9/11 thread - conspiracy stuff discussion

aspestos was only used on the first 40 floors of the north tower, and it was only used as fireproofing.
 
matty said:
Still havent been presented with any facts. at this point the only people being duped are the ones who think the building was cut and rigged to blow, unless someone has some proof?
Click to expand...

Did you think starting this thread would mean you would be? ;)

The facts are the problem Matty, all the important ones that would clarify things have gone missing.
Even the governments own report into its findings of the event generates more questions than it answers.


matty said:
aspestos was only used on the first 40 floors of the north tower, and it was only used as fireproofing.
Click to expand...


Thats right, it was mixed with the concrete to act as fire proofing for the steel and stopped being used as a new law about its dangers made it unsutable....so after the 40th they used something else and continued to build.
 
Last edited:
Ok, here's my tu'ppence worth....

I don't believe that the twin towers were rigged with explosives or that a missile was fired into the Pentagon, both of these claims are beyond the realm of common sense, given the number of people who would either have had to be involved, or could have witnessed either the planting of the explosives or the missile hitting a building in the middle of a major city.

What I do believe though is that the Bush administration were fully aware that the attack was going to take place and that they had intelligence (this is a well-documented fact) that one or more planes were going to strike the WTC.

Ever since entering office GW Bush had been making noises about going to war and the target had always ultimately been Saddam Hussein, the man whom his father, G.H.W. Bush, had failed to dispose of all those years ago. A plot by Arab terrorists would have been like manna from heaven for an administration determined to seek revenge on Saddam for his past trangressions.

My feeling is that a risk assessment was probably done and returned a scenario where a couple of hundred people would have died if a plane hit one of the towers, but this "sacrifice" would have been deemed worthwhile if it provided an excuse for regime change in Iraq. The fat that both towers collapsed with the lose of so many lives was probably something that wasn't anticipated at all, but, horrible as it may seem to says, was probably viewed as a "bonus".This theory is leant credence by the fact that despite the majority of the 9/11 participants being Saudi nationals no sanctions were ever taken against that country, the finger of blame being pointed with almost indecent haste squarely at the president's father's old nemisis, Saddam.

Of course it may sound preposterous that a government would allow the wholesale slaughter of it's own citizens for political or monetary gain, but you have to bear in mind who really ran America at that time. It wasn't G.W. Bush, but rather a group of his father's cronies and an organisation with strong links to the Bush inner circle, a Texan oilfield supply company called Halliburton. They was awarded,well in advance of the invasion, the majority of the (very) lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq, making many of Bush snr's old pals very, very rich in the process.

Indeed when our goverment raised objections to all of the recontruction contracts going to American companies the response was that this was because awarding contracts to non-American (in other words, British) businesses would pose a "security threat".

Ultimately it's my personal opinion that those who died on 9/11 and the countless thousands who have lost their lives in the ensuing conflicts, did so not as a result of religious terrorism, or any sort of holy war, but rather as a result of greed - pure and simple.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Ok, here's my tu'ppence worth....

I don't believe that the twin towers were rigged with explosives or that a missile was fired into the Pentagon, both of these claims are beyond the realm of common sense, given the number of people who would either have had to be involved, or could have witnessed either the planting of the explosives or the missile hitting a building in the middle of a major city.

What I do believe though is that the Bush administration were fully aware that the attack was going to take place and that they had intelligence (this is a well-documented fact) that one or more planes were going to strike the WTC.

Ever since entering office GW Bush had been making noises about going to war and the target had always ultimately been Saddam Hussein, the man whom his father, G.H.W. Bush, had failed to dispose of all those years ago. A plot by Arab terrorists would have been like manna from heaven for an administration determined to seek revenge on Saddam for his past trangressions.

My feeling is that a risk assessment was probably done and returned a scenario where a couple of hundred people would have died if a plane hit one of the towers, but this "sacrifice" would have been deemed worthwhile if it provided an excuse for regime change in Iraq. The fat that both towers collapsed with the lose of so many lives was probably something that wasn't anticipated at all, but, horrible as it may seem to says, was probably viewed as a "bonus".This theory is leant credence by the fact that despite the majority of the 9/11 participants being Saudi nationals no sanctions were ever taken against that country, the finger of blame being pointed with almost indecent haste squarely at the president's father's old nemisis, Saddam.

Of course it may sound preposterous that a government would allow the wholesale slaughter of it's own citizens for political or monetary gain, but you have to bear in mind who really ran America at that time. It wasn't G.W. Bush, but rather a group of his father's cronies and an organisation with strong links to the Bush inner circle, a Texan oilfield supply company called Halliburton. They was awarded,well in advance of the invasion, the majority of the (very) lucrative contracts for rebuilding Iraq, making many of Bush snr's old pals very, very rich in the process.

Indeed when our goverment raised objections to all of the recontruction contracts going to American companies the response was that this was because awarding contracts to non-American (in other words, British) businesses would pose a "security threat".

Ultimately it's my personal opinion that those who died on 9/11 and the countless thousands who have lost their lives in the ensuing conflicts, did so not as a result of religious terrorism, or any sort of holy war, but rather as a result of greed - pure and simple.
Click to expand...

I think you are pretty close there Flash. Both the US and UK were on high alert at the time so they knew something was cooking, though how much they knew I dont think we will ever know.

Id like to see some of the facts that have gone missing or have some of the questions that have been raised, but no-one wants to post any. links?
 
/edit I'm way out of date, my point answered yesterday by matty.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Links like the one found in Mattys post will pick up on this and generate a whole pile of stuff discrediting the red herring and making themselves look right in the process.
Click to expand...

Tends to happen a lot when you're right but don't let that stop you getting your kicks in first, heaven forbid you could actually argue a point without trying to belittle the opposition.
 
Steep said:
Tends to happen a lot when you're right but don't let that stop you getting your kicks in first, heaven forbid you could actually argue a point without trying to belittle the opposition.
Click to expand...


Right okay, if I'm getting this right... my apologies to Matt then.
That wasn't directly the idea of that post but I can see that I have, its a bad habit but its really not personal underneath at all. ...I will endeavour to improve my debating skills.
 
That's ok then.



p.s. It fell down it wasn't demolished...
 
Well over the past 9 years I have read a great deal about that attack. I've seen documentries supporting the reported events and I've seen footage that raises questions.

I don't have enough information to come up with a theory as to what happened - however I have seen enough to believe that the reported events do not quite tally with what really happened.

I think it is right to question the media, it is right to question what we are told by our governments. Lies are often told to justify government actions - and as we know from recent news there were no confirmed reports of WMD in iraq but that was the reason given for invading them.

What I find more sad is the people who actual stand up and question what we are told are often ridiculed.
 
MG TF 135 said:
The logistics of a conspiracy make it a nigh on impossible theory. The amount of people that would have to be involved makes it a non starter.

"Support structures being cut?" Get real, how do you suppose that would have happened in a building that was being used 24/7?

Conspiracy theories are all well and good but in my view they are created by people who can't grasp reality and have trouble dealing with the events that actually happened.
Click to expand...

THANK YOU :clap:
 
matty said:
I think you are pretty close there Flash. Both the US and UK were on high alert at the time so they knew something was cooking, though how much they knew I dont think we will ever know.

Id like to see some of the facts that have gone missing or have some of the questions that have been raised, but no-one wants to post any. links?
Click to expand...

I agree, that theory sounds quite plausible.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
That’s was a rubbish choice KB, the trouble with conspiracy sites is that they merge the 10% of important stuff with 90% red herrings ...Links like the one found in Mattys post will pick up on this and generate a whole pile of stuff discrediting the red herring and making themselves look right in the process.

... I think your very couragous to stick your neck out though, that small choice of poor evidence aside...

...Heck at least you know when your being duped. :thumbs:
Click to expand...

Aye, I knew it would have been but you could say that the damage is already done.

matty said:
a photo taken after the event, when areas where being cleared to get people out of the rubble perhaps? If the building had collapsed onto that, it would have been knocked to buggery
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
Click to expand...

Two things with this; How would you have taken a photo prior to the event? And; Wasn't the building knocked to buggery anyway?

trencheel303 said:
THANK YOU :clap:
Click to expand...

Perhaps you should read between the lines and realize that the post you find so amusingly precise is actually quite offensive. :thumbs:
 
Last edited:
markw08 said:
More info, a third tower collapsed approx 5 hours after twin towers went down... :suspect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7485331.stm
Click to expand...

and was attributed to fires, which was exactly the same as the twin towers which in reality the structure colapsed through heat and pressure (that report mentions it to be the only steel sky scraper to collapse through fire, prolonged fire for about 7hrs before colapsing, which combined with any combustables in the building could indeed create heat enough to deform the structure to the point of collapse. that report also suggests that it fell ontop of itself (in the same way as the twin towers did) and fell at the same rate.

it also needs to be noted that WTC7 was evacuated, asap when the planes struck, the fire services etc were preoccupied dealing with the twin towers, so the fire was probably allowed to continue unabated in wtc7 knowing that no loss of life would occur.


seems like less of a 'smoking gun' to me.
 
King_Boru said:
Two things with this; How would you have taken a photo prior to the event? And; Wasn't the building knocked to buggery anyway?
Click to expand...

i think what is meant here is that the photo you are showing had been taken many hours (or indeed days) after the clolapse, the beam could have been cut during the aftermath. and matty is quite correct, had Xthousand tonnes of debris fallen on that beam had it been precut, it would not look so pristine, not indeed would it be visible as the tower fell ontop of it, so it would be well burried.
 
whitewash said:
i think what is meant here is that the photo you are showing had been taken many hours (or indeed days) after the clolapse, the beam could have been cut during the aftermath. and matty is quite correct, had Xthousand tonnes of debris fallen on that beam had it been precut, it would not look so pristine, not indeed would it be visible as the tower fell ontop of it, so it would be well burried.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying otherwise. Just opening a statement for questioning.
 
whitewash said:
and was attributed to fires, which was exactly the same as the twin towers which in reality the structure colapsed through heat and pressure (that report mentions it to be the only steel sky scraper to collapse through fire, prolonged fire for about 7hrs before colapsing, which combined with any combustables in the building could indeed create heat enough to deform the structure to the point of collapse. that report also suggests that it fell ontop of itself (in the same way as the twin towers did) and fell at the same rate.
Click to expand...

According to the conspiracy theorist ... All three of these skyscrapers are the first three ever to collapse because of fire damage.

Which if true is a bit odd that that day the two towers plus another should suddenly break that trend.
Especially if you consider that all these skyscrapers are designed to withstand a few hits from larger fully fuelled aircraft.

3 in one day with little fires in comparison to others (according to the theorist) is a bit odd. …just a coincidence …like everything else that day….hmmm ..it doesn’t smell right to me.

whitewash said:
it also needs to be noted that WTC7 was evacuated, asap when the planes struck, the fire services etc were preoccupied dealing with the twin towers, so the fire was probably allowed to continue unabated in wtc7 knowing that no loss of life would occur.


seems like less of a 'smoking gun' to me.
Click to expand...

Funny thing about WCT7 though ...apparently its collapse can be put down to a few things, 1.The amount of rubble weight on its roof. (although three buildings closer which had more rubble remained standing in the whole.) 2.Some fires on a few floors destroyed some of the main pillars. 3. there was a large gash/hole down one side made by large fragments of the two towers smashing through its wall.
The combination of these is suggested to be the reason it collapses.

That all good and fine ...But ...(if you view the videos) its clear that the building collapses from it base upwards almost perfectly, each floor pan caking down on to the collapsed floor below.

I can't understand how a building with damage in certain areas cause the whole building to collapse from the ground up evenly? ...that’s the quandary for me, it just makes no sense…ok so Im not educated in structural engineering …but I’m not stupid either..I can see how it fell. (Those who know me …control yourselves for the sake on my point please)
 
Last edited:
whitewash has already clarified what I was thinking, the beam looks like it was cut as part of salvage/rescue operations, if that was a low floor beam there would have been 80 floors of concrete and steel on top of it after the collapse.

I seem to remember reading somewhere that the other building was essentially written off due to structural damage that was visible after the collapse of the other towers, so it was decided to let it be and continue with the search and rescue of the main sites, i will have to look for the link though as im at work
 
the architect was interviewed on TV, he stated that the building was designed for light aircraft impacts as that is what is usually in the airspace at that height, not larger aircraft.
 
teh building didnt collapse from the bottom up, it collapsed from somewhere around the impact site?
 
RichardtheSane said:
Well over the past 9 years I have read a great deal about that attack. I've seen documentries supporting the reported events and I've seen footage that raises questions.

I don't have enough information to come up with a theory as to what happened - however I have seen enough to believe that the reported events do not quite tally with what really happened.

I think it is right to question the media, it is right to question what we are told by our governments. Lies are often told to justify government actions - and as we know from recent news there were no confirmed reports of WMD in iraq but that was the reason given for invading them.

What I find more sad is the people who actual stand up and question what we are told are often ridiculed.
Click to expand...


Great post.

The thought of the alternative is just too horrific I find.

" ... surely we don't like in a world like that. its just to much to take in so it can't be true!"

I so wish I felt like that. :gag:
 
matty said:
the architect was interviewed on TV, he stated that the building was designed for light aircraft impacts as that is what is usually in the airspace at that height, not larger aircraft.
Click to expand...

I'd love to see that matty ... You can't remember what the TV show was called can you?

matty said:
teh building didnt collapse from the bottom up, it collapsed from somewhere around the impact site?
Click to expand...

I not sure what you mean ...have you seen the videos of it collapsing? it looks like the bottom up from all that Ive seen.
 
I have read all the posts in here and no one has mentioned this theory.
I use the word theory as thats all it is taken from things I have read and heard after this all happend. And after visiting the site two years ago it makes me think alot more of this.

These building stood head and shoulders above all the other buildings around them they where hugely tall. When they where designed and built back in the sixties I think it was correct me if I am wrong here, all the other buildings where there too. now there was always the threat that some one could hijack a plane and run it into the towers, or even justa plane accidentaly loosing control, JFK airport is not far away, and giving the nature of the buildings contents, it was always a threat to someone.

that said IF a plane out of controle, hijacked, or what ever ran into these buildings then there was always the possibilty that they might collaps, now seeing how tightly packed together these buidlings are would it not make sense to build them so if they did have to collapse it would be in the manner they did so as to cause as little damage to the surrounding buildings as possible. i.e explosives at certain key points to blow key structual parts to allow it collaps straight down and not topple over to one side onto the top of surrounding buildings. Killing many many moe innocent people.

Now given the theries on here of people actually going into the building and planting explosives, maybe, just maybe, they where already there. Put there when the building was designed, built etc etc.

It was also stated that if them same planes had ran into the Empire State building then they would have just more or less bounced off leaving the building standing because of the way it is built with big massive concrete pillars etc etc.

I am not getting drawn into the arguments of who did what to who or who might have done what as I am neither qualified or educated enough to do so, plus I was not there when whoever it was, was planning to do what they did, whether it be people from the far east or the very govourment that runs the USA.

Just my 2 cents

Spike
 
matty said:
the architect was interviewed on TV, he stated that the building was designed for light aircraft impacts as that is what is usually in the airspace at that height, not larger aircraft.
Click to expand...

I seen that one too matty, his office is in one of the building right next to Ground Zero and every day he has to look down at the whole that was left.

Cannot remember the documentarys name but it talked alot about the structure and how it was built and what it could take impact wise and the planes in the sixties where only half the size or something to what actually ran into it.

Spike
 
SpikeK6 said:
what it could take impact wise and the planes in the sixties where only half the size or something to what actually ran into it.

Spike
Click to expand...

A Boeing 707 (1950's) used extensively throughout the 60's is a pretty big plane. Can't hold that comment with much credit. Sorry.
 
read mattys comment, the designer had designed it to deal with what was in the airspace at that time, he said it was unforceen that something that size containing that much fuel would hit the towers,

IIRC on that documentary he said something along the lines of to hit something that size with a plane of that size would not have been seen as possible unless they were aiming for it. which is quite correct really when you think about it.
 
King_Boru said:
A Boeing 707 (1950's) used extensively throughout the 60's is a pretty big plane. Can't hold that comment with much credit. Sorry.
Click to expand...

Again that just what was stated by the architect in that program, not my own thoughts on the matter.

Spike
 
Selective quotes from Leslie E. Robertson, the lead structural engineer:

The two towers were the first structures outside of the military and nuclear industries designed to resist the impact of a jet airliner, the Boeing 707. It was assumed that the jetliner would be lost in the fog, seeking to land at JFK or at Newark. To the best of our knowledge, little was known about the effects of a fire from such an aircraft, and no designs were prepared for that circumstance. Indeed, at that time, no fireproofing systems were available to control the effects of such fires.

When the two towers were finished, the World Trade Center stood proud, strong, and tall. Indeed, with little effort, the towers shrugged off the efforts of terrorist bombers in 1993 to bring them down. The events of September 11, however, are not well understood by me . . . and perhaps cannot really be understood by anyone. So I will simply state matters of fact:

The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

Figure 3 shows the comparative energy of impact for the Mitchell bomber that hit the Empire State Building during World War II, a 707, and a 767. The energy contained in the fuel is shown in Figure 4. Considerations of larger aircraft are shown in Figures 5 and 6. The physical sizes of these aircraft are compared with the size of the floor plate of one of the towers in Figure 7. These charts demonstrate conclusively that we should not and cannot design buildings and structures to resist the impact of these aircraft. Instead, we must concentrate our efforts on keeping aircraft away from our tall buildings, sports stadiums, symbolic buildings, atomic plants, and other potential targets.

http://www.nae.edu/Publications/The...ecurity/ReflectionsontheWorldTradeCenter.aspx
 
south tower collapse, clearly shows the building buckling and collapsing from the impact site
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fMibXJjx_DE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGfe-3f-N6s
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zryOQTVAr2U

and one of the north tower
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYUx5zJ3yss

and for those who think its controlled and went from the bottom, here is a towerblock being renovated
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DkgPS_fdNM
I cant find a single video that shows anything other than structural failure at the impact area. i will see if i can find the documentary.
 
SpikeK6 said:
Now given the theries on here of people actually going into the building and planting explosives, maybe, just maybe, they where already there. Put there when the building was designed, built etc etc.
Click to expand...

Words fail me..................
 
the whoel 9/11 conspiracy for me falls down when you think about WHY....

WHY would they rig the twin towers with enough explosives to bring them down........... and then go to all the trouble of then organising two planes to be hijacked and then fly them both full of passengers into each tower given that the explosives would be enough to take them down....


and that for me debunks any theories about 9/11
 
MG TF 135 said:
Words fail me..................
Click to expand...

Why should words fail you.

Its a reasonable quote from a reasonable explanation as to why the towers should, would, could fall the way they did. Peolple blow up buildings every single day in a controled manner so as not to fall on any other building around them, like said above they where designed to withstand an plane going into them as it was always a possability so why would they not plan for the inevertable(spelling)

Like i said it had nothing to do with anyone elses opinion on here or any other thought than my own, I may be wrong but then again who knows.
One thing for sure is that we can ALL be certain nobody on this forum does or ever will in the near future(thats not a dig at anyone just a honest answer)

spike
 
Conspiracy theories :shrug: The original scepticism was really about whether and if the US knew about the attack before it happened and chose to do nothing about it for their own greed :thinking: My own opinion is that they did know something would happen but never realised or predicted the scale and destruction of the event! and they did nothing to stop it! Oh well, at least they now have Iraqi oil, soon to have Iranian Oil ... God bless American politics!
 
I know that Politicians worry me more than terrorists do.
 
Terrorists may become politicians...
 
photon said:
Terrorists may become politicians...
Click to expand...

to trot out a well-worn phrase "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter".

Not sure that it applies to Bush and Blair though - where's KayJay when you need him, I'd have thought he'd have got banned commented by now :naughty:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top