9/11 CONSPIRICY THEORY

Until then its ALL a theory.

We still do not know certain things about WW2 and I doubt we ever will.

The Sh1t is about to hit the fan, and noone can stop it I'm afraid.

GnzYza said:

I would like to invite people to watch the video on the last page I posted, watch carefully and try and absorb the information as its largely concerning the media coverage only.

Click to expand...

Saw it at weekend.
Usual twoofer nonesense.
From memory: The film claims NORAD took their time finding the jets, when the only comparable situation had the US defense taking 1h22m to intercept a civilian plane.

Edit: And why would the 9/11 Commission look in to WTC7, when it was a non-technical report? It was NIST's job to investigate this.

Usual Pentagon claims that have long since been debunked.

Also, the usual claims of OBL could not have planned a mission from a cave nonesense. They had training camps, weapons, etc. And the hijackers lived in the US to train for flying.

They complain about the Government being dishonest, and yet claim the most bizarre and dishonest conspiracy theories without a hint of irony. And at the end, they even complain about being labelled a foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist nut. Given the way they twist the information, maybe they have shares in Bacofoil.

ABCwarrior said:

And so back to building 7....still waiting.....Silversteins decision to "pull it"- yes commonly used to remove emergency crews from danger.

Neatest CD I've ever seen....

Click to expand...

Still waiting for what? CD usually involves the sound of explosives, just before a full collapse, which huge explosions visible. Nothing about WTC7 gave this indication.

Silverstein agreed with the Fire chief that the fire crews should pull out of WTC7 as it was going to collapse. They reported structural deformation, the penthouse started to collapse first (no CD would do this), and parts of it fell onto neighbouring buildings. Hardly a "neat" CD.

Oh, and here's a quote from a fire chief:

We had to be very forceful in getting the guys out. They didn’t want to come out. There were guys going into areas that I wasn’t even really comfortable with, because of the possibility of secondary collapses. We didn’t know how stable any of this area was. We pulled everybody back probably by 3 or 3:30 in the afternoon. We said, this building is going to come down, get back. It came down about 5 o’clock or so, but we had everybody backed away by then. Chief Hayden

Click to expand...

http://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/"pull"=withdrawfirefightersfromdanger

The building engulfed in fire/smoke. It was doomed, and the crews knew it.

ABCwarrior said:

When the start of the collapse of the North tower with the antenna started, the antenna fell a split second before the outer building started moving indicating the core had been taken out. If, the pancake theory is to be believed, then the collapse started with the weakened section hit by the plane(or whatever it was), but there was a good 20 floors above structurally sound, yet within a split second these had disintegrated- why didn't they fall as one mass?

Click to expand...

Meaning what?
Actually, this is in agreement with what NIST stated (apart from the 20 floors bit). Remember that the antenna was built on a hat truss, which spanned the area of the building.

With continuously increased bowing, as more columns buckled, the entire width of the south wall
buckled inward. Instability started at the center of the south wall and rapidly progressed
horizontally toward the sides. As a result of the buckling of the south wall, the south wall
significantly unloaded (Fig. 5-3), red istributing its load to the softened core through the hat truss
and to the south side of the east and west walls through the spandrels. The onset of this load
redistribution can be found in the total column loads in t WTC 1 global model at 100 min in the
bottom line of Table 5-3. At 100 min, the north, east, and west walls at Floor 98 carried about 7
percent, 35 percent, and 30 percent more gravity loads than the state after impact, and the south
wall and the core carried about 7 percent and 20 percent less loads, respectively. The section of
the building above the impact zone tilted to the south, as column instability progressed rapidly
from the south wall to the adjacent east and west walls (see Fig. 5-8), resulting in increased gravity
load on the core columns. The release of potential energy due to downward movement of the
building mass above the buckled columns exceeded the strain energy that could be absorbed by
the structure. Global collapse ensued.

Click to expand...

Page 314 in NCSTAR1-6D,
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_finalreports.cfm

When the South tower goes it starts with a topple which miraculously corrects itself through the line of most resistance. Amazing considering it was an assymetric strike and damage zone.If it had started to topple you'd never, ever, ever expect it to correct itself, gravity doesn't work that way.

Click to expand...

This was even addressed in the Road Trip program.
When collapse started, the wall that remained intact lost its strength, as it was designed for compressive forces, no lateral. Thus when it tilted, the failure of that wall was inevitable. Gravity took out this forth wall, and it also went down.

The notion of a pancake collapse is complete nonsense anyway, both buildings explode outwards like huge peeling bananas, so the bulk of the mass above has been ejected to the sides and cannot possibly add to any pancake!

Click to expand...

It's a good rule of thumb that when someone comes out with statements like "is complete nonesense" and fails to back their positions up with any evidence, it usually means they are trying to compensate for their lack of evidence with emotion. Again, no evidence of explosives in any image of 9/11.

Buildings collapse , and force debris out. What else would you expect from a collapsing building? Once collapse started, there was nothing that could have altered what happened, and gravity did all the work. The bulk of the mass that was above the damage zone came down on top of the lower floors. The shock load took out the supports. What else do you expect would happen?

Rather than repeating yourself over and over with requests for proof Wobs,

Click to expand...

Show us where I asked for proof? I asked for evidence, owing to my amazing generosity. When you work out the difference, get back to us.

why don't you prove to us why the steel cores disintegrated as the floors pancaked around them? steel cannot behave this way, disintegrating into dust...

Click to expand...

Who said it did? Strawman argument.

.or breaking up into nicely moveable sections easy to remove from a crime scene when no appreciable lateral forces have been applied.

Click to expand...

More strawman argument. Steel work broke up in a very chaotic manner. Some had to be cut up to move. But they were moved for examination purposes. It's just not feasible to do such an investigation insitu. They don't even do such things with a plane crash- they move all the debris to a controlled location so they can piece together what happened easier. What do you think more than 400 FBI agents and other teams were doing on Staten Island for months on end?

I think some posters have grasped the fuller, bigger picture as to why they were blown up. Others just have this ostrich mentality and have yet to join the dots, happy to believe the propaganda...(and that of popular mechanics and fox news to make things worse)
("Oh but there was no event like this before, it has no precedent so yes the steel turned to water blah blah baloney")

Click to expand...

Feel free to provide any evidence to back up you claims. As I have already said. (Not holding breath)

Alarm said:

Until then its ALL a theory.

We still do not know certain things about WW2 and I doubt we ever will.

Click to expand...

Its a familiar story with Iraq and others. Remember the claims that Sadaam was storing WMDs? The West had 'evidence' and invaded.

What did they find? FA.

The sheep will believe what their Western governments tells them. BAAAAAA !!!!!!

Logical fallacy. Just because Governments lie does not mean 9/11 was an inside job, or the WTC building were brought down by CD, or any other CT.

There was incompetence involved in all of this (including the decision to invade Iraq). Lack of intelligence, lack of communication, or a whole host of other factors result in Govements getting things wrong.

Yes they lie as well, but lieing on a large scale is inpractical, and the more people involved, the more likely it will come out.

A little detail about actual 9/11 investigation:
http://911guide.webs.com/911investigators.htm

You are now beginning to realise that it could be a probability.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

wobs said:

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets pretend you did not acknowledge that governments lie, and are incompetent etc

As I say, its a shame our Fred isn't here to give his expert opinion.

LooPrEvil said:

wobs said:

Nothing could be further from the truth.

Click to expand...

Ok, lets pretend you did not acknowledge that governments lie, and are incompetent etc

Click to expand...

I wrote:

Logical fallacy. Just because Governments lie does not mean 9/11 was an inside job, or the WTC building were brought down by CD, or any other CT.

Click to expand...

So it is not a probability (or even possibility) that the Government could do such a thing. These CTs rely on a complete shutdown of reason. For CD, it would require technology that does not exist, the whole thing would require rediculous amounts of organisation, when the same political aim could be acheived with far less if they were up for fabricating some scene for their own ends.

edit: For a CT, you need a great deal of competence, and you just admitted Governments are incompetent. You're learning


No has ever pretended that Governments do not lie from time to time. It is not only stupid, but damaging to the whole subject to carry on with such deeply flawed ideas of 9/11 conspiracies. Ideas I should add that have been debunked many times already over the years. There isn't even any new ideas coming from these twoofers, they are just rehashing the same old claims.

If they wanted to demolish the WTC, why not plant another bomb at the bottom, and make it look like terrorist did it?

Why would they demolish WTC7? There would be no political advantage.

The US Government wasn't even looking to get involved in world affairs before 9/11 like they were post 9/11. They were becoming more isolationist. Since then, they foolishly went into two wars at the cost of billions, and damaging their reputation.

9/11 has cost the US not just the billions from the rebuild, and the 3000ish lives of that day, but:

The most recent major report on these costs come from Brown University in the form of the Costs of War project, which said the total for wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan is at least $3.2-4 trillion

Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War#Direct_costs
Plus the lives of service men out there.

The Government was caught out, and 9/11 has lead to huge costs.

And none of you still have any evidence I see

Don't think this has been posted yet, but its needed:

This is starting to remind me of a fairy tale about people who always believed what they were TOLD!!