911 the conspiracy, an inside job?

[philstoj]

Got to love conspiracy theories....
Im sure if people knew the real truth it would create mass panic and hysteria.
One thing that does standout is that its always the same race of people that are in amongst all this, they are the ones pushing the buttons, and its still happening today, i wonder why that is?

[Bucket]

Its an engineering phenomena, the was a guy on the ABC talking about it on the weekend. Burning Jet Fuel+Steel girders causes severe loss of structural integrity

[MITCHAY]

Meh who knows what sources of information to trust. I do know that a lot of people died and that's the bottom line. Hopefully not to be repeated.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by MITCHAY

Meh who knows what sources of information to trust. I do know that a lot of people died and that's the bottom line. Hopefully not to be repeated.

Its not trusting. Its looking at the facts and making a conclusion. Every one of the conspiracy videos give half truths, mis-quotes, and mis-information.
The sites I listed try to clear the truth from the fabricated fiction.

I once believed in some sort of conspiracy also, but after a bit of research its just laughable. Sure there are some fishy stuff going on amongst the Governments of the World, but the US was not behind what happened that day.
And I think people claiming so are being disrespectful to the victims and their family.
4 Australians died on that day so I dont think we shouldnt forget that either.

[bArNsY]

september 11, TODAY is my birthday!

[Cam]

That "In Plain SIte" was a real eye opener, if anyone was going to be responsible of an inside job its Bush and the US Govt!

Cam

[4.9 EF Futura]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

Yes there were bodies and plenty of wreckage in the Pentagon, there are photos out there, you're just not going to find them on a conspiracy site.

I could not word it any better.

I did watch the "documentary" (a doco is supposed to be a collection and description of facts....) with keen interest. But was very disappointed, having read a bit on the matter in my own time...

There is more "conclusive" information/pictures/"evidence" out there which supports their argument, yet they did not include it.

There is EVEN MORE photos and information out there which addresses many of the questions the show posed (as is being demonstrated VERY well here by XR6 Martin)... but a little more obvious why they wouldnt show these.

As far as entertainment value goes, the show had some merit. That's probably the nicest thing i could say about it.

Much more interesting was a show on the firefighters/port authority/civillians that survived the collapse in stairwell B of the north tower which aired on the history channel last night. A truly amazing story, regardless of who was responsible for the attacks.

The part that turned my stomach upside down was as the rescue workers approached ground zero shortly after the collapse... and there was the sound of these buzzers rising up from the debris. Apparently the firefighters have a device which sounds an alarm if it detects no movement for a few minutes.

Hundreds of these buzzers... the sound of them rising up from the debris... was just horrific when you put 2 and 2 together. I'd never seen this aspect of ground zero before.

Reading through some of these responses, its dissapointing to see that people are so quick to put aside the tragic loss of life - in preference to criticise the politicians for their decisions that followed the attacks.

Do you think you'd be making such statements 5 years ago to the day? No - you would have been demanding revenge like everyone else.

I'm not sure when it became trendy to oppose the US and everything they do. But the people who changed their tune when it became cool to do so - they know who they are. And if they can live with the fact that they are trend following hypocrites - then so can i.

[Bucket]

Originally Posted by 4.9 EF Futura

I could not word it any better.

I did watch the "documentary" (a doco is supposed to be a collection and description of facts....) with keen interest. But was very disappointed, having read a bit on the matter in my own time...

There is more "conclusive" information/pictures/"evidence" out there which supports their argument, yet they did not include it.

There is EVEN MORE photos and information out there which addresses many of the questions the show posed (as is being demonstrated VERY well here by XR6 Martin)... but a little more obvious why they wouldnt show these.

As far as entertainment value goes, the show had some merit. That's probably the nicest thing i could say about it.

Much more interesting was a show on the firefighters/port authority/civillians that survived the collapse in stairwell B of the north tower which aired on the history channel last night. A truly amazing story, regardless of who was responsible for the attacks.

The part that turned my stomach upside down was as the rescue workers approached ground zero shortly after the collapse... and there was the sound of these buzzers rising up from the debris. Apparently the firefighters have a device which sounds an alarm if it detects no movement for a few minutes.

Hundreds of these buzzers... the sound of them rising up from the debris... was just horrific when you put 2 and 2 together. I'd never seen this aspect of ground zero before.

Reading through some of these responses, its dissapointing to see that people are so quick to put aside the tragic loss of life - in preference to criticise the politicians for their decisions that followed the attacks.

Do you think you'd be making such statements 5 years ago to the day? No - you would have been demanding revenge like everyone else.

I'm not sure when it became trendy to oppose the US and everything they do. But the people who changed their tune when it became cool to do so - they know who they are. And if they can live with the fact that they are trend following hypocrites - then so can i.

Could not agree more. People are far too quick to assume things and jump on the "lets Hate America" bandwagon after just reading a few websites and watching a couple of Doco's.
There are three sides to every story...Ours, there's and the Truth.

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

1/ Im looking for the link that shows massive a fireball directly after the plane hit taken by a person from the motorway
EDIT Found it http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

2/ Engine and airplane parts
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

3/ There is no service station facing the pentagon, and since when does service stations have quality footage? And since when do they look at anything other than the cars filling up?

4/ Who says they didnt ring police? If you know you whats already happened that day, and are pretty sure you're going to die, you'd rather speak to your family than a 911 operator would you not?
Pics of the crash site
http://internetdetectives.biz/case/l...93-didnt-crash

5/ It was because of phone threats over the previous 2 weeks. Security guards were still present, and there was at least one bomb detection dog available on September 11.

yep, there are no service stations anywhere near camera range of the pentagon.

http://www.danbielefeld.com/images/2...e6-cropped.jpg

Its literally just carparks and highways around it, and a small airstrip for choppers. As for the rest of what Martin has said, 100% correct.

If you dont understand how and why the WTC buildings collapsed, its because you dont know how they were built.

If you dont understand why buildings collapsed hours after the main WTC towers collapsed, its because you dont have a sound knowledge of collateral damage effects and seismic damage to foundations.

If you dont understand why passengers rang loved ones instead of 911(Who could do SFA) its because, you werent there.

If you dont understand why the US is in Iraq, its because you havent paid attention to 50 years of foreign policy disaster.

If you dont understand where the aircraft parts went when it hit the Pentagon, its becaue you dont know how well designed the Pentagon was.

Do I need to go on?

The only conspiracy that took place, was between the terrorist cells and their controller.

The rest is just a bunch of stuff that happened.

[the_scotsman]

Im curious then...why were the lobbies of the WTC smoke and debris damaged after the aircraft collision? Debris I can *maybe* understand, but where is all the smoke coming from?

[Sourbastard]

Originally Posted by the_scotsman

Im curious then...why were the lobbies of the WTC smoke and debris damaged after the aircraft collision? Debris I can *maybe* understand, but where is all the smoke coming from?

The lobbies of the WTC after the collapse would have been located somewhere in the basement. The basement, where cars are parked. Cars full of fuel. The Basement where gas lines would enter the building for central heating and water heating. Not hard to start a fire with the air being compressed from collapse and all that heated rended steel.

If thats not what you are talking about, the only other event ive seen where smoke was exiting the lobby was when the WTC was bombed in 93.

[the_scotsman]

I meant before the collapse...I'll find the photos...

[the_scotsman]

Photos on this page...I'm really not sure either way...although I must be a sucker for conspiracies because I don't believe man has walked on the moon :thebirds:

[EA2BA]

At least your source is not a conspiracy site at all is it ................. LOL

[max]

Going back to 1992 after the first bombing of WTC speculation about the extent of foundations damage was rife. Theories then were that more significant damage to the foundations may have resulted in the affected tower skewing into the other. In 1993 I was in NYC visiting my brother who lived in Soho. We did walks around the WTC and the electonic monitors were still there weeks after the bombing in the underground car parks. It was clear that a risk existed that movement or collapse could occur. A couple of years ago I heard another theory that the collapsing of the twin towers on 9/11 was a calculated demolition job. It was too 'perfect' a collapse to be random. It was thought by some that the buildings were wired up ready to go, and after the plane strikes they had to be dropped in a planned precision implosion to minimise the risk of widespread damage and casualties over a broad area of lower Manhattan if the buildings toppled sideways. Like I say this is a theory, amongst many, that I heard some time ago. But to me, having watched the collapse of WTC on TV coverage, and compared it to vision of deliberate demolition implosions of obsolete tall buildings, the manner and the timing seem very similar.

[NAK302]

i couldn't care less about conspiracy. i do care how much some folks with an axe to grind, for whatever reasons, managed to totally disrupt the world in so many ways for their own selfish means.

[EA2BA]

NO building is EVER wired with explosives WITHOUT all people evacuated and NEVER allowed back in. I have seen many shows on demolition and the amount of safety they have to follow the theory of explosives holds very little water IMO.

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by the_scotsman

Photos on this page...I'm really not sure either way...although I must be a sucker for conspiracies because I don't believe man has walked on the moon :thebirds:

They certainly mention 'possible' alot on that site, and not alot of certainty.
And alot of it is flat out wrong and misleading, which can be explained on various link ive already posted

As for the smoke, ive havnt looked into it, but my best guess is falling elevators, and other debris falling down the core of the building.
Ill see if I can find a better answer.


Why dont you believe the moon landing?

[82XD393.3v]

Im opion is that they where genuine terrorist attacks and what the goverment is hiding the fact that theses terrorist where able to lay bombs in the pentagon and world trade centre without them knowing (very embarressing for the goverment) the plane story was made belivable by the twin towers going down,the planes where for visual impact by the terorists and the bombs they planted made sure of the distruction,Doubt the plane hit the pentagon but a bomb did.
They american goverment would never live it down if they admited a couple of jihad jacks plated bombs in the pentagon

If the towers were infact imploded, then how do you explain that the "implosion" started exactly where both planes hit?

[Redrum]

Please, not this garbage again.......

[82XD393.3v]

I doubt that even the americain goverment would blow up there own people 'John Howard on the other hand would have a crack at it if it ment more money for the rich

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by 82XD351.3v

Im opion is that they where genuine terrorist attacks and what the goverment is hiding the fact that theses terrorist where able to lay bombs in the pentagon and world trade centre without them knowing (very embarressing for the goverment) the plane story was made belivable by the twin towers going down,the planes where for visual impact by the terorists and the bombs they planted made sure of the distruction,Doubt the plane hit the pentagon but a bomb did.
They american goverment would never live it down if they admited a couple of jihad jacks plated bombs in the pentagon

You make it sound a 100ton airliner (half of that is fuel) moving at 700kmh would have a minor effect on a building? Thats 2000megajoules of energy right there. That has the energy equivalent to 500kg of TNT, then add the fuel on top of that.
So your saying the planes were a diversion and the real bombs were inside? Which means the bombs inside would have to be bigger? Correct? How are you going to smuggle well over 500kg of 'bombs' into a building? And where are you going to put them? Ever been into a big building? Its not like theres spare space anywhere.

Edit. Just worked out the energy equivalent of the fuel the planes would have been carrying. Lets say it was 30000kg of fuel (fully fuelled 757 holds 45000kg) That works out to nearly 400TON of TNT. (granted not anywhere near all of that fuel would have exploded straight away, as reports of it confirmed it burning all the way down to the lobby)

[NAK302]

Originally Posted by 82XD351.3v

I doubt that even the americain goverment would blow up there own people 'John Howard on the other hand would have a crack at it if it ment more money for the rich

yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaawn :

[Envious]

Originally Posted by 82XD351.3v

I doubt that even the americain goverment would blow up there own people 'John Howard on the other hand would have a crack at it if it ment more money for the rich

That statement is just laughable.

[max]

Originally Posted by RATT

If the towers were infact imploded, then how do you explain that the "implosion" started exactly where both planes hit?

Don't know... maybe the wiring was severed at the impact level, thus enabling only levels beneath to detonate. The theory was explained by the exponent a good while back on an ABC Radio program. Transcript is probably around somewhere in ABC archives.

[AC]

If you were able to listen to the streaming radio from the NYPD on the night you would have heard the police relaying info that the firemen inside the buildings were reporting secondary explosions in the mid and low sections of the WTC's, Im pretty sure you hear these claims on the Norday Brothers Doco and Loose Change 1 or 2

Unfortunatly policeradio.com no longer exists, the one i origonally was listening to live on 9/11
You can still them on other sites like www.livepoliceaudio.com

[XR Martin]

Explanation on the explosions heard by the police and firefighters, they more than likely related to the massive electrical transformers
http://www.debunking911.com/explosions.htm
BTW even the people jumping from the building and hitting the ground were reported to sound 'like' explosions, and there have been reports of up to 200 people who did jump or fall

[DJL351]

Originally Posted by XR6 Martin

1/ Im looking for the link that shows massive a fireball directly after the plane hit taken by a person from the motorway
EDIT Found it http://criticalthrash.com/terror/crashthumbnails.html

So explain to me this photo? Taken from http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...maginable.html

If the two Towers were taken down due to fire, why is there so little damage to the Petagon?

[XR Martin]

Originally Posted by DJL351

So explain to me this photo? Taken from http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/tra...maginable.html

If the two Towers were taken down due to fire, why is there so little damage to the Petagon?

I dont know what location of the Pentagon that photo was taken, it could have been anywhere.

The Pentagon and WTC were contructed totally different, you cant compare the two in regards to fire succeptability.