911 was... (127)
rasgumby: You are thinking as if civilian methods were used.
do you think that our Military and our Gov don't havebetter methods?!(rhetorical..)
Even with Thermite you need to get to the Structure!do you think that our Military and our Gov don't havebetter methods?!(rhetorical..)
rasgumby: Next point,
The Officials say that the Jet fuel created the extreme heat that melted the support beams (that the fuel actually burned for hours)
thing about it people!!
Take a small amount of gas and carefully light it. it explodes instantly, may have a slight burn off for just a few seconds.. not hours.
now jet fuel is much more explosive!!! same effect but quicker..
the fuel explodes and almost instantly gone.. the fuel itself will NOT burn for an hour or more. but the fuel is the only thing that could have created a high enough temp to melt the massive beams.
these beams did not melt and fail instantly, it took over an hour.
Just don't add up!!
The Officials say that the Jet fuel created the extreme heat that melted the support beams (that the fuel actually burned for hours)
thing about it people!!
Take a small amount of gas and carefully light it. it explodes instantly, may have a slight burn off for just a few seconds.. not hours.
now jet fuel is much more explosive!!! same effect but quicker..
the fuel explodes and almost instantly gone.. the fuel itself will NOT burn for an hour or more. but the fuel is the only thing that could have created a high enough temp to melt the massive beams.
these beams did not melt and fail instantly, it took over an hour.
Just don't add up!!
Jet fuel is actually just slightly more refined than diesel and kerosene. It does not explode like gasoline.
rasgumby: Next point,
The Officials say that the Jet fuel created the extreme heat that melted the support beams (that the fuel actually burned for hours)
thing about it people!!
Take a small amount of gas and carefully light it. it explodes instantly, may have a slight burn off for just a few seconds.. not hours.
now jet fuel is much more explosive!!! same effect but quicker..
the fuel explodes and almost instantly gone.. the fuel itself will NOT burn for an hour or more. but the fuel is the only thing that could have created a high enough temp to melt the massive beams.
these beams did not melt and fail instantly, it took over an hour.
Just don't add up!!
The Officials say that the Jet fuel created the extreme heat that melted the support beams (that the fuel actually burned for hours)
thing about it people!!
Take a small amount of gas and carefully light it. it explodes instantly, may have a slight burn off for just a few seconds.. not hours.
now jet fuel is much more explosive!!! same effect but quicker..
the fuel explodes and almost instantly gone.. the fuel itself will NOT burn for an hour or more. but the fuel is the only thing that could have created a high enough temp to melt the massive beams.
these beams did not melt and fail instantly, it took over an hour.
Just don't add up!!
Dude, I debunked that idea way back on page 2. Jet fuel is basically Kerosene not gasoline and Kerosene doesn't explode it burns.
Also as previously stated the beams don't have to melt, only weaken from the heat and sag which they did.
Sparky55: Some very good points. I'm sure the prep work would have been extreemly tedious and time consuming to colapse those buildings. I take it you have read the PM reports and others concerning this thing.
I've read a lot on the subject but a lot of my insight comes from working with metals and engineering and some plain old common sense. On the subject of prep work needed to collapse a building Canrad posted some great details I wish I said.
I think the thing that gave birth to the idea of explosives going off prior to the collapse was some people heard loud bangs coming from the building if I remember correctly. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when they were building a big stadium. They were using the mother of all cranes to lift a humongus roof section. It was a windy day and they should never have attempted the lift in that wind. The first anybody suspected something was wrong was everybody heard some very loud bangs and a few seconds later the crane tipped over and the roof section came crashing down. Those bangs it was discovered were some of the large pins that held the sections of the crane together.
I saw some footage of explosions before each floor collapsed - what was that about? 
trish123: I saw some footage of explosions before each floor collapsed - what was that about?
pins ,busting out of a crane....
trish123: I saw some footage of explosions before each floor collapsed - what was that about?
Same here, have the hours long video here showing how the palnes were not the cause.
it shows the blast almost all of the way down.
from the actual collapsing video.
and again, terrorist that plan something out so well.. WOULD NOT THEN HIT AN ALMOST EMPTY BUILDING!
they would have hit mid day for max effect.
ooby_dooby: Besides that, the WTC towers were built like a square tube, very strong and to collapse such a building on purpose it would have to be blasted near the bottom not the top. The towers fell from the top down not from the bottom.
Thermite was found in the basement.
Kyrhah: Oh grow up and educate yourself.... the world consists of more than the county you are living in.
That is the thing over there: you guys don't have a global educational system and therefore you are kept dumb and ignorant so that your government can do with y'all whatever it wants - democracy, the US ????? Hell, those are two things that don't go together
I am starting to get soooo annoyed to see how even now some of the Americans don't seem to get that there is a world around the US...
That is the thing over there: you guys don't have a global educational system and therefore you are kept dumb and ignorant so that your government can do with y'all whatever it wants - democracy, the US ????? Hell, those are two things that don't go together
I am starting to get soooo annoyed to see how even now some of the Americans don't seem to get that there is a world around the US...
I dislike and am ashamed of those people, too, Kryhah, though I must confess to not knowing which of our states Germany resides in (I'm thinking it could be on the east coast somewhere, but I wouldn't swear to it.)
Sparky55: HL, These are critics of the 9/11 commission report. I've read the report and as stated earlier I listened to the information provided by Loose Change along with all the information I could stand regarding the debunking of those theories. I see little or no merit in anyones attempt to call 911 an inside job and a fraud on the American people. The report while not perfect seems solid enough. Many of the critics state nothing more than opinion and who really knows how credable they are.
This is going to be an issue, conspiracy orwhat one wishes to label it for many years to come. When someone comes up with something a little more believable then perhaps I would change my mind.
This is going to be an issue, conspiracy orwhat one wishes to label it for many years to come. When someone comes up with something a little more believable then perhaps I would change my mind.
I've read all that stuff and more. I can only assume we weren't reading the same things, since what I read from the 9/11 Commission - which was in essence commissioned to investigate one theory and disregard all others in order to arrive at a predesignated conclusion - it was the furthest thing imaginable from being credible.
Sparky55: That's fine HL but questions does not not make this thing an inside job.
I do have to point out that identifying people as Generals, Majors, Foreign Leaders and especially Senators does not denote respectability.
I do have to point out that identifying people as Generals, Majors, Foreign Leaders and especially Senators does not denote respectability.
You were the one who raised the respectability issue. So whom would you deem respectable (assuming it wouldn't simply be people who agree with you)?
Ambrose2007: You were the one who raised the respectability issue. So whom would you deem respectable (assuming it wouldn't simply be people who agree with you)?
Actually, I did not. I just commented on this comment from HL:
Sparky, many of these critics were on the 9/11 Commission!!!
It is worth the read... they have questions and SO DO I!!! So much information was not included or excluded from the report.
These are respectable people, Generals, Majors, Senators, Foreign Leaders, etc. Geeze...
But since you asked. I put a lot more credibility towards independent scientists and experts in this area. Given the information I have seen, my personal experiances with these agencies supposedly involved and my perseptions of their ability to pull off a caper such as this, I have to discard the theory dicussed in this thread.
There's also the GWB factor. It's no secret Bush isn't very well liked by the public or the media. As bias as the mainstream media is against Bush I would think they would jump on anything valid that would reflect negatively on him. Yet after 7+ years nothing.
Finally, there are the questionable sources spouting this theory. The loose change video regardless of the version seen has been debunked time and again and everytime it's debunked a new version comes out or at least it did. I finally got tired of trying to keep up with it. I short, these appear to be nothing more than Alex Jones and his minions making money off their web site. To me, it'snot even entertaining anymore.
If you feel these things are accurate then we'll simply disagree.
Yes often we need answers to such horrific crimes but we also after debating such subjects need to move on and I think 911 falls into this category!
It is about as bad as people still picking over the bare bones of Princess Dianna's death.
Bush will soon sail of on a paid for hol on some luxury yacht and be semi forgotten!
It is about as bad as people still picking over the bare bones of Princess Dianna's death.
Bush will soon sail of on a paid for hol on some luxury yacht and be semi forgotten!
ooby_dooby: I've read a lot on the subject but a lot of my insight comes from working with metals and engineering and some plain old common sense. On the subject of prep work needed to collapse a building Canrad posted some great details I wish I said.
I think the thing that gave birth to the idea of explosives going off prior to the collapse was some people heard loud bangs coming from the building if I remember correctly. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when they were building a big stadium. They were using the mother of all cranes to lift a humongus roof section. It was a windy day and they should never have attempted the lift in that wind. The first anybody suspected something was wrong was everybody heard some very loud bangs and a few seconds later the crane tipped over and the roof section came crashing down. Those bangs it was discovered were some of the large pins that held the sections of the crane together.
I think the thing that gave birth to the idea of explosives going off prior to the collapse was some people heard loud bangs coming from the building if I remember correctly. This reminded me of something that happened a few years ago when they were building a big stadium. They were using the mother of all cranes to lift a humongus roof section. It was a windy day and they should never have attempted the lift in that wind. The first anybody suspected something was wrong was everybody heard some very loud bangs and a few seconds later the crane tipped over and the roof section came crashing down. Those bangs it was discovered were some of the large pins that held the sections of the crane together.
I don't know a lot about metal stress and such other than what I've read but I did see a documentry on demolition of buildings. The work is quite extensive and takes a long time to set up completely.
I think Conrad's link way back at the beginning of this thread says all that needs to be said! 
Ambrose2007: I dislike and am ashamed of those people, too, Kryhah, though I must confess to not knowing which of our states Germany resides in (I'm thinking it could be on the east coast somewhere, but I wouldn't swear to it.)
Some remarks here on the collapse of Building Seven!
Still NO Explosives.
And the Fireproofing on the Girders just was not sufficient!
@mccmedia.com/msg10207.html
@mccmedia.com/msg10218.html
Still NO Explosives.
And the Fireproofing on the Girders just was not sufficient!
@mccmedia.com/msg10207.html
@mccmedia.com/msg10218.html
following on from the BBC report of the 911 incident.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. In fact, the reporter at the scene is standing in front of the New York skyline, with a fully intact building 7, telling us how it has collapsed.
Some press officer in the government, obviously made a slight miscalculation about the timing of the "collapse" of building 7.
Why, with such an obvious mistake about building 7, do people still find it so hard to believe the whole thing was an inside job?
There are photos somewhere, of the steel supports in the World Trade Centre that clearly show an angled cut. If I can find them I will post a link.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. In fact, the reporter at the scene is standing in front of the New York skyline, with a fully intact building 7, telling us how it has collapsed.
Some press officer in the government, obviously made a slight miscalculation about the timing of the "collapse" of building 7.
Why, with such an obvious mistake about building 7, do people still find it so hard to believe the whole thing was an inside job?
There are photos somewhere, of the steel supports in the World Trade Centre that clearly show an angled cut. If I can find them I will post a link.
outofspace: following on from the BBC report of the 911 incident.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. In fact, the reporter at the scene is standing in front of the New York skyline, with a fully intact building 7, telling us how it has collapsed.
Some press officer in the government, obviously made a slight miscalculation about the timing of the "collapse" of building 7.
Why, with such an obvious mistake about building 7, do people still find it so hard to believe the whole thing was an inside job?
There are photos somewhere, of the steel supports in the World Trade Centre that clearly show an angled cut. If I can find them I will post a link.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. In fact, the reporter at the scene is standing in front of the New York skyline, with a fully intact building 7, telling us how it has collapsed.
Some press officer in the government, obviously made a slight miscalculation about the timing of the "collapse" of building 7.
Why, with such an obvious mistake about building 7, do people still find it so hard to believe the whole thing was an inside job?
There are photos somewhere, of the steel supports in the World Trade Centre that clearly show an angled cut. If I can find them I will post a link.
Always worth considering the possibility that on a busy stressful day a reporter mis-reported. However, for these nonsense conspiracies it is necessary that the media be all powerful and in league with the all powerful government - all controlled by Sauron from the Black Tower of course!
outofspace: following on from the BBC report of the 911 incident.
As pointed out earlier in this thread, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. In fact, the reporter at the scene is standing in front of the New York skyline, with a fully intact building 7, telling us how it has collapsed.
Some press officer in the government, obviously made a slight miscalculation about the timing of the "collapse" of building 7.
Why, with such an obvious mistake about building 7, do people still find it so hard to believe the whole thing was an inside job?
There are photos somewhere, of the steel supports in the World Trade Centre that clearly show an angled cut. If I can find them I will post a link.
Your "Conspiracy" stands on pretty little Feet!As pointed out earlier in this thread, the BBC reported the collapse of building 7, 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. In fact, the reporter at the scene is standing in front of the New York skyline, with a fully intact building 7, telling us how it has collapsed.
Some press officer in the government, obviously made a slight miscalculation about the timing of the "collapse" of building 7.
Why, with such an obvious mistake about building 7, do people still find it so hard to believe the whole thing was an inside job?
There are photos somewhere, of the steel supports in the World Trade Centre that clearly show an angled cut. If I can find them I will post a link.
Conrad73: Your "Conspiracy" stands on pretty little Feet!
and wearing Pixie Shoes
Fallingman: and wearing Pixie Shoes
Fallingman: Always worth considering the possibility that on a busy stressful day a reporter mis-reported. However, for these nonsense conspiracies it is necessary that the media be all powerful and in league with the all powerful government - all controlled by Sauron from the Black Tower of course!
So you know the truth as well?
Ambrose2007: The 9/11 chronicle is an amazing one. Like so many things that get repeated enough on the mainstream news, Bush's Conspiracy Theory, along with most of its absurd claims and catch-phrases, was more or less adopted by the masses as truth.
Official Conspiracy supporters often argue that a few discrepancies don't make for a "conspiracy." But the official conspiracy isn't composed of a few discrepancies - it is literally built on them, right down to the atomic level. Virtually everything the official theory claims is either outright nonsense, dubious, or (at a minimum) strongly questionable. Nothing in it adds up, from start to finish.
Official Conspiracy supporters often argue that a few discrepancies don't make for a "conspiracy." But the official conspiracy isn't composed of a few discrepancies - it is literally built on them, right down to the atomic level. Virtually everything the official theory claims is either outright nonsense, dubious, or (at a minimum) strongly questionable. Nothing in it adds up, from start to finish.
I agree. Most people don't want to know the truth, it's very ugly. One of the most informative videos I have watched is
It is lengthy at about 110 minutes, but it is packed with info.
Drewski: Ambrose
They were all in on it. The conspiracy participant membership now climbs to thousands. All willing to carry their gas chamber secret to the grave.
The truth is out there. And so is a motive .... somewhere.
Myself, I wonder why they would wait, and wait, risking their charges being found and lives forfeit on the off chance one wire or det cord was discovered and, that one wire or det cord would be damaged by the fire all that time, then, finally, they 'pulled' the building.
Why did they wait, what offer of silence did all these hundreds of people receive to keep their silence for eternity? And why were they in on it in the first place?
Frankly, the best and most complete conspiracy theory is the Qutbist hijackings as it has time lines that go back months and provides intent, motive, step by step methodology and, other than a few discrepancies in an unprecedented and multiple complicated destruction of buildings, seems to fit all pieces of a puzzle.
They were all in on it. The conspiracy participant membership now climbs to thousands. All willing to carry their gas chamber secret to the grave.
The truth is out there. And so is a motive .... somewhere.
Myself, I wonder why they would wait, and wait, risking their charges being found and lives forfeit on the off chance one wire or det cord was discovered and, that one wire or det cord would be damaged by the fire all that time, then, finally, they 'pulled' the building.
Why did they wait, what offer of silence did all these hundreds of people receive to keep their silence for eternity? And why were they in on it in the first place?
Frankly, the best and most complete conspiracy theory is the Qutbist hijackings as it has time lines that go back months and provides intent, motive, step by step methodology and, other than a few discrepancies in an unprecedented and multiple complicated destruction of buildings, seems to fit all pieces of a puzzle.
The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfield held a press conference promising to find out where 2.5 trillion dollars went from the pentagons' budget. A team of auditors was appointed to examine the proper financial documents. On 9/11 they were on the job where the records were stored in a little used section of the pentagon. Guess what part of the pentagon the "plane" hit? 2.5 trillion dollars will buy a lot of silence.
Another point, do a google search of the tenants of WTC7 to discover the motivation for imploding it.
You government schills trying to debunk 9/11 will not win. When the truth comes out you will have no place to hide.
2for1
I'm hardly a 'government shill' for crying out loud. Simply a person who finds the official version quite credible when compared to no other version. You, and others that don't believe the official version poke holes at it but offer nothing that is remotely complete that explains all and names individuals responsible for laying of wire and charges, detonating the explosives etc. Just trying to tear apart details and alluding to mysterious non confirmed suspicion. An example of which is ...
The example .....
So, you counter a complete time line and, a video taped admission by OBL by simply casting a snide 'guess what' and then, allude to something without stating it and, supporting it with a timeline and names of individuals whom you know to be responsible for.
Heck, I'm more than willing to read what you want to say, providing you have something tangable to say that provides proof, names the individuals whom you believe carried out this act and, those whom were responsible for, describes in detail how the buildings were destroyed and how the charges were laid and when, how it managed to coincide with the hijacking of hundreds of passengers and the collisions with the towers and, what keeps all these people quiet to this day.
In short, unless you have something more complete than taking pot shots at the official version which is supported by a lot of evidence, saying I'm a 'government shill' is hardly adding to something that is not even an argument. In fact, without an actual time line and explanation of what I look for in order to believe something, crying 'shill' and concentrating on irregularities and minor details makes you appear to be a 'conspiracy kook.'
So, since you know the official version is not true, what is the complete unofficial version or, is it just a suspicion and shooting in the dark?
In response to: You government schills trying to debunk 9/11 will not win. When the truth comes out you will have no place to hide.
I'm hardly a 'government shill' for crying out loud. Simply a person who finds the official version quite credible when compared to no other version. You, and others that don't believe the official version poke holes at it but offer nothing that is remotely complete that explains all and names individuals responsible for laying of wire and charges, detonating the explosives etc. Just trying to tear apart details and alluding to mysterious non confirmed suspicion. An example of which is ...
The example .....
In response to: Guess what part of the pentagon the "plane" hit? 2.5 trillion dollars will buy a lot of silence.
Another point, do a google search of the tenants of WTC7 to discover the motivation for imploding it.
Another point, do a google search of the tenants of WTC7 to discover the motivation for imploding it.
So, you counter a complete time line and, a video taped admission by OBL by simply casting a snide 'guess what' and then, allude to something without stating it and, supporting it with a timeline and names of individuals whom you know to be responsible for.
Heck, I'm more than willing to read what you want to say, providing you have something tangable to say that provides proof, names the individuals whom you believe carried out this act and, those whom were responsible for, describes in detail how the buildings were destroyed and how the charges were laid and when, how it managed to coincide with the hijacking of hundreds of passengers and the collisions with the towers and, what keeps all these people quiet to this day.
In short, unless you have something more complete than taking pot shots at the official version which is supported by a lot of evidence, saying I'm a 'government shill' is hardly adding to something that is not even an argument. In fact, without an actual time line and explanation of what I look for in order to believe something, crying 'shill' and concentrating on irregularities and minor details makes you appear to be a 'conspiracy kook.'
So, since you know the official version is not true, what is the complete unofficial version or, is it just a suspicion and shooting in the dark?
2for1: The day before 9/11 Donald Rumsfield held a press conference promising to find out where 2.5 trillion dollars went from the pentagons' budget. A team of auditors was appointed to examine the proper financial documents. On 9/11 they were on the job where the records were stored in a little used section of the pentagon. Guess what part of the pentagon the "plane" hit? 2.5 trillion dollars will buy a lot of silence.
Another point, do a google search of the tenants of WTC7 to discover the motivation for imploding it.
You government schills trying to debunk 9/11 will not win. When the truth comes out you will have no place to hide.
Damn,and I always thought it was 'Marvin The Martian'!Another point, do a google search of the tenants of WTC7 to discover the motivation for imploding it.
You government schills trying to debunk 9/11 will not win. When the truth comes out you will have no place to hide.
i would like to know the REAL reasons why the extremists did what they did...i still think the truth is yet too come out...and NO i'm not a conspiracy theorist.....
More Threads
How far is too far?
Nature
rarotonga
Reality Check
What's going on
The world is as you see
Icebergs Still Around
What I Lack In Vocabulary
Salami, Salami, Baloney
Heavy Bass In The PM
More Threads
Report threads that break rules, are offensive, or contain fighting. Staff may not be aware of the forum abuse, and cannot do anything about it unless you tell us about it. click to report forum abuse »
I can't remember the name, but the WTC had recently been purchased, Insured for much more than they were worth!!
also- building 5 that fell later- Fact is, it was already planned for implosion before 911 happened.
was taken down as scheduled.. but then was also blamed on the attacks.
The WTC complex was very old and below code, but when it was purchased and became property of a new owner, it then is law that the building must be brought up to code, this would have cost billions.
Better to just knock them down and build new..so.. why not just have them taken down, make it look like an attack.. then actually make a huge profit.
Instead of paying millions to have them taken down
next.. if terrorist put so much planning into this kind of an attack, why would they hit when the building are almost empty????
Do you realize how many people would have been in the buildings and would have died if the building had been hit even 2 hours later!!!
You are on the right track there, buddy .... c'mon gimme a hug, I like your thinking