surrounding countries such as Libya and anyone else who stops providing oil to the US... To think our governments have been honest when the big picture is so contradictory... it's just naive, whether you're selectively ignorant, or just gullible.

JBAE

13-09-2011, 03:58 PM

So why is it there is numerous radio calls from fire fighters up as high atleast 80 floors clearing rooms and floors reporting that there is very minimal fires ect in the towers with all this glorious abundance of fuel around? Why were khunts in the basement getting fried and burnt just prior and whilst the planes were hitting? One man awarded for his bravery clearly states this and how the basement was getting raped prior to the planes hitting, pingpingpingpings evacuating the building after the first strike on the wtc all stating there was fire and scorching and injuries in the lobby? And the jets hitting the wtc towers which you can see impact marks where the wings hit and penetrated prove a point that a plane did not hit the pentagon there is no damage bar a hole in the wall?

JBAE

13-09-2011, 04:03 PM

Infact one man is exiting one of the towers plane hits tries to re enter to avoid the coming debris wave that's falling towards them only to be blown out of the lobby and land on the street on fire?

JBAE

13-09-2011, 04:04 PM

P.s- any one watched the naudet bros footage yet? I haven't but it's meant to have some good stuff in it? Funnily enough i think that they are now wanted for murder in the US?

EVLO

13-09-2011, 04:17 PM

the full Naudet Brothers Documentary was on Sunday night (9 i think).. amazing footage they got inside the towers etc.

Mad_Aussie

13-09-2011, 04:18 PM

Infact one man is exiting one of the towers plane hits tries to re enter to avoid the coming debris wave that's falling towards them only to be blown out of the lobby and land on the street on fire?

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/T2GYHvstFpQ" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/NLlMXkWW_LM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/_A9X_8flGeM" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

A conspiracy theory is only a theory, until there's evidence. Then it's a conspiracy.

perthute555

13-09-2011, 04:20 PM

lots of paper got blown out of the building on impact, finding some of it is not hard to believe.

face palm

perthute555

13-09-2011, 04:47 PM

fourseven

13-09-2011, 05:20 PM

What do you think they're going to be knocked into outer space? They weren't untrained pilots either.

Buckets

13-09-2011, 05:28 PM

Is there any explosives that you know of that would be able to create what happened there if it was a level by level explosion?

My experience with some of the very exotic / high end military spec gear is very limited I'm sure that if the US government really wanted to they are capable of making HE with heat degradation inhibitors similar to those found in some inhibited bulk products.(There are bulk products for chemically reactive and so called "hot ground" which require inhibitors to stop them reacting to heat) Because I'm not working at a NSA or CIA blast lab I can't say for certain that such a product wouldn't exist. I can say that it does not look like explosives were used, there are a few tell tales missing.

I've never seen it or heard of any product that would fit the bill. I have had several ex service guys I.E. Navy Clearance divers, US Army bomb disposal ect work with me over the years and I've been privileged to have seen a few of their "how to manuals". Nothing stuck me as something that would work well in a fire, not that I was looking for it as I've always thought that if something was burning hot enough to melt the explosives chances are it's fucked enough and lighting it up would be a waste of time. :p

EDIT : For a controlled demolition blast you need to stagger and delay your charges in order to gain the overall movement of the structure you require. I don't know what caused the bangs in Mad_Aussies vids but everyone do yourself a favor and go watch an episode of Blowdown, you'll see that even though the timing intervals are milliseconds apart you get several bangs over the course of say 1/2 a second to 3 seconds depending on the size, number of charges and desired movement or muck profile. If you watch the footage of the towers in the seconds before it collapsed you would hear the charges going off, most likely see some gas projection (even out of the smoke cloud you would have seen significant projection) and frag (they would have found bits of LSC's embedded in the surrounding buildings & LSC's are very distinctive and noticeable even when fired) then after the 1st series of charges there'd be the 2nd and so on. Just dropping one level in my opinion (the structural engineers can chime in here) would not have gotten enough momentum up to drop the whole tower, the building would have "hung up" so more than 1 set of delays would have been required. In short the WTC would have taken a shit load of time to light up.

Sorry to be dull and rant on but these are the facts as I and anyone with a basic knowledge of explosives would see it.

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 05:49 PM

^ re: 2nd last paragraph.

Fire fighters and employees at the WTC etc say they heard numerous explosions, and some from below the buildings....even before they came down.

hmmm, why is this? :(

Buckets

13-09-2011, 05:55 PM

The explosions would have had to have been in with in the 3-5 seconds of the tower collapsing maximum so any of the bangs prior to that wouldn't have been any demolition charges. Explosions below the building would have done jack shit to top drop a building. (it would have collapsed from the bottom not the top like a normal demolition)

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 05:58 PM

The way they collapsed, "free fall" as some may say, would suggest the bottom was taken out.

Yes?

esky

13-09-2011, 07:05 PM

KAL SPL

13-09-2011, 07:13 PM

Why has there been no videos or first and witnesses to the plane that flew into the pentagon ?

Why did WTC7 get bought down under pre meditated demolition ?

Theres wayyyy to many unanswered questions and alot of those people it seems are relatives/families of those killed.

If it was a s simple as you say it was then all the proof would be made public to stop and doubters , its not rocket science.
Theres just to many unanswered questions to stop anyone doubting it was all an inside job.

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 07:17 PM

You conspiracy people are fucking idiots. You always have some far fetched theory that borders on the ridiculous.

The buildings were blown up, the planes got shot down, a missile hit the pentagon. All total crap, and it's been proven crap time and time again.

However that's not to say the US govt might not have played a part, did they allow the attack to happen?, why weren't the planes intercepted? etc etc are valid questions.

Accept facts, planes hit building, that's why they fell down. If you want to look at why/how they came to hit the buildings go ahead, but stop debating facts. It just makes you look like retards.

Yes, facts.

9/11 Commission Report....it's full of it! (let's just ignore many things, and not investigate certain things...otherwise people will start to question more than what they already are!)

LOL.

Tre-Cool

13-09-2011, 07:37 PM

You conspiracy people are fucking idiots. You always have some far fetched theory that borders on the ridiculous.

The buildings were blown up, the planes got shot down, a missile hit the pentagon. All total crap, and it's been proven crap time and time again.

However that's not to say the US govt might not have played a part, did they allow the attack to happen?, why weren't the planes intercepted? etc etc are valid questions.

Accept facts, planes hit building, that's why they fell down. If you want to look at why/how they came to hit the buildings go ahead, but stop debating facts. It just makes you look like retards.

Facts....

'd suggest taking a quick look at this article. http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/09/the-co-chair-of-the-congressional-inquiry-into-911-and-former-head-of-the-senate-intelligence-committee-calls-for-a-new-911-investigation.html

I think there's enough high profile & connected people from the original investigation wanting it redone to say something is a bit fishy.

esky

13-09-2011, 08:04 PM

My point exactly....look at why the planes hit and were the us involved. Not some crack induced theory that explosives secretly planted by fbi agent's blew up a building that had already been hit by a fully laden passenger jet...

Slip_

13-09-2011, 08:55 PM

Jihaaaad.

1JZVL

13-09-2011, 09:00 PM

sigh.

JBAE

13-09-2011, 09:48 PM

These are lol worthy http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies3.htm a rail is clearly meant to be there but has been removed

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies11.htm the epic debris field that just appears yet wasnt in the pics that were taken by the VERY first responders and not mentioned in any form by the handful of people who were at the scene immediately

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies42.htm the firemen and the lacking debris field which is apparently epic in size from released pics.

http://www.911studies.com/911photostudies43.htm

Theories or not it could all be shut up with the release of some of the 10s upon 10s of security footage that has been confiscated its not hard to realease some decent footage and it would shut alot of people up christ if i seen some legit film that gets realeased and shows a 757 hitting the pentagon and vanishing then christ id have no reservations with it.

900

13-09-2011, 10:00 PM

P.s- any one watched the naudet bros footage yet? I haven't but it's meant to have some good stuff in it? Funnily enough i think that they are now wanted for murder in the US?
saw it; how's the sound of the jumpers... some loud impacts there. batshit crazy.

i love having to re-sign into the forum after every page hahaha

esky

13-09-2011, 10:27 PM

Be that as it may, im not saying that you do know you shit ( which you do ) my point is, one plane can not physically make a building fall how that building fell. That is certain.

How the fuck is that certain?

Buildings built in the 70's used asbestos based spray on vermiculite as fire proofing material to protect the structural steel, it's basically fire proof spray on wool, the explosion from the plane impact would blow virtually all the fire proofing off the steel.

Unprotected steel would loose it's structural properties rather quickly and exposed to a chemical fire it was always doomed. Floors at the point of fire begin to fail and the weight above falls crushes downwards, as it falls it lands on the structurally intact floors below, punching through them one at time. You have to remember the weight of the buildings above there would be 10's of thousands of tonnes of weight falling at an accelerating rate, the tower that had the plane impact lower had significantly more weight above the point of impact and failed faster, its logical.

Evidence of bombs going off. Ever been to a large commercial fire? all sort of shit explodes, transformers, generators, a/c units, gas storage, tanks, concrete itself explodes when exposed to extreme heat, same principle as putting a wet rock in a fire. Services are located all through a high rise, lots of things could have exploded and in building as big as the towers the services are huge as well. It could simply be objects falling, sections of the glass walls coming off. Just because theres a bang is no hard proof of explosive or a bomb.

Molten in the basements, the building is full of material that would melt in a chemical fire, copper from the wiring, aluminium from the window frames, office partitions ceiling grids etc. , on a scale like the tower it would takes weeks to cool, plus the heat generated by friction on the collapse, i bet the internal heat was huge. Shit melts, building collapse, everything gathers at the bottom, logical?

Fire at the bottom, things on fire fall. You have lift shafts, service risers, a/c ducts. Electrical shorts in the floors that got hit could short Submains in the basement, theres hundreds of things that happen or could happen. A plane full of fuel crashed into the building for fucks sake, random shit would happen. having been to a few fires now with insurance assessors and fesa, some pretty unbelievable stuff happens, that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Cut steel pictures, when was the photo taken? fire fighters worked for months at the site help search and sift through things, the only way to move sections of steel like that would be to thermal cut it. Again no proof of anything. What's to say they havn't just cut and craned the steel out the way to dig down further, two weeks after the event?

WTC7, any building as a max life span of approx 3 hours in a fire before it starts to fail, the aim is to give everyone time to get out, the fire services time to rescue people and then shit starts to collapse. Video's posted earlier clear show huge fires in WTC7, again it's a given that it would collapse.

Why because something odd happens do you lot go running for the tin foil and the weed? What gets me is instead of looking for logical answer to unusual events, people think unusual event must have unusual causes. it's mad.

INSINR8R

13-09-2011, 11:02 PM

Smartest person in the thread.

1JZVL

14-09-2011, 01:36 AM

This

<iframe width="640" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yuC_4mGTs98" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

lol.

Buckets

14-09-2011, 06:12 AM

Well said esky. Way too much bongs and tin foil hats here. Simple facts are simple. Plane smashed in to building, building fell the fuck down.

shifted

14-09-2011, 08:15 AM

P.s- any one watched the naudet bros footage yet? I haven't but it's meant to have some good stuff in it? Funnily enough i think that they are now wanted for murder in the US?

Got a linky?

sigh.

Exactly how I feel, I am happy to listen to other peoples opinions but it becomes pointless once people start going off their tree calling people idiots/tin foil hat wearers/etc. just because their opinion is different. Go figure. It's not like governments have ever wronged their people, ever!

Well said esky. Way too much bongs and tin foil hats here. Simple facts are simple. Plane smashed in to building, building fell the fuck down.

I don't smoke bongs, but I have a different opinion - why the label? A bit unfair isn't it? I am of the belief the building fell down (though designed to withstand a plane impact as mentioned by a designer of the building from memory) due to the plane and the bombs in the basement (countless accounts of bombs going off before, and after the plane hit by people that were there) - a combination of which resulted in the collapse of the structure so quickly. I still think it was an inside job none-the-less. Doesn't mean I smoke bongs, doesn't mean I am a "tin foil hat wearer" but based on the countless, countless other views out there that is what makes sense to me. I am not sitting here calling anyone else a bong smoker for their opinion - everyone has a right to theirs and theirs is as right as it can be for the knowledge that they possess to be able to have that opinion on a subject.

Anyway - interesting link explaining the collapse also...

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

An engineer from the WTC explains:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-eKhiisEXY

I can't find the clip from Zeitgeist on YouTube without going through the doco - but from memory they had the engineers of the building explain it also.

WTC 7 (careful, it is Alex Jones...):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZT_S1Gs3EI0

Interesting Doco on the collapse as well of the towers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bWoQUSfAM

Now either way - I don't look at anything as "gospel" and that "it's that way and that way only" - I am always happy to listen to another opinion and who knows, maybe I'll be taught something I don't know - that's the great thing about discussions. We won't know for sure what happened, there will always be the two sides or more to any story.

I am not a fan of Alex Jones - and I don't look at much of his stuff - he is generally completely biased and doesn't take into account any other opinion out there, but there is always other opinions out there and there are still some very worthwhile ones.

If people are interested in looking into any type of documentaries that are interesting in some way, shape or form - have a gander at all 3 Zeitgeists, also the 2 "Freedom Movies", "What the Bleep do we know?" and there is a stack of others I can list up - again, it isn't "gospel" but some very interesting views on the world, and on spiritual aspects of human life. :)

Edit:

Whoever posted this link (sorry, I've had it open on the laptop for days and forgot!):
http://www.iamthewitness.com/DarylBradfordSmith_Rothschild.htm

Excellent! Very interesting, it's also interesting to see that many "stars" out there, Tupac and Michael Jackson included spoke up numerous times on "The Illuminati" and at the end lost their lives.

Also, one note in there mentions 3 world wars to be constructed. One of which to destroy the Tsar in Russia, the 2nd in the regard to implentation and then destruction of Fascism (Nazi era), and followed by a war where the world turns on the Muslim/Islamic faith and essentially, destroy each other. Now look at what's been happening the last 20 years...

KAL SPL

14-09-2011, 08:30 AM

Esky can you find evidence of any other high rise building that has imploded due to fire damage to back up the claim its possible ?

coFF33

14-09-2011, 08:42 AM

you need to look harder, plenty of plane wreckage was found at the site.
also the security camera footage from a camera outside the pentagon shows the plane impacting the bldg & the resulting explosion.

Unsure if your serious or trolling .....

The security cam footage at the boom gate entrance shows something that looks nothing like a plane with wings, followed by a trail of jetfuel burn smoke...

http://pictureofday.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/missile_brahmos_bg_178247386.jpg

lots of paper got blown out of the building on impact, finding some of it is not hard to believe..

This wasn't in a building. It was in a persons pocket, in the cockpit of a plane that exploded upon impact, supposedly at high enough temperatures to liquefy steel. It is extremely hard to believe, considering they didn't even find the guys teeth.

hahahahahaahah
exactly....

I read the last 4 pages just now, as i havent been online since yesterday...
WTC 1 & 2 i cant debate on. I dont agree that columns were cut on a diagonal angle to cause the fall. As no one is certain if the columns were cut AFTER the fall as to protect evac workers etc. I cant agree bombs were used in the centre columns to make it fall precicely and not topple over and hit other buildings. i dont know i work in I.T. not the building industry.

However, finding passports of the bad guys on the plane that would have burnt on impact is total lies. obvious ones.
The government would have just told the people they found the documents in the debris from the towers to have someone to blame it on for the public to feel satified with an answer. Wouldnt you want to know that a terrorist killed your father or mother?? rather than not know at all ?. Sadly enough Americans in general are stupid enough to believe it and not question it.

The pentagon is complete BS, and in maybe another 10 years, we might eventually see the UNEDITED footage of the tomahawk/cruise missile hitting the building... no one can say it was a passenger jet. Nothing adds up at all in regards to the hole in the side and proceeding 3 "rings" of the pentagon, and how in all footage showen live on TV which you can view on youtube and other sites, when it hapened had NO wreckage of the plane. Some photos on the net show small pieces of the outer panels painted similar to an AA Jet. But ZERO footage of wing parts, engines or tail. Which in all plane crashes in the past have had these parts laying everywhere. It "COULD" have been some sort of really really strong fighter jet..... Made from a material that is able to penetrate the 3 rings of the Pentagon (mabe a Granite jet or something?)... but it sure as fuck was not a passenger jet.

I dont see any proof at all.
someone show me some so my so called "theory" is incorrect.

14-09-2011, 08:57 AM

The question I ask is - if the government went out of their way to knock down two buildings, why do people think they cared if it was 2, and just those 2, and not 2 plus the other 4 around them?

KAL SPL

14-09-2011, 09:00 AM

http://911research.wtc7.net/mirrors/guardian2/pentagon/what-hit-it.htm

More reading on the Pentagon missile. Sorry plane crash

Ryan1080

14-09-2011, 09:06 AM

How the fuck is that certain?

Buildings built in the 70's used asbestos based spray on vermiculite as fire proofing material to protect the structural steel, it's basically fire proof spray on wool, the explosion from the plane impact would blow virtually all the fire proofing off the steel.

Unprotected steel would loose it's structural properties rather quickly and exposed to a chemical fire it was always doomed. Floors at the point of fire begin to fail and the weight above falls crushes downwards, as it falls it lands on the structurally intact floors below, punching through them one at time. You have to remember the weight of the buildings above there would be 10's of thousands of tonnes of weight falling at an accelerating rate, the tower that had the plane impact lower had significantly more weight above the point of impact and failed faster, its logical.

Evidence of bombs going off. Ever been to a large commercial fire? all sort of shit explodes, transformers, generators, a/c units, gas storage, tanks, concrete itself explodes when exposed to extreme heat, same principle as putting a wet rock in a fire. Services are located all through a high rise, lots of things could have exploded and in building as big as the towers the services are huge as well. It could simply be objects falling, sections of the glass walls coming off. Just because theres a bang is no hard proof of explosive or a bomb.

Molten in the basements, the building is full of material that would melt in a chemical fire, copper from the wiring, aluminium from the window frames, office partitions ceiling grids etc. , on a scale like the tower it would takes weeks to cool, plus the heat generated by friction on the collapse, i bet the internal heat was huge. Shit melts, building collapse, everything gathers at the bottom, logical?

Fire at the bottom, things on fire fall. You have lift shafts, service risers, a/c ducts. Electrical shorts in the floors that got hit could short Submains in the basement, theres hundreds of things that happen or could happen. A plane full of fuel crashed into the building for fucks sake, random shit would happen. having been to a few fires now with insurance assessors and fesa, some pretty unbelievable stuff happens, that doesn't mean it's a conspiracy.

Cut steel pictures, when was the photo taken? fire fighters worked for months at the site help search and sift through things, the only way to move sections of steel like that would be to thermal cut it. Again no proof of anything. What's to say they havn't just cut and craned the steel out the way to dig down further, two weeks after the event?

WTC7, any building as a max life span of approx 3 hours in a fire before it starts to fail, the aim is to give everyone time to get out, the fire services time to rescue people and then shit starts to collapse. Video's posted earlier clear show huge fires in WTC7, again it's a given that it would collapse.

Why because something odd happens do you lot go running for the tin foil and the weed? What gets me is instead of looking for logical answer to unusual events, people think unusual event must have unusual causes. it's mad.

The best post in the thread by far. Exactly what I was thinking. Not that I know much about explosives and buildings. As far as WTC towers go, I am confident there was no foul play there etc.

There is still that mystery of the Pentagon though... that's where the official story fails to make sense... I'm not a tin foil hat wearer, but I do have serious doubts about that., and so far have heard no logical explanation that supports the official story.

fsbk

14-09-2011, 09:17 AM

all very compelling arguments, but the one thing that i still find hard believing is the fact that if this were true. the world trade centre and the pentagon was targeted by rogue elements in the government, think about how many people would have had to be compliant and complicit in this. literally 20-100 people, all committing treason against their own country. it wouldn't just be the president and all his mates, people would have had to lay the ground work (lay bombs etc). i just find it so hard to believe that 1. people could commit such an act on their own people (i know i couldn't, not even for a billion dollars) and 2. no one has opened their mouth about it, or even suggested that it has happened.

it's all fun to think about a conspiracy, but the logic trail ends when you think about the amount of people involved in a plan like this and the fact there is absolutely no credible evidence of any sort of internal involvement.

Ryan1080

14-09-2011, 09:23 AM

All the govt people who planted those bombs etc were subsequently quietly eliminated. You heard it here first!

14-09-2011, 09:26 AM

They just used mexicans, no one would miss them

EVLO

14-09-2011, 09:35 AM

zeroyon

14-09-2011, 09:35 AM

1. people could commit such an act on their own people (i know i couldn't, not even for a billion dollars) and 2. no one has opened their mouth about it, or even suggested that it has happened.

it's all fun to think about a conspiracy, but the logic trail ends when you think about the amount of people involved in a plan like this and the fact there is absolutely no credible evidence of any sort of internal involvement.

1. look at norway. It's easy to find people to do this sort of thing.

2. so your saying the world super power has no ability to carry out a military exercise in secret ?

Not having a go but I think you under estimte how crazy people can be and how powerful a military is. Think trained dolphins planting mines on ships spec. Thats real :)

zeroyon

14-09-2011, 09:40 AM

oh an to esky and his calling of tin foil hats I think you need to let people explore the options. We all appreciate you side of the story but maybe yo should go back to watching today tonight :).

fourseven

14-09-2011, 09:43 AM

Fsbk took the words out of my mouth. It's one thing to carry out a military exercise, a completely different thing to organise an inside job of this scale.

Something like this would need to come from the president, and there would be too many people in on it for everyone to keep their mouth shut.

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 09:50 AM

Something like this would need to come from the president, and there would be too many people in on it for everyone to keep their mouth shut.

There are things that the President doesn't have complete control over. Clinton talked about that at one stage.
And videos like Rumsfeld slipping up on the story etc goes to show that there are a lot of people who can't quite keep their mouth shut.

Buckets

14-09-2011, 10:00 AM

There are things that the President doesn't have complete control over. Clinton talked about that at one stage.

Same crew that organised the fake moon landings?

Surely some one would have leaked it to Wikileaks by now if it was an inside job.

Tre-Cool

14-09-2011, 10:07 AM

i watched this video this morning before leaving for work.

Definetly worth watching. it's only 12 minutes long.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=bl6w1YaZdf8

muniom

14-09-2011, 10:10 AM

I'm curious, those that say WCT7 was brought down deliberately, what was the reason for this? What is the significance of WCT7? and what and who gained from bringing it down? I know the owner of the building made 100's of millions in insurance payouts, but that cant be the main reason.

From wikipedia: the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Secret Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.

fourseven

14-09-2011, 10:18 AM

There are things that the President doesn't have complete control over. Clinton talked about that at one stage.
And videos like Rumsfeld slipping up on the story etc goes to show that there are a lot of people who can't quite keep their mouth shut.

I'm not talking about heads of government.

I'm talking about the shit kickers they would've needed to plant explosives in the building or whatever coked up theory you guys are believing these days. People cannot keep their mouth shut.

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 10:21 AM

Ryan1080

14-09-2011, 10:21 AM

I'm not talking about heads of government.

I'm talking about the shit kickers they would've needed to plant explosives in the building or whatever coked up theory you guys are believing these days. People cannot keep their mouth shut.

Hear hear... hence:

All the govt people who planted those bombs etc were subsequently quietly eliminated. You heard it here first!

I've seen quite a few movies and TV series where this has happened. :D

kingmoron

14-09-2011, 10:24 AM

the terrorists smuggled thermite onboard the plane!

shifted

14-09-2011, 10:28 AM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p-bWoQUSfAM

For anyone wanting to look into actual testing conducted after the towers fell to test theories - this documentary is extensive. Goes into detail about the amount of fuel estimated, the testing of steel members to the same conditions etc. very informative!

Also, there are documentaries out there show casing "economic assassins" and their ability to get what they want out of a country - people disappear all the time.

SimonR32

14-09-2011, 10:29 AM

Hear hear... hence:

I've seen quite a few movies and TV series where this has happened. :D

Don't forget all the international journos who were in on it and feeding the public false videos and images

fourseven

14-09-2011, 10:38 AM

Well they demonstrated how they deal with the people who do the dirty work for the government time and time again... SEAL team 6 aren't exactly available for comment these days about the Bin Laden raid..

Yes they are. You are referring to the downed chopper carrying 15 operators from DEVGRU's Gold Squadron, which weren't responsible for the OBL raid. There are over 300 operators in a pool for which ST6 can be made up off.

INSINR8R

14-09-2011, 10:44 AM

There would be a lot of people to bump off. Imagine if they told their families? The secret would get out eventually.

It's been ten years.

zeroyon

14-09-2011, 10:45 AM

Here's one for you.

Either the terrorist were really tapped into what the military do or its an inside job. Use it for which ever side you like.

Opportunity - 9/11 War Games: The Air Force was running multiple war games on the morning of 9/11 simulating hijackings over the continental United States that included (at least) one "live-fly" exercise as well as simulations that placed "false blips" on FAA radar screens. These war games eerily mirrored the real events of 9/11 to the point of the Air Force running drills involving hijacked aircraft as the 9/11 plot actually unfolded. The war games & terror drills played a critical role in ensuring no Air Force fighter jocks - who had trained their entire lives for this moment - would be able to prevent the attacks from succeeding. These exercises were under Dick Cheney's management

zeroyon

14-09-2011, 10:46 AM

Oh and btw the planes used in these exercises are military 747's :)

fourseven

14-09-2011, 10:49 AM

Jumanji

14-09-2011, 10:50 AM

There would be a lot of people to bump off. Imagine if they told their families? The secret would get out eventually.

It's been ten years.

I dont think that you honestly would try to double cross the government. And even if you did they would discredit you, make you out to be a crackhead and then dispose of you.

shifted

14-09-2011, 10:56 AM

Kaido

14-09-2011, 10:59 AM

There would be a lot of people to bump off. Imagine if they told their families? The secret would get out eventually.

It's been ten years.

its funny how money can make people forget

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 11:03 AM

If the war games had started I would be more open to the conspiracy theories. But the war games hadn't begun, the aircraft were destined for Alaska but hadn't left the ground and everything was called off by NORAD immediately after evidence of hijacking was found and reported by the FAA.

Regardless. Not only were there simulations running/to be run that day about this exact situation, Bush and Cheney categorically denied any knowledge of these sorts of attacks, and bush famously claimed "No one in our government, or the previous government could have imagined these kinds of attacks"
(Not direct quote)

Official story, k go

<iframe width="480" height="390" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/-jed-7H2jI8" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

There's plenty of argument back and forth over this, but the main piece of evidence is that the official story is full of bigger holes than those buildings. What are they keeping from the public? And why?

If they had really been the innocent victims of a foreign attack like that, why cover it up... Why not release the evidence... Why did the commission report allow the two key players - Bush and Cheney - to give off-the-record non-sworn behind-closed-doors testimonies, and then let them have the final OK for what went in the document?

Fourseven, Buckets, etc, I'm not having a go at your analytical skills, because clearly you've got them down pat. But where's the logic in all the lies and cover-ups that the government has been conducting? Why not, after ten years and if they are the real victims, do they not show 100% of the evidence about what happened on those days?

fourseven

14-09-2011, 11:21 AM

Regardless. Not only were there simulations running/to be run that day about this exact situation

I've read the Rubicon book and it's a complete load of shit written by some crackpot with zero knowledge of military process. The wargames were about intercepting long-range Russian bombers and were to be staged in Alaska, and in a move to mock the US the Russians were in the middle of similiar war games on the day until the first attack when they called their wargames off as well. It wasn't until this crackpot came out with his book that the media and now you conspiracy theorists claim it was all about hijacking 747s and flying them into buildings.

If they had really been the innocent victims of a foreign attack like that, why cover it up... Why not release the evidence... Why did the commission report allow the two key players - Bush and Cheney - to give off-the-record non-sworn behind-closed-doors testimonies, and then let them have the final OK for what went in the document?

If it was on-record and they were sworn in, they would be under oath to answer everything asked of them. Not a very smart move considering these people control information of the most powerful nation in the world. I'm sure alot of national security secrets were divulged during the investigation most of which would be unfit for public consumption.

I'm not for one moment suggesting the US didn't have knowledge of what was going to happen, or that they haven't covered things up in the interests of protecting the USA's secrets and military infrastructure. But an inside job? Not a chance.

masterA

14-09-2011, 11:46 AM

Finally got to watch Farenheight 9/11 the other day.....quite an interesting doco that certainly makes you think about a few things

14-09-2011, 11:49 AM

I dont think that you honestly would try to double cross the government. And even if you did they would discredit you, make you out to be a crackhead and then dispose of you.

What like every person whos posts videos on the net?

Jumanji

14-09-2011, 11:56 AM

What like every person whos posts videos on the net?

If you were someone high up in the government and you called a press confrence the yeah i would think so.

SimonR32

14-09-2011, 12:02 PM

I'm not for one moment suggesting the US didn't have knowledge of what was going to happen, or that they haven't covered things up in the interests of protecting the USA's secrets and military infrastructure. But an inside job? Not a chance.

That pretty much sums me up as well...

perthute555

14-09-2011, 12:03 PM

http://rt.com/files/news/terrorism-9-11-war-219/news_terrorism-9-11-war-219_news_terrorism-9-11-war-219_news_terrorism-9-11-war-219_i3b5cc3edec4249763e48ef35d1435995_war-terror_sm.jpg

[Jacek]

14-09-2011, 12:50 PM

Those saying that there were no remains of the plane that hit the pentagon...

..where are the remains of the planes that hit WTC?

coFF33

14-09-2011, 01:01 PM

Jacek, there was loads of them, in "the pile" at ground zero

KAL SPL

14-09-2011, 01:08 PM

;899218']Those saying that there were no remains of the plane that hit the pentagon...

..where are the remains of the planes that hit WTC?
I dont think thers any denying 2 planes hit the WTC , there is still much debate on the actual identity of the planes them selves but there AHS to be wreckage somewhere.
1 of the engines was found 6 blocks away IIRC ?

[Jacek]

14-09-2011, 01:13 PM

Oh I'm just saying that planes disintegrate into millions of pieces on impact/explosion as we saw in the WTC buildings, so ofcourse its possible that the same thing happened at the pentagon

Tre-Cool

14-09-2011, 01:23 PM

JBAE

14-09-2011, 01:35 PM

Not exactly even if they were to lets say "disintergrate" "vapourize" even they were supposedly carrying enough force and energy to atleast leave an imprint or penetrate, look at the impact areas and damage left on the WTC buildings wings are not some weak structure made out of chalk that go LE POOF when they hit something they may tear up and get destroyed to an extremely high degree yes but the leading edge of a aerofoil is decently strong it has to be to serve its purpose and resist forces of travelling at 100s of Miles Per hour whilst also supporting the aircrafts weight, note these wings left their mark on the WTC buildings cutting into it like a knife you can clearly see the ---O--- mark they leave.

Where as at the Pentagon there is a O at most a -O- which is far too small for a 757 and its wingspan the pentagon wasnt some indestructable object made of kryptonite and adamentium, it was blast resistant ect not damage proof even after the collapse you can see the make up and size and thickness of the outer wall its nothing thats all that special, and the outer coating i beleive is limestone which again would have shown signs of impact from the wings, wings do not just fold up and hide they dont just dissapear.

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 01:45 PM

Discussion on the jet engine side of the argument

http://www.rense.com/general67/911eng.htm

fourseven

14-09-2011, 01:57 PM

In regards to the inside job. did no one look at the link i posted.

i think it's pretty obvious the white house guy pretty much says it all. The CIA through either misfeasants or malfeasants helped make the whole 9/11 events happen.

yet no one has been charged... the guys in charge got away with it.

If the CIA can't even keep an "illegal" presidential order to kill and capture Al-Qaeda members a secret from congress, how do you think they would get away with this?

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 02:23 PM

fourseven

14-09-2011, 02:47 PM

Fucking LOL.

"Did Al-Qaeda have access to these highly secure buildings... probably not".
Most of the WTC is open to the public. The bottom was private retail space, with a large public garage for parking. The 1993 bombing was from the public garage.

"Did they have access to sophisticated nano-thermite... probably not".
Just because he lived in a cave, OBL wasn't a nobody. The family is worth billions, and there are literally hundreds of thousands of people who supported the crackhead's belief. To think he doesn't have access to any type of weaponry or anything else he desires is naive.

If the buildings were torn down by controlled demolition, I'd put my money on the terrorist groups involved having planted explosives over some sort of conspiracy theory that a couple of willing FBI agents taped up shit to go boom.

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 02:51 PM

Ryan1080

14-09-2011, 02:56 PM

I was pretty certain there were claims out there that they did find traces of explosive compounds and such. Are there any articles to prove/disprove those claims?

Perhaps remains from the 1993 bombing?

esky

14-09-2011, 03:14 PM

Esky can you find evidence of any other high rise building that has imploded due to fire damage to back up the claim its possible ?

How many buildings have been hit by a commercial airline and not collapsed?

but to answer your question, Windsor Tower Madrid.

The upper portions of the building, which were constructed on steel frame similar in principle to the Towers collapsed within 3 hours of the fire. The concrete encased steel floors did not.

The problem with this aspect of the conspiracy theory is how many high rises have actually collapsed at all, very few.

Below are two photos taken from a Warehouse Fire in Kewdale. Note the deflection and distortion of the columns under the own weight. This was a single storey steel frame building, the only weigh on the steel was it's own and that of the roof sheets and purlins

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh267/Fordesky/IMG_0682.jpg

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh267/Fordesky/IMG_0676.jpg

From the 9/11 commission report, it was calculated that there was 118,182 tonnes of weight above the impact point. Personally, i think it impressive that the buildings stood as long as they did, given approx 15% of the structural columns were sliced through and the rest exposed to high intensity fire, the explosion of the plane and the huge weight above bearing down on the damaged sections.

esky

14-09-2011, 03:16 PM

More the point there is that they did a soil/dust analysis and found traces of thermite.
Although I only just stumbled across that video, that was what I was looking for, I was pretty certain there were claims out there that they did find traces of explosive compounds and such. Are there any articles to prove/disprove those claims?

Got an credible source to prove that thermite/explosives was found?

I love your train of thought, make up wild bullshit, then ask for scientific evidence to disprove the theory, good work.

JBAE

14-09-2011, 03:22 PM

was there even bodies/parts/remains ect found at the 93 crash site or the pentagon?

i remember reading an article or interview with a coroner who was on the seen of the 93 crash and there was no human remains at all to be found?

Jumanji

14-09-2011, 03:26 PM

How many buildings have been hit by a commercial airline and not collapsed?

but to answer your question, Windsor Tower Madrid.

The upper portions of the building, which were constructed on steel frame similar in principle to the Towers collapsed within 3 hours of the fire. The concrete encased steel floors did not.

The problem with this aspect of the conspiracy theory is how many high rises have actually collapsed at all, very few.

Below are two photos taken from a Warehouse Fire in Kewdale. Note the deflection and distortion of the columns under the own weight. This was a single storey steel frame building, the only weigh on the steel was it's own and that of the roof sheets and purlins

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh267/Fordesky/IMG_0682.jpg

http://i258.photobucket.com/albums/hh267/Fordesky/IMG_0676.jpg

From the 9/11 commission report, it was calculated that there was 118,182 tonnes of weight above the impact point. Personally, i think it impressive that the buildings stood as long as they did, given approx 15% of the structural columns were sliced through and the rest exposed to high intensity fire, the explosion of the plane and the huge weight above bearing down on the damaged sections.

about WTC

Columns at the top were sliced through, then that would have no effect on the columns that were sliced through at the bottom would it, as per Mad Aussies pictures that have been provided on previous pages. Even if that much wieght was being held up by these columns at the top, this would have no effect as such on the bottom as the mean weight overall would remain the same + the plane. Contingency plans for overall mean wieght should have been considered during the construction process of such a high rise building.

People have written that concrete explodes or Ignites, at a very high temperature. It acctually does not explode but to some point it ignites not explodes around the 1800ºc mark. It cant get that hot that quickly as people would have been vaporised at those sorts of temperatures as well as having liquid steel running around the place.

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 03:31 PM

I love your train of thought, make up wild bullshit, then ask for scientific evidence to disprove the theory, good work.

I love your train of thought. Did you even watch the video? (I'm guessing by your reply, you didn't) That's what I'm referring to. Guy has made a claim, wondering if anyone knows more.

JBAE

14-09-2011, 03:34 PM

^ if referring to the thermite particle thing in the dust is in numerous vids the Blueprint vid by architechs and engineers covers it too

mr m00se

14-09-2011, 04:02 PM

thermite = iron oxide (rust) and aluminium shavings, not hard to find that in the soil of a recently collapsed building..

esky

14-09-2011, 04:06 PM

about WTC

Columns at the top were sliced through, then that would have no effect on the columns that were sliced through at the bottom would it, as per Mad Aussies pictures that have been provided on previous pages. Even if that much wieght was being held up by these columns at the top, this would have no effect as such on the bottom as the mean weight overall would remain the same + the plane. Contingency plans for overall mean wieght should have been considered during the construction process of such a high rise building.

People have written that concrete explodes or Ignites, at a very high temperature. It actually does not explode but to some point it ignites not explodes around the 1800ºc mark. It cant get that hot that quickly as people would have been vaporised at those sorts of temperatures as well as having liquid steel running around the place.

Columns in the middle were sliced through, by the Plane.

The building failed in the middle, the top section of 118,000tonnes dropped, smashing through the floors below.

The pictures of the "sliced" through columns Mad_Aussie posted were taken November 2001 months after the collapse, during the removal of debris. The steel column in question has been cut with a thermal lance in order to remove it, its how you cut large steel on site. It pretty standard stuff.

Concrete sprawls under heat load. .The moisture contained within concrete expands and chunks 'explode' off under the pressure, also the thermal expansion of the steel reinforcing can cause similar effect. Try putting a damp granite rock in a fire, but stand back. Look at the picture i posted above, the edge of the concrete slab is broken up, as was the top, there was approx 100mm of slab missing, it doesn't take a huge heat load to do this.

Ryan1080

14-09-2011, 04:12 PM

I think esky and Buckets have made the most sensible comments in this thread. They sound like they actually know what they're talking about. Interesting read.

EVLO

14-09-2011, 04:14 PM

14-09-2011, 04:27 PM

But they found thermite!

muniom

14-09-2011, 04:30 PM

From wikipedia: the Securities and Exchange Commission and the United States Secret Service. The Department of Defense (DOD) and Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) shared the 25th floor with the IRS.

EVL WRX: I quoted you earlier... would have been some handy information in that building...

morgazmatron

14-09-2011, 04:31 PM

Termites?

But dont they only eat wood? What would they be doing in the Trade center?

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 04:32 PM

But they found thermite!

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/thermite/explosive_residues.html

The discovery of unexploded super-thermite in the WTC dust augments a large body of evidence pointing to the use of aluminothermic materials in the destruction of the skyscrapers. The present review looks only at the evidence of explosives found in the dust and debris expelled from the Twin Towers.

Even before WTC dust was subjected to the kind of microscopic scrutiny described in Active Thermitic Material Discovered, several features of the dust analysis published by the USGS pointed to the use of aluminothermics. For example, the USGS data shows high levels of barium -- a fact that is difficult to explain, barring pyrotechnics.

Still waiting for an answer on this one.....

...you and several million other people.

Brockas

14-09-2011, 04:38 PM

Ok... stop this now. It's about time people got over this and let the conspiracy theories go.

I have put together info from other sites regarding these topics.

For anyone who doesn't believe a plane hit the Pentagon - READ THIS:
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1

Examining Ground Debris

Landing Gear Evidence

Rim photographed in the Pentagon wreckage. You can clearly see it is a double bead design as required by the NTSB, and you can also see it has had 90% of the rim edge smashed off in the crash.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/rim1.jpg
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/rim2.jpg

Some people have tried to claim that the rims are different from a 757 rim - well here (bottom) is a 757-200 rim from an American Airlines 757, I've outlined the exact same symmetrical holes. I think perhaps some people are thrown off by the balancing led weights attached on the rims in the bottom photo? Have you never taken your car in for a wheel alignment and tire balancing? This is clearly the same kind of rim found on a 757. (The hub-covers/grease-covers are not present for obvious reasons - to remove one you pop it off with a flathead screw driver... so how would you expect it to stay on in a 400mph impact with a reinforced concrete wall?)

Landing gear strut - appears to be from the nose gear - note how charred the area around it is.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/landinggear002.jpg

The next photo is from the cover from one of the conspiracy sites that demands "where is the plane?" -- they must not have looked very hard, there are 2 obvious chunks of it in the photo. Another rim from the airplane on the right, and a large chunk of bulkhead on the left.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/trou1moyenne.jpg

Below: More parts from inside the 757 - note the Boeing green primer on 3 parts in this photo - two circled.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg

Below, another photo of a tire with the same pattern as ones used on a 757, found in the Pentagon wreckage.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/aedrive5.jpg

Engine Evidence
Let's take a look at some of the ground debris that appears to be related to an aircraft engine. Many different sites and posts have reported that the 757 uses Rolls-Royce engines [RB211-535E4B] - however it should be noted, for the sake of thuroughness, that American Airlines also use Pratt & Witney engines [PW2037] in many of their 757 fleet. You can also view this information on their website. (The 757 fleets around the world actually use over six different kinds of engines.) The 757 that is reported to have hit the Pentagon was using RB211-535E4B engines.

Here is are photos of some apparent engine parts from the Pentagon crash site. http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/planeparts-1.jpg

What is seen in this photo is most likely the APU (Aux Power Unit) used in a 757 that is equipped with Rolls-Royce RB211 engines. The APU (Honeywell GTCP331-200) is located in the tail section of the aircraft (that's what the large vent that looks like a 3rd jet engine is) as edvidenced on this technical rescue reference aid from Boeing. Boeing 757 reference website. These small turbine engines are quite common on modern turbine & turbofan passenger aircraft, and are used to furnish ground auxillary power while the main engines are shut down during ground operations. An online training aid lets you Play around with the controls on a 757/767 instrument pannel.

There have been some people who claim that a Global Hawk was what hit the Pentagon. Here is what John W. Brown, spokesman for Rolls Royce (Indianapolis), had to say about the part in the photo above It is not a part from any Rolls Royce engine that I'm familiar with, and certainly not the AE 3007H made here in Indy. (Of course it wouldn't be anything he's familiar with, it's a powerplant made by Honeywell.) The AE 3007 engines are used in small commuter jets such as the Cessna Citation; the AE 3007H is also used in the military's unmanned aircraft, the Global Hawk. The Global Hawk is manufactured by Northrop Grumman's subsidiary Ryan Aeronautical, which it acquired from Teledyne, Inc. in July 1999. A detailed view of what the turbofan that powers the Global Hawk looks like - I'm sure you can see it's too small to be anything in the pictures contained here or anywhere else in the Pentagon crash evidence. Also visible in this photo, one of the 757's blue passenger seats to the left of the turbine, and possibly a 2nd seat above the other seat.

Below is a significant portion of a badly smashed RB211 engine in the Pentagon wreckage - what appears to be the diffusor section of the compressor, one of the pumps remains partially attached, some hoses and the familiar webbed wire wraps (to the right of the main ring) and some of the Boeing yellow primed support structure is lying beside it (left, with rivets - again: note the yellow primer, we'll cover that further down).
Reference: Image of the engine used on the 757 (it's the rightmost one, top row) Rolls-Royce
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg

Another engine part, bottom right.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/Shoring8.jpg

Below: Evidence of the right engine impact on the side of the building is evident on the large pillar being sprayed with fire retardant.
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/4s.jpg

The hit lightpoles, and damaged vehicles in the flightpath:
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/1s.jpg
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/2s.jpg

The wreckage with the markings
http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/757-americanlogo.jpg

IF THIS WAS ALL EVIDENCE OF A MISSILE, YOU WOULD CONCLUDE THAT A MISSILE HIT THE PENTAGON.

IT IS NOT. IT IS EVIDENCE OF A PLANE.

For anyone who doesn't think United 93 crashed, READ THIS:

There were DOZENS of eye witnesses which reported seeing United 93 plummeting vertically towards the ground. This is what makes this plane crash different from others.
In a usual plane crash, the crew at least attempts to make a landing. They do this by slowing the speed of the plane, and reducing the angle of approach to the ground (naturally!).
United 93 appeared to be travelling at MAXIMUM velocity towards the ground, and hit perpendicular to the ground. Not many planes hit the ground at 90 degrees, and this is why the wreckage is scattered into 1,000,000 pieces.

The wreckage at the site was 100% consistent with a plane crashing perpendicular to the ground. Almost all the debris was found in or around the crater, which makes sense considering the trajectory of the plane.

There were reports of debris found up to 8km away, which conspiracy theorists claim proves that the plane was indeed shot down. The hole in this theory is that if the plane was shot down, the wreckage would not be so dense at the single impact point, nor would there be a single impact point.

Instead, the wreckage found elsewhere can be explained by two different possibilities:
1. The fuel carried on board (equivalent to about 187 TONNES of TNT!!) ignited, causing a massive fireball and explosion (as reported by witnesses) which cause wreckage to be ejected.
2. The plane exceeded it's maximum recommended speed while approaching terminal velocity. When free-falling it is possible for a plane to reach speeds where the engines are literally torn off the wings. This is simply due to excess loading on the support structures.

To support this, here are pictures of the wreckage and site:
http://www.unitedflight93.com/images/Flight-93-Crater.jpg
http://www.unitedflight93.com/images/impact-crater1.jpg
http://www.unitedflight93.com/images/debris.jpg
http://www.unitedflight93.com/images/debris-belt.jpg

There is no other explination which fits with the facts as well as this:
Passengers attempted to overthrow the hijackers of United 93, and in the process caused the plane to nosedive towards the ground.

For anyone who believes WTC 7 was demolished, READ THIS:
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm

This is the official NIST report on the collapse of WTC 7.

Debris from the collapse of WTC 1, which was 370 feet to the south, ignited fires on at least 10 floors in the building at its south and west faces. However, only the fires on some of the lower floors-7 through 9 and 11 through 13-burned out of control. These lower-floor fires-which spread and grew because the water supply to the automatic sprinkler system for these floors had failed-were similar to building fires experienced in other tall buildings. The primary and backup water supply to the sprinkler systems for the lower floors relied on the city's water supply, whose lines were damaged by the collapse of WTC 1 and WTC 2. These uncontrolled lower-floor fires eventually spread to the northeast part of WTC 7, where the building's collapse began.
How did the fires cause WTC 7 to collapse?
The heat from the uncontrolled fires caused steel floor beams and girders to thermally expand, leading to a chain of events that caused a key structural column to fail. The failure of this structural column then initiated a fire-induced progressive collapse of the entire building.
According to the report's probable collapse sequence, heat from the uncontrolled fires caused thermal expansion of the steel beams on the lower floors of the east side of WTC 7, damaging the floor framing on multiple floors.
Eventually, a girder on Floor 13 lost its connection to a critical column, Column 79, that provided support for the long floor spans on the east side of the building (see Diagram 1). The displaced girder and other local fire-induced damage caused Floor 13 to collapse, beginning a cascade of floor failures down to the 5th floor. Many of these floors had already been at least partially weakened by the fires in the vicinity of Column 79. This collapse of floors left Column 79 insufficiently supported in the east-west direction over nine stories.
The unsupported Column 79 then buckled and triggered an upward progression of floor system failures that reached the building's east penthouse. What followed in rapid succession was a series of structural failures. Failure first occurred all the way to the roof line-involving all three interior columns on the easternmost side of the building (79, 80, 81). Then, progressing from east to west across WTC 7, all of the columns failed in the core of the building (58 through 78). Finally, the entire façade collapsed.

http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/images/wtc082108.jpg

What is progressive collapse?
Progressive collapse is defined as the spread of local damage from a single initiating event, from structural element to element, eventually resulting in the collapse of an entire structure or a disproportionately large part of it. The failure of WTC 7 was an example of a fire-induced progressive collapse.
Progressive collapse did NOT occur in the WTC towers, for two reasons. First, the collapse of each tower was not triggered by a local damage or a single initiating event. Second, the structures were able to redistribute loads from the impact and fire-damaged structural components and subsystems to undamaged components and to keep the building standing until a sudden, global collapse occurred. Had a hat truss that connected the core columns to the exterior frame not been installed to support a TV antenna atop each WTC tower after the structure had been fully designed, it is likely that the core of the WTC towers would have collapsed sooner, triggering a global collapse. Such a collapse would have some features similar to that of a progressive collapse.
How did the collapse of WTC 7 differ from the collapses of WTC 1 and WTC 2?
WTC 7 was unlike the WTC towers in many respects. WTC 7 was a more typical tall building in the design of its structural system. It was not struck by an aircraft. The collapse of WTC 7 was caused by a single initiating event-the failure of a northeast building column brought on by fire-induced damage to the adjacent flooring system and connections-which stands in contrast to the WTC 1 and WTC 2 failures, which were brought on by multiple factors, including structural damage caused by the aircraft impact, extensive dislodgement of the sprayed fire-resistive materials or fireproofing in the impacted region, and a weakening of the steel structures created by the fires.
The fires in WTC 7 were quite different from the fires in the WTC towers. Since WTC 7 was not doused with thousands of gallons of jet fuel, large areas of any floor were not ignited simultaneously as they were in the WTC towers. Instead, separate fires in WTC 7 broke out on different floors, most notably on Floors 7 to 9 and 11 to 13. The WTC 7 fires were similar to building contents fires that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present.

Why did WTC 7 collapse, while no other known building in history has collapsed due to fires alone?
The collapse of WTC 7 is the first known instance of a tall building brought down primarily by uncontrolled fires. The fires in WTC 7 were similar to those that have occurred in several tall buildings where the automatic sprinklers did not function or were not present. These other buildings, including Philadelphia's One Meridian Plaza, a 38-story skyscraper that burned for 18 hours in 1991, did not collapse due to differences in the design of the structural system.
Factors contributing to WTC 7's collapse included: the thermal expansion of building elements such as floor beams and girders, which occurred at temperatures hundreds of degrees below those typically considered in current practice for fire-resistance ratings; significant magnification of thermal expansion effects due to the long-span floors in the building; connections between structural elements that were designed to resist the vertical forces of gravity, not the thermally induced horizontal or lateral loads; and an overall structural system not designed to prevent fire-induced progressive collapse.
What are the major differences between "typical" major high rise building fires that have occurred in the United States and the fire in the WTC 7 building on September 11, 2001?
There are more similarities than differences between the uncontrolled fires that burned in WTC 7 and those that occurred in the following buildings: First Interstate Bank Building (1988), One Meridian Plaza Building (1981), One New York Plaza (1970), and WTC 51 (2001).
The following factors describe the fire events that occurred in both WTC 7 and the referenced buildings: 1) the fuel for the fires was ordinary office combustibles at ordinary combustible load levels; 2) there was no use of accelerants; 3) the spread of fire from combustible to combustible was governed by ordinary fire physics; 4) fire-induced window breakage provided ventilation for continued fire spread and growth; 5) there were simultaneous fires on multiple floors; 6) the fires on each floor occupied a substantial portion of the floor; 7) the fires on each floor had passed the point of flashover and the structure was subjected to typical post-flashover temperatures; 8) the sprinklers were inoperative or ineffective; and 9) the fires burned for sufficient time to cause significant distortion and/or failure to the building structure.
There were some differences between the fires in WTC 7 and those in the referenced buildings, but these differences were secondary to the fire factors that led to the collapse of WTC 7: 1) Fires in high rise buildings typically have a single point of origin on a single floor, whereas the fires in WTC 7 likely had a single point of origin on multiple (10) floors; 2); fires in other high rise buildings were due to isolated events, whereas the fires in WTC 7 followed the collapse of WTC 1; 3) water was available to fight fires in the other high rise buildings, but the water supply to fight fires in WTC 7 was impaired; and 4) while the fires in the other buildings were actively fought by fire fighters to the extent possible, in WTC 7, no efforts were made to fight the fires.
The differences in the fires were not meaningful for the following reasons. By the time that WTC 7 collapsed, the fires in WTC 7 had advanced well beyond the likely points of origin on multiple floors (i.e., south and west faces) and originating points of fire origin had no bearing on the fire conditions when the building collapsed (i.e., in the northeast quadrant). Additionally, in each of the other referenced buildings, the fires burned out several floors, even with available water and fire fighting activities (except for WTC 5). Thus, whether the fire fighters fought the WTC 7 fires or not is not a meaningful point of dissimilarity from the other cited fires.
WTC 5 was a nine-story building with uncontrolled fires that had complete burnout on a number of floors and partial collapse on four floors.

Some people have said that a failure at one column should not have produced a symmetrical fall like this one. What's your answer to those assertions?
WTC 7's collapse, viewed from the exterior (most videos were taken from the north), did appear to fall almost uniformly as a single unit. This occurred because the interior failures that took place did not cause the exterior framing to fail until the final stages of the building collapse. The interior floor framing and columns collapsed downward and pulled away from the exterior frame. There were clues that internal damage was taking place, prior to the downward movement of the exterior frame, such as when the east penthouse fell downward into the building and windows broke out on the north face at the ends of the building core. The symmetric appearance of the downward fall of the WTC 7 was primarily due to the greater stiffness and strength of its exterior frame relative to the interior framing.

In a video, it appears that WTC 7 is descending in free fall, something that would not occur in the structural collapse that you describe. How can you ignore basic laws of physics?
In the draft WTC 7 report (released Aug. 21, 2008; available at http://wtc.nist.gov/media/NIST_NCSTAR_1A_for_public_comment.pdf), NIST stated that the north face of the building descended 18 stories (the portion of the collapse visible in the video) in 5.4 seconds, based on video analysis of the building collapse. This time period is 40 percent longer than the 3.9 seconds this process would have taken if the north face of the building had descended solely under free fall conditions. During the public comment period on the draft report, NIST was asked to confirm this time difference and define the reasons for it in greater detail.

Now for the photos Mad Aussie seems to draw conclusions from...

WTC 1 & 2 collapse:
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

One of the pieces of evidence conspiracy theorists use to say the buildings were brought down is a photo with something they interpret as being left behind by a thermite reaction.

There are a number of things they claim with this photo. One is the timeline. They say the photo has firemen which means this was during the rescue operation which only lasted two weeks. Why would they have fireman after the rescue operations? This suggests to them that the cut on the columns were made very close to September 11. The suggestion here is that it was done during the collapse.

They claim that the angle of the cut can't be created by a welding tool and/or is designed to have the building fall in a certain direction.

The other is a yellow substance they claim is residue from a thermite reaction.

Let's examine these claims one by one to see where the evidence takes us...

Timeline and Firemen

The rescue operation took about two weeks. They figured anyone left alive would have died by then anyway, so they started clean up operations and body recovery. During this time there was always at least 50 policemen and 50 firemen left on the scene to recover their fallen brothers. There were even more than that on ground zero until the city of NY told them to leave in November 2001. The city couldn't justify risking the health of 150 police and fireman for body recovery. In fact there was a protest about it which ended with the mayor allowing 50 members of each department on the scene.

Citing safety concerns, Giuliani had sought to scale back the number of firefighters working at ground zero to 25. At one point there had been as many as 150 firefighters and police officers at the site.

The decision angered firefighters still mourning the loss of 343 colleagues in the attacks. Many bodies have not been recovered, and the firefighters said they wanted to help find the remains of their friends and colleagues.

The number of firefighters working at the site was increased to 50 on Thursday.

http://www.firehouse.com/news/2001/11/10_APcharges.html

Below are photos of firemen well after September 11.

http://www.debunking911.com/anglecut2.jpg
October

http://www.debunking911.com/fireman.jpg
December 15th 2001

So the fact that there are firemen in the photo doesn't mean anything. That cut could have been done at any time during the clean up and recovery. Lets not forget the building went down some 6 stories underground. The firemen were recovering bodies mainly from the core and some were in the lobby when it happened. So it's not unreasonable to expect firemen there well after the event. Long enough for an ironworker to cut the column.

Angle and yellow residue

Another point is the angle of the cut. The argument here is that it suggests the column was cut at an angle so the building fell in a certain direction, like a tree. But is it possible the column was cut at an angle so just the column fell in a certain direction during cleanup? This can't be, surely the scholars would have asked an ironworker or someone else on the scene. I bet there isn't one photograph someone can find on the internet of a column which is cut at an angle. Remember, we're talking about "Scholars" here.

http://www.debunking911.com/cut.jpg

http://www.debunking911.com/cut2.jpg
Once again, a close up of their column...

http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg

Maybe I'm being a little unfair. Maybe I just happened to get this from some obscure site. Maybe I work for the government and have a stash of photos the scholars aren't privy to... No, actually I got this from the same place the scholars got their photo.

Scholars Photo:
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=13

The above photo
http://hereisnewyork.org/gallery/thumb.asp?CategoryID=5&picnum=73

Note the yellow smoke and residue left behind by the ironworker.

Thermite in general makes an ugly hole with molten metal drips/blobs. It doesn't make clean cuts. It's a powder that undergoes a violent chemical reaction as seen in the video below.

http://www.guzer.com/videos/thermite_car.php

Enough yet? Or do you have any more ridiculous theories?

esky

14-09-2011, 04:42 PM

Brockas

14-09-2011, 04:49 PM

Watch the columns collapse under load. It also interesting that nothing below the point of failure moves, until the top section smash through it.
I am absolutely stunned that people watch that and somehow think it was a controlled demolition.

The building did not collapse from the bottom, it collapsed from the top. It did not free-fall, and parts of it remained standing until a million tonnes of debris landed on their support beams.

If the base of the main-loading beams were cut with thermite like Mad Aussie suggests, we would see the bottom of the buildings collapsing at the same time as the top, in fact the top should really remain in tact the most. It does not. The top collapses and the large vertical single-point loading forces cause the rest of the building to collapse under the stress.

To quote South Park:
"1/4 of the American population think 9/11 was a conspiracy... therefore 1/4 of the American population are idiots."

14-09-2011, 04:51 PM

LOL Brockas wins

fourseven

14-09-2011, 04:55 PM

It's his fucking mate that started the thread.

Mad_Aussie

14-09-2011, 04:59 PM

To quote South Park:
"1/4 of the American population think 9/11 was a conspiracy... therefore 1/4 of the American population are idiots."

Conspiracy: A secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

Even *if* it was all planned and done by Bin Laden from a cave, it was still by definition, "a conspiracy"

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/archive/7/73/20110128203738!Trollface.png

Buckets

14-09-2011, 05:06 PM

LOL Brockas wins

Strong post Brockas.

Close thread now?

Ryan1080

14-09-2011, 05:11 PM

Brockas' post for the win!

Keen to hear tinfoil hats' rebuttals...

Tocchi

14-09-2011, 05:22 PM

Brockas works for the CIA

mattyb89

14-09-2011, 05:35 PM

Brockas works for the CIA
yer thats how he got all the good inside info

zeroyon

14-09-2011, 09:30 PM

Well the lesson in all this for me is

I think I need to go into business doing demolitions by plane.

Considering how often the demo crews get it wrong it would be far cheaper and more accurate to drop a 747 in.

1JZVL

14-09-2011, 09:33 PM

Cool.

I'm sure others could construct a post countering nearly everything said....and around in circles we can go; doesn't mean shit.

Fun times!

Niva

14-09-2011, 09:50 PM

so your saying we didnt land on the moon?

KAL SPL

14-09-2011, 09:55 PM

*you're

1JZVL

14-09-2011, 10:56 PM

so your saying we didnt land on the moon?

Do not care.

Ibz

14-09-2011, 11:01 PM

I think Brockas had something to do with the 9/11 terror attacks..

INSINR8R

15-09-2011, 12:00 AM

The most well put together debunking of conspiracy theory claims ever.

Period. Well done Brockas. Every single theory just got blown out of the water.

JBAE

15-09-2011, 01:05 AM

This guy still puts foward valid points and reasons, physics is his thing so hes not a complete crackpot and puts his questioning directly to the investigators. take what you will from it but its scientific approach Vs scientific approach.

Also the NIST link posted denies any witness accounts of hearing explosions? multiple people heard explosions?

anyway

<iframe width="420" height="345" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/eDvNS9iMjzA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Brockas

15-09-2011, 02:14 AM

I'm sure others could construct a post countering nearly everything said....and around in circles we can go; doesn't mean shit.
Um ok.

Most points made in this thread so far have been referenced with the phrase "I think I read that somewhere" or "I remember hearing this I think".

I'm happy to debunk or refute most conspiracy claims if they, even remotely, have any facts or empirical evidence which seem reasonable. What I can't be bothered refuting is dodgy pixelated images and videos from which people have drawn astounding conclusions.

If NIST or any other agency conducted investigations like the conspiracy theorists do, they wouldn't have a job. It is illogical to draw a conclusion from 1 piece of evidence when conflicting evidence is overwhelming.

A classic case is what was mentioned previously about the 'missile' hitting the Pentagon. This is what must have occurred if indeed a missile hit the Pentagon:
1. All passengers which were witnessed by family members boarding American Airlines Flight 77 were executed by the government.
2. The Boeing 757 which was AA Flight 77 was destroyed by the government and AA compensated financially (without records).
3. Parts of a Boeing 757 including the RB211 engines must be damaged in a way which was consistent with the rest of the Pentagon damage, be transported to the pentagon using large trucks, and placed inside the building wreckage (while the media was watching of course).
4. The watching media and all associated witnesses of such evidence planting must be bribed to lie, forever, despite the story possibly making their career.
5. Light poles and damaged vehicles must be placed in the flight path to simulate a plane crash (and again, witnesses bribed).
6. Flight 77 must appear on radar at all times until the point that it reaches a low enough altitude near the Pentagon to be undetectable (or flight monitoring data forged and flight controllers bribed).
7. Videos from all surveillance cameras in the near-by area must be confiscated.
8. All government officials involved in executing this plan must never break silence.

Conspiracy theorists see point #7, and conclude that it was a missile.

If you really think the above sequence of events happened, then good on you, nobody is forcing you to believe otherwise, but don't once try to present it as a 'reasonable' argument.

Note: BLAAA I can't load YouTube at the moment, so can't see much of your video. I do see that it's to do with free-falling of building #7 though, which I don't personally see as a big issue.
The 'free-falling' nature of the building would suggest that all support beams failed almost instantaneously. Conspiracy theorists would tell you this is impossible unless it's a controlled demolition. That is not true.
If all beams which support the core structure of the building are simply weakened by fire (which doesn't mean they are molten, just means they are at a temperature above their nominal compressive strength capability or expand at a rate which causes instability) then a single support beam collapse can cause a cascade effect as it places not only more load on the surrounding beams, but also uneven load. This would not be true in a standard demolition, as the other support structures would maintain their strength and handle the additional load, causing an 'uneven' demolition.
In this case though, it is speculated that ALL the support beams in WTC 7 were weakened substantially by the fire on Floor 13, and as such all beams collapsed almost instantaneously one after the other.

Keep in mind, this was a 47 storey building, and the weakening occurred on the 13th floor. That's a lot of weight to be supported by beams compromised in strength.
Also keep in mind that in most videos, only the top 18 floors of the building are actually visible, which means you don't see the actual section of the building which causes the collapse. Drawing conclusions from that video is simply ridiculous.

Also, as eyewitness reports appear to hold such credence with this conspiracy crowd, here are some quotes from fire fighters about WTC 7:
“See where that white smoke is? See this thing leaning like this? It’s definitely coming down. There’s no way to stop it. Cause ya have to go up in there to put it out…and its already… The structural integrity is not there. Its tough."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XImQ6a-VrnA (I can't view that vid, but I think it's the right one, should have the firefighter with the quote above).

mehow2g

15-09-2011, 07:08 AM

Brockas I was agreeing with you about the Pentagon until I saw the hole in the building wtf is that.

1JZVL

15-09-2011, 10:07 AM

What. The. Fuck?

I don't care about what happened at the Pentagon and I haven't made any "missile claims", so ummmm okay.

Thanks for all that information Brockas, I shall take it on board.

Ryan1080

15-09-2011, 10:17 AM

Hmmmm, it's been nothing but quiet from the tinfoil hat brigade since Brockas' post, does that mean it's all settled now then, no conspiracy?

-Luke-

15-09-2011, 10:32 AM

Mad_Aussie

15-09-2011, 10:36 AM

Hmmmm, it's been nothing but quiet from the tinfoil hat brigade since Brockas' post, does that mean it's all settled now then, no conspiracy?

You're a real narcissist, eh.
Pretty much everything Brockas has been talking about can be contested (in a lot of accuracy) by a lot of people. The crowd at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (Videos that BLAA has been posting etc) are people with a lot of knowledge in the field, and have a well constructed argument about it.

The debri field at the Pentagon has just as many first-hand accounts from people who say that it was planted there as those that say it wasn't.

And 'crash in Pennsylvania not being consistent with a missile strike'? Too many people been watching movies. A sidewinder won't vaporise a plane into a million tiny atoms, it'll blow out the tail, or an engine, and most of the plane with crash to the ground in one piece.

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/8aCXmVnPzs0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Just because Brockas found a lot of well-cited and well thought out information, does not mean that it totally disproves the argument. It gives weight to the argument against the "conspiracy theory" (Or in fact, only weight against the actual attacks being contrived differently than what is being described). Not one piece of that information clears the government of any wrongdoing or involvement, and not one piece of information proves without a doubt that Bin Laden and Al-Qaeda were involved. In fact, almost every part of the official story can be questioned, and when it is, the officials speaking go all coy and forgetful. It doesn't allow a lot of confidence in their side of the story.

Obviously the implications are huge if the government did do this to it's own people. I just can't believe, with so many horrible things governments do to their own people around the world, that people think that the Americans wouldn't or couldn't do things to their own people.

I brought up Operation Northwood previously. That's evidence in itself that at least some people in power in their government have and do consider these kinds of false-flag attacks. There's huge evidence that the Gulf of Tonkin incident was a fabricated false flag attack to allow the Americans to enter Vietnam. They intentionally aggravated Japan by selling the Chinese weapons in world war two, and when the Australian Navy warned them days before the attacks on Pearl Harbour, they (allegedly) ignored the warnings, and planned no defenses. People died and they entered the war. Similar story with the RMS Lusitania, which while the Germans posted ads in American papers warning yanks not to sail across the channel to Britain, the government packed it with passengers and secretly filled it with munitions. Of course, the Germans blew the shit out of it, and the Americans could enter the war.

History repeats itself, people just like to forget.

Buckets

15-09-2011, 10:53 AM

http://i1030.photobucket.com/albums/y362/JesusFreak6240/epic-face-palm-face-palm-demotivational-poster-1236742013.jpg

1JZVL

15-09-2011, 11:49 AM

Pretty much everything Brockas has been talking about can be contested (in a lot of accuracy) by a lot of people. The crowd at Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (Videos that BLAA has been posting etc) are people with a lot of knowledge in the field, and have a well constructed argument about it.

No, it can't.

Meh, as I've already posted, we could be here all fucking day copying and pasting shit from all over the internets, rewatching videos so that one can quote them and prove a point (there is nothing wrong with this by the way).

Some can be bothered, I certainly cannot and I'm assuming others cannot as well - "it's" all been said and can be found. Look for it.

Believe what you want, some people are religious and believe in God etc, others do not..whatever.

perthute555

15-09-2011, 11:54 AM

keen to see your reply to BLAA's vid ( all 3)

also your thoughts on people on the flight making calls to loved ones http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/CHO408B.html

15-09-2011, 11:54 AM

Also the NIST link posted denies any witness accounts of hearing explosions? multiple people heard explosions?

Weight of building falling/starting to fall = pressure = glass etc blowing out = sounded like pops = omg bombs

Riggs

15-09-2011, 12:05 PM

I reserve my judgement and for the most part ignore topics like this and won't comment either way. In this day and age, way too easy for information to be manipulated and construed by anyone wanting to fill their required agenda.

Slip_

15-09-2011, 12:31 PM

Roobiks

15-09-2011, 01:42 PM

I see conspiracies to be on the same mindset as religion.
While the facts are very much swayed away from the conspiracy (or religion), there's always retards that look at the one little anomoly and go AHAH! IT LOOKED LIKE IT WAS SET UP, THEREFOR IT WAS. AND ALL THE INTEL SAYING OTHERWISE IS MADE UP BY GOVERNMENTS! (or in religions case, AHAH! I PRAYED FOR RAIN, AND IT RAINED, EVEN THOUGH IT'S THE MIDDLE OF WINTER, THEREFOR GOD IS IRL!)

But don't get me wrong -as much as I hate the fact- the world needs the crazy tin foil hat wearing, armchair waring spastics, because we as human beings are where we are today because of curiosity. Even if it takes a thousand stupid ideas to produce one good one, it's the one good one that moves us forward.