9/11 thread - conspiracy stuff discussion

matty said:
...

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.
Click to expand...

:thumbs: (You could look for days and not find it I realise :gag: )

I'm also aware that I haven't responded with loads of 'error' vids for you Matt but I find the whole subject is just to complicated for me to translate onto a post or two. (although Toms links did cover a great deal of it)
We will have to wait 50 years or so before we get answers to all the unanswered questions I fear.

Interestingly I found this demolition comparison video whilst looking at your linked vids.

It also compares the pyroclastic flows…
WTC7 is on the left at the start, for those that don't recognise it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo


whitewash said:
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
Click to expand...

You can find possible answers to your question if you look through all of Toms links ... many hours viewing but it will give you some ideas why people are confused with the official story.
 
Last edited:
whitewash said:
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
Click to expand...

Because it would look hella suspicious if the buildings collapsed to the ground by an obvious detonation of explosives. Flying planes into the building would make it much easier to cover up, surely.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
:thumbs: (You could look for days and not find it I realise :gag: )

I'm also aware that I haven't responded with loads of 'error' vids for you Matt but I find the whole subject is just to complicated for me to translate onto a post or two. (although Toms links did cover a great deal of it)
We will have to wait 50 years or so before we get answers to all the unanswered questions I fear.

Interestingly I found this demolition comparison video whilst looking at your linked vids.

It also compares the pyroclastic flows…
WTC7 is on the left at the start, for those that don't recognise it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo




You can find possible answers to your question if you look through all of Toms links ... many hours viewing but it will give you some ideas why people are confused with the official story.
Click to expand...

2 problems with WTC7...the first is that an entire corner was wiped out of it from falling debris, the second is that the buildings manager for wtc7 apparently said that they took the decision to bring it down...so either it fell down cos it was screwed anyway, or it fell down cos they made the decision to pull it. no conspiracy...

a very good, and detailed, explanation of what could have happened to 7, with pictures...http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm
 
Last edited:
well look at the explanations..
fires and extensive damage, with photos showing how and which direction it fell, plus eye witness accounts from the fireofficer etc...not much more info that could be there.

or the theorists...it was blown up by the government...no real proof except that it collapsed in its footprint, which the other link shows as not quite right, perspective and all that...

its all very well saying that mickey mouse did it in the lobby with a candlestick, but there is very little solid proof.
 
matty said:
its all very well saying that mickey mouse did it in the lobby with a candlestick, but there is very little solid proof.
Click to expand...

That's the problem though matty. To have obtained proof would have meant investigating it prior to the event. Without a crystal ball one is left investigating it with post event material. This material is inevitably shot down by debunkers.
 
King_Boru said:
That's the problem though matty. To have obtained proof would have meant investigating it prior to the event. Without a crystal ball one is left investigating it with post event material. This material is inevitably shot down by debunkers.
Click to expand...

if the evidence is good enough it cant be explained away so easily, but thats the problem, everything the conspiracy theory throws up can be explained away by LOTS of 'evidence' and explanation as to what is going on
 
Its all very easy accepting the official story but am I just to assume that those hundreds of conspiracy theorists are and have been misleading themselves …they’ve pointed out the possibility of an alternate version of the event in a worthy argument. Am I to assume they have plainly got it wrong, their views and opinions have absolutely no credibility just because there is an official explanation that explains everything differently…..


What your saying is, I reject the opinions of hundreds of sane people, with "just because they all find something amiss doesn’t mean they’re onto anything" and then go onto conculde their huge joint opinion has no credibility.

Surely I’d be daft to think that?.
 
Last edited:
matty said:
its all very well saying that mickey mouse did it in the lobby with a candlestick, but there is very little solid proof.
Click to expand...

Don't be bringing me into it - I wasn't even in the country!! :D :lol:

Edit - and I've never met Mickey Mouse either!!
 
Last edited:
you dont think Elvis did it do you ? well we all know he's not dead ,so he's been hiding in the chip shop all these years ,,then he sneaks out with this huge bomb under his arm and.............................
 
Moving away from the WTC a little

Who else looked at the Pentagon and asked 'Where is all the debris from the bits of plane that would not have made it through that hole?'

Because it certainly wasn't where it should be.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Its all very easy accepting the official story but am I just to assume that those hundreds of conspiracy theorists are and have been misleading themselves …they’ve pointed out the possibility of an alternate version of the event in a worthy argument. Am I to assume they have plainly got it wrong, their views and opinions have absolutely no credibility just because there is an official explanation that explains everything differently…..


What your saying is, I reject the opinions of hundreds of sane people, with "just because they all find something amiss doesn’t mean they’re onto anything" and then go onto conculde their huge joint opinion has no credibility.

Surely I’d be daft to think that?.
Click to expand...

sane people believe in the strangest things sometimes - you can bracket religion into that if you like. You say that its a worthy argument, but its not if it can shot to pieces as easily as the debunking 9/11 website seems to do.

Its a case of people seeing what they want to believe more than anything else, some see a conspiracy, some dont. I dont happen to see it on this occasion, and ive yet to see anything that cant be explained away in amuch more reasonable and plausable way.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
What your saying is, I reject the opinions of hundreds of sane people, with "just because they all find something amiss doesn’t mean they’re onto anything" and then go onto conculde their huge joint opinion has no credibility.

Surely I’d be daft to think that?.
Click to expand...

thats actually what you are doing, there are millions of people who think what they saw happened, but from your perspective, its those millions of people that are wrong..
 
Elvis did it, with the passenger jet, from the Grassy Knoll.



My honest opinion on this is that until I see concrete and infallible proof that this atrocity was not caused solely by the planes hitting the towers then I remain to be of the thought that this was a terrorist attack.

I am pretty convinced however that the intelligent services knew alot more about this in advance than they will ever let on, and that their inaction is largely to blame for the mass loss of life.
 
jnO said:
Elvis did it, with the passenger jet, from the Grassy Knoll.



My honest opinion on this is that until I see concrete and infallible proof that this atrocity was not caused solely by the planes hitting the towers then I remain to be of the thought that this was a terrorist attack.

I am pretty convinced however that the intelligent services knew alot more about this in advance than they will ever let on, and that their inaction is largely to blame for the mass loss of life.
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
RichardtheSane said:
Moving away from the WTC a little

Who else looked at the Pentagon and asked 'Where is all the debris from the bits of plane that would not have made it through that hole?'

Because it certainly wasn't where it should be.
Click to expand...

thats because it wasn't a jet that hit it, it was doctor evils space craft

dr-evil2.jpg
 
Whatever is being written and said doesnt change anything, we can all get overexited and for what, we wlill never be told the full story, simply as that, no superpower ever will show the inteligence files about most shocking events, like who killed president Kennedy?? :) or what exactly happend during ww2?? there is 100s of questions that goverments dont want us to know, even if some of them happend generations ago.
so relax, calm down maybe watch winter olimpics instead:)
this thread leads to nowhere imo
 
matty said:
thats actually what you are doing, there are millions of people who think what they saw happened, but from your perspective, its those millions of people that are wrong..
Click to expand...

matty said:
there is a very good explanation for the lack of debris, have a look at this:

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/pentagon/index.html
Click to expand...

Well it’s a shame you think that’s what I’m doing Matt, I thought I’d made my position clear early on, ah well nay matter. From my perspective its you who’s been easily persuade by the debunkers.
.
I find that debunkings site pretty pointless, for example, it starts by drawing ones attention to how aircraft can disintegrate totally when they hit solid immovable surfaces, it goes into details, loads of accompanying pictures etc, mostly persuasive, some not so persuasive.
Then, after that red herring!! …it goes onto explain how the 757 ploughed through the walls into the pentagon and produces evidence in defence of that.
Err what!?!
...So ok accepting both oddly opposing points of view I continued…

Then I get to debunking the conspiracy explanations of the few engine and aircraft bits found at the scene.

Explaining about larger engine parts the author does this by using sentences like...

‘Some pieces are large enough to compare to known 757 components. Of those pieces, all plausibly match parts of a 757, and none fail to match 757 parts while matching parts of some other aircraft.’

Compare and plausibly match….Hmmm, is my response to that.

'The shape and dimensions of the rotor in the photographs match those of several of the high-pressure rotors in a 757 engine’

I’m looking for the words… They ARE 757 parts …nope not yet.

‘The size, arrangement, and screw holes in the circular fuel nozzle ports appear to match those of an RB211-535 -- a type of engine used by Boeing 757s’

Oh ffs, yes but are they parts from a 757 or not?

Useless debunking that was . overall I found nothing conclusive, but I did agree with the authors final conclusion that that day could not be concluded.

‘…. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.


His last words say it all.
 
Last edited:
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...

What he said. The conspiracy theories require thousands of American citizens to be complicit in the murder of fellow citizens, and not a SINGLE one of them ever say anything. Load of crap.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Well it’s a shame you think that’s what I’m doing Matt, I thought I’d made my position clear early on, ah well nay matter. From my perspective its you who’s been easily persuade by the debunkers.
Click to expand...

I havent been easily persuaded, I think nutter crashed planes into the towers and the pentagon, there isnt anything to persuade on that front. Noone has produced any evidence to suggest otherwise, this thread has been running for days but not a thing has been posted to back up the conspiracy theorists.

FOrbiddenbiker said:
I find that debunkings site pretty pointless, for example, it starts by drawing ones attention to how aircraft can disintegrate totally when they hit solid immovable surfaces, it goes into details, loads of accompanying pictures etc, mostly persuasive, some not so persuasive.
Then, after that red herring!! …it goes onto explain how the 757 ploughed through the walls into the pentagon and produces evidence in defence of that.
Err what!
Click to expand...

Its not pointless, its good for linking to on the internet when arguing about it :p...He shows damage patterns of some crashes to set the tone as to why there isnt an entire aircraft on the lawn, It also explains how angle of impact and speed can cause damage consistant with the crash

...So ok accepting both oddly opposing points of view I continued…

Then I get to debunking the conspiracy explanations of the few engine and aircraft bits found at the scene.

Explaining about larger engine parts the author does this by using sentences like...

‘Some pieces are large enough to compare to known 757 components. Of those pieces, all plausibly match parts of a 757, and none fail to match 757 parts while matching parts of some other aircraft.’

Compare and plausibly match….Hmmm, is my response to that.

'The shape and dimensions of the rotor in the photographs match those of several of the high-pressure rotors in a 757 engine’

I’m looking for the words… They ARE 757 parts …nope not yet.

‘The size, arrangement, and screw holes in the circular fuel nozzle ports appear to match those of an RB211-535 -- a type of engine used by Boeing 757s’

Oh ffs, yes but are they parts from a 757 or not?

Useless debunking that was . overall I found nothing conclusive, but I did agree with the authors final conclusion that that day could not be concluded.

‘…. At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.


His last words say it all.
Click to expand...

his whole article is a partner article to a previous essay he had written, answering specific points. when saying parts match 757 parts and none fail to match, hes saying the are 757 parts. Its an essay, he is trying to be impartial while proving his own prior findings. Yes, it would be better if he just said they are 757 parts, but he hasnt.

as for the final sentance, the security videos are now online, of course there has been plenty of time for them to have been faked by the government. Now if we can find what happened to all the people on board the plane that took off but never arrived...
 
I personally think.....
Regardless on who was flying or ordered the planes to hit WTC's both the towers had been designed with Terrorist threats in mind. The structure of these buildings had an explosive charge inbuit within key points of the main structural keystones. These are the reasons the towers collapsed so "cleanly". When the towers were designed the government had a worry that they might have been targets for terrorism, so ordered these charges to be included into the design to minimise fatalaties in a terrorist incident. The idea being that, if the towers were to be attacked and become unstable, one of them toppling over would most certainly kill around 50% more people who may be in surrounding buildings. If the building was to collapse vertically, as in controlled demolition, the majority of fatalities would come from those inside the tower only.
There is video footage showing these small blasts rippling through the towers moments before they collapsed, but have been debunked by people saying they are small gas explosions. (strange that they are all identical in size and time)
How many lives were saved by the towers collapsing the way they did, instead of falling over onto surrounding buildings.
I think someone had to make the decision to blow these towers, rightly or wrongly.
Dean:)
 
matty said:
his whole article is a partner article to a previous essay he had written, answering specific points. when saying parts match 757 parts and none fail to match, hes saying the are 757 parts. Its an essay, he is trying to be impartial while proving his own prior findings. Yes, it would be better if he just said they are 757 parts, but he hasnt.
Click to expand...

No mate, I just can't agree with you no matter how much I want to believe it. The author clearly admits this at the end.
At the same time, the evidence does not conclusively prove that the aircraft was a 757, much less that it was Flight 77. However, that lack of conclusiveness should not be surprising given the systematic suppression of evidence by authorities.


matty said:
as for the final sentance, the security videos are now online, of course there has been plenty of time for them to have been faked by the government. Now if we can find what happened to all the people on board the plane that took off but never arrived...
Click to expand...

Yeah if we could, no chance I reckon though. :gag:
 
Last edited:
he doesnt mention it being a missile though. He goes to great pains to show that it COULD be an aircraft, no links provided to say it wasnt..
 
Dino f said:
I personally think.....
Regardless on who was flying or ordered the planes to hit WTC's both the towers had been designed with Terrorist threats in mind.(clipped)
I think someone had to make the decision to blow these towers, rightly or wrongly.
Dean:)
Click to expand...

I'm sorry but this kind of response is just rubbish.

There is no way whatsoever that there were ever any explosive charges or other means installed in the building to enable the twin towers to topple. That is a crazy assumption with no proof or reasoning.

Firstly, it would be known that they (the explosives) are there, posing a huge risk and gift to any would-be terrorist. Far easier to get to these and activate them than to fly two planes into the buildings.

Secondly,somebody, infact a whole team of people, would have had to install them, then they would require routine maintenance. Explosive materials do not last for ever and have a safe working shelf life after which they become unreliable, certainly not what you want if your sole purpose is one day to rely on them. They would therefore need to be regularly replaced, at least every five years, why are there no records of either the installation or the routine maintence logs, even fire extinguishers are checked yearly.

Explosives in buildings to aid with collapse would never be signed off by an architect or engineer. It could never be argued that it woudl save lives. What about the lives of those in the building ?

When a structure is designed it is done so to resist partial collapse. Once those parameters are exceeded the structure will fail in a controlled manner. These parameters were exceeded once the fires spread through the buildings upper floors causing the steel frame to weaken and collapse. It collapsed evenly because it's centre of mass stood within the footprint of the building and below the point of failure and it could not, unless the basic rules of physics are to be ignored, have collapsed any other way. It would only have toppled to the side if the centre of mass was above the point of failure, then it would have toppled much like a tree being chopped down, but it would still have crumbled due to the huge forces being transmitted through the structure caused the steel to buckle and break. This did not happen because in both cases the planes hit high up, at least above the upper third of the buildings height.

I do go along with what Flash in the Pan (Post 43) has to say, which is a far more considered argument.
 
Last edited:
matty said:
he doesnt mention it being a missile though. He goes to great pains to show that it COULD be an aircraft, no links provided to say it wasnt..
Click to expand...

No I agree, no evidence either way really ...nearly the same evidence for both the CT's would suggest. Their are no links that say for certain it is either.

Simonhi said:
When a structure is designed it is done so to resist partial collapse. Once those parameters are exceeded the structure will fail in a controlled manner. These parameters were exceeded once the fires spread through the buildings upper floors causing the steel frame to weaken and collapse. It collapsed evenly because it's centre of mass stood within the footprint of the building and below the point of failure and it could not, unless the basic rules of physics are to be ignored, have collapsed any other way. It would only have toppled to the side if the centre of mass was above the point of failure, then it would have toppled much like a tree being chopped down, but it would still have crumbled due to the huge forces being transmitted through the structure caused the steel to buckle and break. This did not happen because in both cases the planes hit high up, at least above the upper third of the buildings height.
.
Click to expand...

I’m not disagreeing with you just curious...

Has a collapse like this has happened before? ... are their other building that have set this collapse type precedence? ....Will or have controlled demolition companies used this technique for demolition ever? (by tech I mean blowing up some upper floors to get the whole building to collapse down cleanly)
 
In short no, the most efficient way of collapsing a buiding is to demolish it from the bottom upwards.

This method requires the least explosive to collapse it, I.e. To make the building fail you would set off aseries of charges from the lowest floors first with progressively higher floor denonating in rapid succession thereafter up to between a fifth and a quarter of the building height.

If you were going design a building with demolision charges installed at construction to ensure an even collapse to minimise the risk of toppling you would place the charges in the same location which would have resulted in both twin towers collapsing completely differently to how they did which was from the top downwards due to the weightof the failing structure.
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Thanks Simon. I find it odd that if two large towers can collapse in such a way why has this 'way' not been used for controlled demolishing before. ..just a coincidence, nothing more, is all we’re left with I guess.
Click to expand...

Bit extreme though. Everytime a building needs to be demolished someone has to fly a plane in to it!
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
Thanks Simon. I find it odd that if two large towers can collapse in such a way why has this 'way' not been used for controlled demolishing before. ..just a coincidence, nothing more, is all we’re left with I guess.
Click to expand...

as simon said, is easier to take a building down from the bottom, its controlled and predictable.

Im still looking for that video...
 
matty said:
Im still looking for that video...
Click to expand...

You don't need to look for that video. You can see it in the collapse as it is. There are 'explosions' ahead of the fall, just look for them. This is the driving force behind the controlled demo conspiracy.
 
King_Boru said:
You don't need to look for that video. You can see it in the collapse as it is. There are 'explosions' ahead of the fall, just look for them. This is the driving force behind the controlled demo conspiracy.
Click to expand...

are we talking about the towers again? if we are, did you not see the buckling before it collapsed?

the video im looking for is the documentary about the tower, and why it most likely collapsed..
 
its going in circles though, no evidence for deliberate collapse offered, but im deluded for thinking that the evidence of buildings buckling is clear and obvious...
 
My 2p worth, I watched a program years ago that said the fuel from the aircraft seeped lower than they thought and once ignited the heat damaged the steelwork causing catastrophic failures
 
Dangermouse1964 said:
My 2p worth, I watched a program years ago that said the fuel from the aircraft seeped lower than they thought and once ignited the heat damaged the steelwork causing catastrophic failures
Click to expand...

was it on channel 4? ive been looking for the one I saw, the designer of the towers is on,and loads of info about how it was built and why fire broke it..not sure what it was called though, or if it was a Horizon program on bbc2..:shrug:
 
matty said:
was it on channel 4? ive been looking for the one I saw, the designer of the towers is on,and loads of info about how it was built and why fire broke it..not sure what it was called though, or if it was a Horizon program on bbc2..:shrug:
Click to expand...


Pretty sure it was on Horizon about 3-4 years ago followed by The Falling Man documentary
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top