9-11, conspiracy, silly thread made by me. Whoop whoop.

[Sureboss]

Oh come on people can't believe that SL!

 

[Touring Mars]

Any conspiracy based on the premise that politicians are capable of outsmarting anybody is fundamentally flawed.

 

[GrumpEone]

Any conspiracy based on the premise that politicians are capable of outsmarting anybody is fundamentally flawed.

Yeah!! Who is Bush going to out-smart?? A brick maybe (thats assuming that it's a dumb brick)

 

[FoolKiller]

Yep. They seed contrails in the sky to wipe our brains clear from thinking further about them.

Now, here is the funny part, I have heard people who believe the contrails conspiracies, most notably every host on Coast to Coast AM, disregard the 9/11 conspiracies. You know it holds no water when even those guys tell people there is no backing for these 9/11 conspiracies.


And I think Famine brings about a good point. No government has ever managed to properly run a system yet we expect them to be full of evil masterminds that know precisely how to hide global domination plans for, in this case, thousands of years.


And that leads me to:

I don't know why but I watched just over an hour of this last night before I had to go to bed. For those who have watched it all, I stopped when they started on the London train bombings.


My thoughts are like this: Huh?

It started out with making Christianity and every religion out to be fake ripoffs of Astrological pagan stuff and created solely to control the masses. Their evidence: partly they point out similarities between ancient Jewish and Egyptian stuff. Gee, I wonder why a culture that was enslaved by another for generations would have similarities? Then they try, poorly to draw a connection to the story of Christ, yet had their facts wrong even in the birth story.

They attempted to point out that Sirius aligns with Orion's belt in the East in December, thus creating the star from Jesus' birth and the three wise men (Orion's belt) followed the star in the East (Sirius). This is their evidence to show the nativity was really just a plagiarized astrological symbolism. Two tiny problems: Nowhere does the nativity say December 25th, nor did the wise men go to the east. Every reasonable Christian knows December 25th is a day chosen to celebrate Jesus' birth, but not his actual birth. And every best guess suspects the wise men came from the Orient, meaning they headed west, not east.

So, within 30 minutes I am already finding falsehoods used as facts so that they can prove them to be wrong. I can make up crap and prove it wrong too.

Next, we get the most anecdotal evidence I have ever seen. The age of Jesus is the age of Pisces. It will end in 2150 AD when it becomes the age of Aquarius. How do we prove this? (I feel like Cartman here) Well, Pisces is two fish, Jesus fed the 5,000 using two fish, and his first disciples were two fishermen. Look, the Pisces/two fish symbology is all throughout the story of Jesus!!! It is obvious!!!

Wait, what about when Jesus told them to fish in a different area and they had so many fish the boats nearly sank? What about all the other times they ate and used bread and wine?

But the penultimate proof that Christianity was made up by the Romans to control the masses is all the post Roman-Empire atrocities done in the name of Jesus, such as the Crusades and the inquisition.

And then it points out how during the middle ages anyone who questioned the church was accused of blasphemy. This leads to an obvious connection of Tucker Carlson telling a 9/11 conspiracy theorist that it is blasphemous, wrong, and treacherous to accuse the US government of killing 3,000 of its own citizens.

Tucker Carlson: direct descendant of inquisitors.

And that all leads to the 9/11 conspiracy. Best evidence they have is one of their own members saying he found evidence of thermite and one, JUST ONE, column broken at an angle similar to those used by demolitions experts to cut support columns.

As for the core beams: They even show the structure being built and these core beams being pieced together. Why don't they stick up, because they are roughly 12 foot pieces put together not solid 1,000 foot beams.

And somehow they know exactly what NORAD is and was doing. The guy talking about it did not work for NORAD, but he knows.


Anyway, after the 9/11 stuff they started on the London bombing and I know where it was going. Massive centuries old conspiracy to control the population and achieve world domination. While I am sure the name s never said, I bet Illuminati is not an unfamiliar term here.

Anyway, from what I have seen the DaVinci Code has more factual evidence.


And then when I read their statement they clarify that some of their facts appear incorrect because normal research cannot uncover them. You have to read the resources THEY give you. In other words, we can prove it by presenting our own research of sources that no one anywhere agrees with.


To quote their own Web site:

for truth is not told, it is realized.

Good thing I realize the difference between good science and crap.




Looking around some more, I cannot find thermite burning videos (not involving 9/11) that show this explosive boom that "witnesses" claim came from the basement before the planes hit. And of course, one has to wonder, if these things happened in the sub basement before the planes hit why did it take the towers so long to fall after? Every demolition I have seen you hear the booms (from dynamite used to knock the columns loose after the thermite is used) and then the building immediately begins to fall, no hours long process.

It would be more believable if after the planes hit the sub basement explosions were heard and then the building immediately collapsed. But every claim the video shows says it was a few seconds before. Of course, every witness was in the basement and couldn't actually see what noise was the plane hitting the building, but they all swear they heard an explosion and then heard the planes hit.

 

[Duke]

Yeah!! Who is Bush going to out-smart?? A brick maybe (thats assuming that it's a dumb brick)

Play the ball, not the man...

 

[Philly]

Would it? I'm no jet fuel expert but I have made plenty of home made Molotov cocktails and those things continue to burn for a long, long time. Unless jet fuel has some kind of different expanding and instantaneous burning characteristic different from other flammable liquids I don't imagine it happening like that.

You only have something going 500 miles an hour slamming into a stationary object. The solid plane was pretty much ripped to shreds; I wouldn't expect the liquid fuel in the fuel tanks to stay in one place. That would mean it would take up a much larger volume, and fuel would burn faster if it was more spread out. And there wasn't a huge fireball exiting the other side of the building that could have contained a good portion of the fuel or anything.

Which we already established :-)

But - and this is bluntly assuming, chairs, desks and drywall burn at a temperature at lot lower than jetfuel :-)

Is there enough material to create enough intense heat to have the same effects as jet fuel?

 

[Duke]

Look, really, just don't bother.

If a plane crashes on an open field badly enough to rupture its fuel tanks, it pretty much burns completely. And that's in an open field with nothing to contain the fire.

And skyscrapers catch on fire all the time, even when they are not doused with 10,000 gallons of hot kerosene.

Really, just use your brain a little and give it up already.

 

[FoolKiller]

You only have something going 500 miles an hour slamming into a stationary object. The solid plane was pretty much ripped to shreds; I wouldn't expect the liquid fuel in the fuel tanks to stay in one place. That would mean it would take up a much larger volume, and fuel would burn faster if it was more spread out. And there wasn't a huge fireball exiting the other side of the building that could have contained a good portion of the fuel or anything.

That fireball was not big enough to account for 24,000 gallons of fuel.

And while, yes, a solid object will shatter on impact with other solid objects, liquid does not.

You will have hard time convincing me that thermite was placed perfectly on the exact floors that the planes hit and yet did not get ignited by the initial impacts and fires.

 

[Alfaholic]

And there wasn't a huge fireball exiting the other side of the building that could have contained a good portion of the fuel or anything.

could have? How much of the fuel that was on the jet was consumed in the fireball? 10%? 50%? 100%? Just because it looked big doesn't mean it was a significant proportion of the available fuel, Jet A-1 or otherwise.

Also, any liquid fuel that we typically use, like petrol, diesel or jet fuel, needs to be atomised before it will explode. In other words, the fireball was all vapour. The fuel that remained liquid would burn in a flame - if it had a hot enough heat source. Light a match in a room full of petrol vapours (and oxygen of course) and you'll have an explosion. Drop a lit match in a bucket full of petrol and the match will go out. Drop a hot enough heat source in it, and the fuel will burn (but not explode)

Is there enough material to create enough intense heat to have the same effects as jet fuel?

The fact that the buildings collapsed confirms that there was enough heat and / or damage to sufficiently weaken the structure to the point that it could no longer support itself. Therefore, if heat caused the collapse, there was enough fuel, whether it was supplied by the plane or by the building itself. The fact that the buildings survived the impacts for roughly an hour before collapsing, that they eventually started collapsing at the impact point and not at the basement, and that the one that was hit second, and lower, collapsed first, indicating more weight and therfore more stress at the crash site, all suggest convincingly that the aircraft strikes caused the collapse, not explosions in the basement before the strike took place.

 

[Solid Lifters]

This crap is getting old.

Watch the video, and shut the hell up.

http://www.abum.com/59089/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html

 

[McLaren]

This crap is getting old.

Watch the video, and shut the hell up.

http://www.abum.com/59089/9-11-conspiracy-theories-debunked.html

I don't think that proves all the conspiracists wrong (though I believe they are), but it does show the common excuse of the fire & the steel being put the rest.

 

[Sureboss]

That fireball was not big enough to account for 24,000 gallons of fuel.

And while, yes, a solid object will shatter on impact with other solid objects, liquid does not.

You will have hard time convincing me that thermite was placed perfectly on the exact floors that the planes hit and yet did not get ignited by the initial impacts and fires.

Also if it thermite was used to 'cut' the steel then why didn't the towers collapse as soon as it happened? Because thermite burns damn quickly having seen the Mythbusters team use it in the Hindenburg experiment. All these ideas of demolition are all debunked by how long the towers stayed up. 56 minutes for the south tower and 1hr 42 minutes for the north tower. Those times completely destroy any theories of an inside job of blowing up the towers from the 'inside'. Especially if Thermite was used to cut the steel. Still some people still call the world flat and say we are the centre of the universe so you'll never correct some people.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Any conspiracy based on the premise that politicians are capable of outsmarting anybody is fundamentally flawed.

Amen.
Sadly, I live with at least 2 people who honestly believe that George W masterminded this whole conspiracy
The other fundamental problem, it just how many people would have to be a part of this. Sorry theorists, but when you involve as many people as would have to be in this, somebody would talk.

Anyways, I gotta put Bigfoot back in his cage, he's starting to turn (full moon) and I hate when he sucks out my blood on fri. the 13th over at jason's house, where michael scoulfield is staying cause the president & mean coporate America is still after him and his brother.

 

[Goa]

Can somebone explain why the WTC7 did collapse/was demolished?

 

[Sureboss]

Collapsed due to structural damage and fire.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

Can somebone explain why the WTC7 did collapse/was demolished?

Quite a few already have, there's a good link on page 1 or 2 explaining in great detail.

The short version, is that skyscrapers are built to sway. Soft steel must be used to enable swaying without breaking. Soft steel melts faster and at lower temperatures. The fire is assumed to have been between 650C and 1200C, with the most likely region being in the 900-1000C range. The steel used in the towers lost at least 50% of its strength, at 650C, due to the fire and heat, so at 900C or more, we're talking about some seriously weakened material.
The impact busted a couple of supporting beams, and intense heat caused warpage, which caused the top of the building to fall down to the floors the planes hit. the impact of the top 1/3 of the building landing on a heated, impacted, warped structure caused the lower 2/3 to fall under the weight of roughly 170,000 tons of itself collapsing onto itself. This is why the ground impact speed is estimated as low as it is. If the building were to have free-fallen, the speed would've been much higher, around 300kmh.
Also noteworthy, being a virtually hollow building, and being so as rigid as it is relative to is own weight, the building almost couldn't fall any other way than straight down.

 

[Matt R]

The first 35 minutes of this movie is the most intriguing to me. I was born and raised in a Baptist/Catholic family. After growing older and beginning to ask my own questions I've realized I'm not happy with any answer given to me by a firm believer in Christianity. I believe that somewhere there is a master creator, a God. I don't believe he is what we've been told he is for thousands of years. I don't take the Bible as record of God's word. It's the word of rulers before us who knew how to scare people into conforming to rule.

The many things in this video in reference to Jesus Christ blew me away. Too many things make sense. I don't believe there was ever a Jesus Christ who walked our Earth.

 

[Alfaholic]

Quite a few already have, there's a good link on page 1 or 2 explaining in great detail.

The short version, is that skyscrapers are built to sway. Soft steel must be used to enable swaying without breaking. Soft steel melts faster and at lower temperatures. The fire is assumed to have been between 650C and 1200C, with the most likely region being in the 900-1000C range. The steel used in the towers lost at least 50% of its strength, at 650C, due to the fire and heat, so at 900C or more, we're talking about some seriously weakened material.
The impact busted a couple of supporting beams, and intense heat caused warpage, which caused the top of the building to fall down to the floors the planes hit. the impact of the top 1/3 of the building landing on a heated, impacted, warped structure caused the lower 2/3 to fall under the weight of roughly 170,000 tons of itself collapsing onto itself. This is why the ground impact speed is estimated as low as it is. If the building were to have free-fallen, the speed would've been much higher, around 300kmh.
Also noteworthy, being a virtually hollow building, and being so as rigid as it is relative to is own weight, the building almost couldn't fall any other way than straight down.

That was the two towers. Wasn't WTC7 a smaller building off to the side?

 

[Joey D]

Any conspiracy based on the premise that politicians are capable of outsmarting anybody is fundamentally flawed.

This had to be quoted for truth.

 

[Diego440]

I'm still amazed that only two buildings in history have fallen because of planes crshing into them.

 

[FoolKiller]

I'm still amazed that only two buildings in history have fallen because of planes crshing into them.

Why? For it to work it has to be deliberate. Planes have hit buikldinsg before but they were usually smaller and accidental, which means they weren't aiming.

To fly big jumbo jets you have to be experienced, wich means that even if a system failure happened you would be working at trying to avoid the buildings. It woudl not be direct enough.


This is the first time I am aware of that someone has hijacked a large passenger jet and succesfully flown it at full speed in to the building. So far they are at a 100% success rate.

I am just amazed that it hasn't been tried more often.

 

[Touring Mars]

Similarly, WTC7 collapsed in pretty unique circumstances - an extraordinary (yet not too difficult to envisage) chain of events directly related to the collapse of one of the world's largest buildings right next to it. Yet conspiracy theorists continually bray about "fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper", as if this is evidence that WTC7 didn't...

What they are basically saying is that a steel skyscraper cannot possibly collapse through the action of fire alone, but in all fairness, how many times has it been tried?? The good people at One Canada Square in London would probably be none too impressed if you turned up with a few thousand gallons of aviation fuel and asked to liberally spray it on several floors, set it alight and let it burn for 7 hours to test their hypothesis.

The conspiracy theorists also seem to have ignored the fact that WTC7 categorically did not collapse under the stress of an uncontrolled blaze alone, but also suffered significant structural damage as a direct result of the collapse of the neighbouring towers... WTC7 suffered a 10-storey high gash in the side of the building, just for starters. Little is known about the full extent of damage caused to the building, not least because of the collapse of the towers making access very dangerous, but also because WTC7 was itself ablaze and structurally unsound...

A website dedicated to 'revealing the truth about WTC7' is incredulous about the fact that the media basically ignored the "enormity" of the WTC7 collapse (and presumably the implications for freedom etc.)... Sure, it would have made the front page of the Banff and Buchan Herald and Tribune if it had happened on any other day - but come on, let's put it in a bit of perspective here!! It's a bit like failing to report that Buzz Aldrin took the first dump on the moon while Neil Armstrong was stepping out onto the surface...

 

[Diego440]

I am just amazed that it hasn't been tried more often.

Funnily enough, Tom Clancy wrote a book about a jetliner crashing into the White House (or was it Congress?) about 3 years before 9/11. I think it was Executive Orders...

Yet conspiracy theorists continually bray about "fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper", as if this is evidence that WTC7 didn't...

About three years ago, a 50-something story in Madrid burned for around 30 hours. It didn't collapse.

 

[Joey D]

Funnily enough, Tom Clancy wrote a book about a jetliner crashing into the White House (or was it Congress?) about 3 years before 9/11. I think it was Executive Orders...

The Lone Gunman TV series pilot episode showed a jetliner on approach to crashing into the WTC via remote control from the US government to start a war and arms race. It aired some 6 months before Sept. 11. Quite odd.

 

[Sureboss]

About three years ago, a 50-something story in Madrid burned for around 30 hours. It didn't collapse.

That was burned with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel too?

 

[Diego440]

That was burned with thousands of gallons of aviation fuel too?

No, but it burned full blast for about 28 hours longer than WTC.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

No, but it burned full blast for about 28 hours longer than WTC.

ummm.. did a 767 fly into at over 200mph right before the fire?
Nothing like this has ever happened before, and I would bet the farm if you simply set the WTC on fire, it would've been perfectly fine, unless there was a hurricane coming through, then, theoretically, it could have blown over.... maybe. But then again they were taller and more susceptable to wind elements than any other building in the world that I know of.

And as for books/movies/tv shows, well, they are likely to be the very reason the idea came about, and also give evidence to support terrorism, since there were none about a president blowing up buildings to steal oil. That would make George W. a genius. And while I was pleased to have him elected over the runner-up he defeated, a genius, he is not.

 

[FoolKiller]

Funnily enough, Tom Clancy wrote a book about a jetliner crashing into the White House (or was it Congress?) about 3 years before 9/11. I think it was Executive Orders...

And because of it CNN had him on the show on 9/11 as a terrorism expert.

About three years ago, a 50-something story in Madrid burned for around 30 hours. It didn't collapse.

Was it already suffering from severe structural damage, caused by an explosion of jet fuel, and covering multiple floors all at once?

A general fire will burn what it can liek furniture, carpet, walls, etc but most of that stuff is designed to be fire retardent so then still it even burns slowly and thus the fire creeps along. Usually it leaves burned out areas behind it. In the case of any of WTC buildings the fires were widespread and blazing immediately, and adding to an already weakened structure.

To be honest, the damage done to WTC7 from the towers' collapse was probably enough to do it in, but the fires just sped up the process by causing minor structural support to become weaker causing the collapse. I remember watching teh news and no one was allowed to go into any of the buildings in the complex because they were all damaged and having small cave-ins and rumblings that hinted at a collapse.

The very idea that WTC7 was planned is absurd. Why? The towers get destroyed and the effect is had. Why would anyone plan WTC7 as well? Even if you could convince me that the towers were planned I would still say that WTC7 makes no sense because it has no symbology, no effect. In fact, if it weren't for the conspiracy nuts no one would remember anything but the towers.

If some conspiracy did involve takling out WTC7 as a side plot I would have to say that I am surprised it has been hidden this well because that is a stupid idea at best.

 

[RecklesAbandon2]

And because of it CNN had him on the show on 9/11 as a terrorism expert.




Was it already suffering from severe structural damage, caused by an explosion of jet fuel, and covering multiple floors all at once?

A general fire will burn what it can liek furniture, carpet, walls, etc but most of that stuff is designed to be fire retardent so then still it even burns slowly and thus the fire creeps along. Usually it leaves burned out areas behind it. In the case of any of WTC buildings the fires were widespread and blazing immediately, and adding to an already weakened structure.

To be honest, the damage done to WTC7 from the towers' collapse was probably enough to do it in, but the fires just sped up the process by causing minor structural support to become weaker causing the collapse. I remember watching teh news and no one was allowed to go into any of the buildings in the complex because they were all damaged and having small cave-ins and rumblings that hinted at a collapse.

The very idea that WTC7 was planned is absurd. Why? The towers get destroyed and the effect is had. Why would anyone plan WTC7 as well? Even if you could convince me that the towers were planned I would still say that WTC7 makes no sense because it has no symbology, no effect. In fact, if it weren't for the conspiracy nuts no one would remember anything but the towers.

If some conspiracy did involve takling out WTC7 as a side plot I would have to say that I am surprised it has been hidden this well because that is a stupid idea at best.

I just wanna add to this.
The link that was posted on page 2 explains in great detail the difference between temerature, and heat, to give a better understanding of the difference. What that difference means, is a massive jet-fuel fire, despite being oxygen deprived, will make far more heat than a slow-burning, regular building fire.
To add to that, for the WTC7 building, aside from the portions of the tallest (presumebly largest?) buildings ever built landing on and beside it, leaving 10 story high gashes down the side, let's try (in vain) to imagine the ground level impact of 1 Million Tons, on a city with a semi-hollow (subways) underground, landing beside it.
I know I can't come close to imagining it.

 

[V1P3R]

dOOd... Top Hat I should soooo flame ur ass for making me waste two hrs of my life on this bullcrap.

Good ______ lord this crap makes Micheal Moore movies look objective. There are so man times where I was saying to myself... "tell me soming I didn't ______ know or HTF do you expect it to go!? What a bunch of bullcrap.