9/11 conspiracy

[Wide Awake]

Ok I am sick of hearing this. I lived in Olympia, WA my entire life an we have the biggest population of commies and anarchists in the state of Washington(we also have a huge hick population its weird i guess it balances it out). Anyways when i was in high school and the stupid loose change video came around everyone was like yeah thats so right our government planned it all. Ok first of all are you really that stupid secondly i believe popular science over some stupid kids who all they want is to prove that they exist. Now i will admit that our government might have shot down united 93 but im still not 100% sure on that probably never will be. Before you post on here saying you disagree with me

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html

and theres probably lots more out there. Read the second link it really rips the loose change guys theories to shreds. I don't know I just wanted to post this cause I heard a guy at my college babling on about how the US government planned 9/11. Clinton and bush both got the same stupid report about how some terrorists might jack a plane somewhere and hit something neither of them are at fault and neither of them could have seen it coming.

anyways back to my hist 341 final.

[sid]

Saw a BBC documentary about the theories, I don't know where some of them came from, they were the least logical answers to a rather simple question. What is Loose Change btw? Don't think I've heard of it.

[Wide Awake]

http://www.loosechange911.com/

[wfcxairborne]

Good reads. My sister is all into the Green peace and all that green stuff and she hates George Bush and says he was behind 9/11. I don't like Bush even though I'm in Canada but I don't think he's behind it.

[enigma]

Ive never understood the choice of targets ... why the twin towers?

[NicholasJohnson]

I have zero respect for "9/11 truthers" because they claim my dad and his friends blew up their own building (Pentagon) and attacked their own country. Sorry, but to a blind ignorant sheep like myself, the notion is vile at best.

And because they all treat conspiracies as a religion, those who critique it are "sheeple," "unbelievers," or "naive, blind, working for the government."

Here is a video which pretty much sums up my view on "truthers" (although some of you will hate the patriotism at the end of it...) " Click Here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcrF346sS_I)

[D.O.A]

Ive never understood the choice of targets ... why the twin towers?

Easy to find as they were tall, and a very big statment of the USA.

[enigma]

Wouldnt something like the Statue of Libery (which hasnt been reopened since 9/11 has it?) would have made a bigger and better statement to the world?

[Sgt So and So]

Wouldnt something like the Statue of Libery (which hasnt been reopened since 9/11 has it?) would have made a bigger and better statement to the world?

Yeah it has. I don't think it ever shut down. Just MUCH higher security. There's SWAT patrols around there every now and then... at least there was in '04.

[NicholasJohnson]

The 1993 bombing of the WTC failed, which Al Queda wanted to "get right." was seen as the center of/symbol of American economic power (also the evil Jewish bankers worked there, according to certain Islamists).

You are right, going up inside the statue is currently not allowed, however visits to the island/park are allowed.

[MyFingerHurts]

Wouldnt something like the Statue of Libery (which hasnt been reopened since 9/11 has it?) would have made a bigger and better statement to the world?

Statue of Liberty would be an attack against a symbol of freedom. Yes I believe the "bigger and better statement to the world" would have been quite successful. The attack against the twin towers would symbolize an attack against the US status as a super-power. (Many many many international agencies were housed in both towers)

Plus you wouldnt see very many civilian casualties if the Statue was hit (and realistically the statue isnt an overly large target to even hit with a commercial airliner)

[Thanato]

There is only one thing I would like to know. Why did WTC Building 7 implode? It wasn't due to fire. Because no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.

~Thanato

[Lt. Hanley]

Physics.


WTC 7 Collapse
CLAIM: Seven hours after the two towers fell, the 47-story WTC 7 collapsed. According to 911review.org: "The video clearly shows that it was not a collapse subsequent to a fire, but rather a controlled demolition: amongst the Internet investigators, the jury is in on this one."

FACT: Many conspiracy theorists point to FEMA's preliminary report, which said there was relatively light damage to WTC 7 prior to its collapse. With the benefit of more time and resources, NIST researchers now support the working hypothesis that WTC 7 was far more compromised by falling debris than the FEMA report indicated. "The most important thing we found was that there was, in fact, physical damage to the south face of building 7," NIST's Sunder tells PM. "On about a third of the face to the center and to the bottom--approximately 10 stories--about 25 percent of the depth of the building was scooped out." NIST also discovered previously undocumented damage to WTC 7's upper stories and its southwest corner.

NIST investigators believe a combination of intense fire and severe structural damage contributed to the collapse, though assigning the exact proportion requires more research. But NIST's analysis suggests the fall of WTC 7 was an example of "progressive collapse," a process in which the failure of parts of a structure ultimately creates strains that cause the entire building to come down. Videos of the fall of WTC 7 show cracks, or "kinks," in the building's facade just before the two penthouses disappeared into the structure, one after the other. The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse.

According to NIST, there was one primary reason for the building's failure: In an unusual design, the columns near the visible kinks were carrying exceptionally large loads, roughly 2000 sq. ft. of floor area for each floor. "What our preliminary analysis has shown is that if you take out just one column on one of the lower floors," Sunder notes, "it could cause a vertical progression of collapse so that the entire section comes down."

There are two other possible contributing factors still under investigation: First, trusses on the fifth and seventh floors were designed to transfer loads from one set of columns to another. With columns on the south face apparently damaged, high stresses would likely have been communicated to columns on the building's other faces, thereby exceeding their load-bearing capacities.

Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time."

WTC 7 might have withstood the physical damage it received, or the fire that burned for hours, but those combined factors--along with the building's unusual construction--were enough to set off the chain-reaction collapse.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=5

[JonasDahlin]

.

[enigma]

There is only one thing I would like to know. Why did WTC Building 7 implode? It wasn't due to fire. Because no steel building has ever collapsed due to fire.

~Thanato

Not part of the discussion at all but ... just because something as never happened doesnt mean it cant or will :p

Your honor, he never stabbed to death an old lady before with a meat cleaver so we should just let him off for this one :p


Edit: On a more related note...
Concrete and Steel freeway collaspes after being heated at 2,750 degrees (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/freeway-collapses-after-fiery-crash/20070429135509990001)

On another related note, a show on the TV had a massive girder like structure (think it was supose to be a copy or repretensation of a floor section of the twin towers) braced over a massive flamepit and were thus heating the section up from under neath.
The metal sagged inwards, thus losing its rigidness and its capability to act in the way it was designed.

[Zengotten]

Edit: On a more related note...
Concrete and Steel freeway collaspes after being heated at 2,750 degrees (http://news.aol.com/topnews/articles/_a/freeway-collapses-after-fiery-crash/20070429135509990001)

"To date, nobody has suggested the fires on 9/11 reached temperatures of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit. Perhaps that is because, just as steel has a maximum temperature it can withstand before it melts, fuel sources have a maximum temperature at which they can burn. NONE of the known fuel sources burning on 9/11 could have reached the required temperature to melt steel.


As a matter of fact, the widely touted culprit of 9/11 (jet fuel) has a maximum burn temperature far lower than what is required to melt steel. (Jet Fuel's maximum burn temperature is less than 1,700 degrees Fahrenheit.) The other fuel sources, (Desks, carpet, paper, etc.) could have reached temperatures of up to 2,000 degrees Fahrenheit under ideal conditions. -Closer, but still nowhere near hot enough to create the widely reported "pools of molten steel (http://stopthelie.com/references.html).""


- http://stopthelie.com/molten_steel.html

Now unless this information can be proven wrong I would say that the news article that you posted is very irrelevant to the matter, since 2,750 degrees is almost twice as hot as (according to this information) the maximum temperature of any known jet fuel, and still a lot higher than the maximum temperature of any other fuel source on the twin towers at the time.

I do not really beleive any of the conspiracy theories yet as most of them do not stand on any real primary information, but I also do not believe what the government is telling us.

[enigma]

I find it relavant as it shows that a steal structure can be taken out by burning fuel from a crashed fuel truck, so thats just regular petrol no?

Steel melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F) according to this site. (http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html) Other sources cite that its surmised that 1,100° F is at what point steel will start to loose its intergity.

Now am not suggesting that it (9/11)melted, what scientists etc have been saying as far as amaware is that it buckled, thus the lost of intergity in the structure...

[Zengotten]

I am not an expert but I would say that 2500 degrees is still too high.

But like the article you posted, the freeway collapsed at 2750 degrees, so why should we say that the twin towers collapsed at merely 2000? (Still taking in consideration that 2000 degrees is the very maximum temperature for the conditions, according to the information posted earlier.)

[enigma]

The guys who did the official investigation (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sund-flash.html)

To sum up what the slideshow states (however this doesnt relate to WTC7 as far as am aware): massive ammount of damage caused by the plane hit, columns and floors weakned due to fire and sagged which caused loss of building intergity.

As he states it wasnt one sole reason but a multitue of reasons which lead to the collaspe.


As for WTC7, here is the website for NIST who conducted a 3 year search for the reason why the building collasped.
Link (http://wtc.nist.gov/)
Havnt read through since i CBA now :p

[Wide Awake]

the widely reported "pools of molten steel.""


Which were never confirmed. Who is to say it wasn't a metal that melts at a much lower temperature such as Aluminum, it was never tested. Another note the experts never said "jet fuel melted the structure" it helped weaken it, along with oh I don't know a plane running into it at 550mph. Don't bring up a plane hitting the empire state building earlier because that plane happened to be 2 times smaller wingspan and 3 times shorter than the 767 not to mention it was only traveling at 150 mph 400mph slower than the 767 along with only carrying 700 gallons of fuel while the 767 carries over 10,000 gallons.

[Zengotten]

I don't know, it still seems too far fetched to me. From all that I've seen in these conspiracy videos the main thing that they say is that a building like the one of the towers falling down the way they did in those conditions was very unlikely (and they have a decent amount of information backing it up), maybe I would beleive it if it was only one tower falling, but if it was so unlikely then how did it happen to both towers in the same way? I just think the whole thing was too perfect to be the way the government said it was.

The pentagon part of the loose change video is the most convincing I've seen out of all the videos. The scene looked like someone loaded up a bunch of random plane parts out of a junk yard and scattered it across the site.

Keep in mind I am only speculating on all of this based on what I have seen (which is all anyone can do right now), we can't really get into a good debate until we can bring some undoubtedly reliable information to the table which is very scarce at the moment.

[sid]

The only part that is plausible is the US gorvernment was negligent, which in my opinion, is probaly true.

[JonasDahlin]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQyYuWXp3E8

And this was shown 6 months before 9/11

coincidence?

[PF-Kenny]

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

most of the theories relating to a conspiracy are fairly well dwelt with here

[Zengotten]

That doesn't convince me any more than the conspiracy theories do, There's just too much talking and too little backing up on both sides.

[colonal chaos]

Yeah, to be honest I dont believe many of the conspiracy theories, but I believe that the government might not be telling the whole story.

[ShaunCowdell]

I love a good conspiracy but after all the reading I've put into this one it's gotten to the point where I am just annoyed at it.
Whether it's true/false or tastes like peanut butter I don't care anymore.

One thing still bugs me... The pentagon, I've seen the videos and there is NO WAY an aircraft hit that.


But as the man himself said it:
THERE IS NO 9/11 CONSPIRACY YOU MORONS (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)

*EDIT*


Steel melts at 1525° C, and although jet fuel burns only at 825° C, it doesn't have to burn hot enough to melt to cause the buildings to collapse, since steel loses 50% of its strength at 648 ° C

[Saden]

Well, you need to consider all of the things inside of the building, the thousands of computers, desks, and other furniture that can add heat. They actually interviewed this firefighter guy, who is also a scientist or something, and he said that many of the desks/other furniture inside were made from a special material that was highly flammable, and I think under the right curcumstances, could explode. Not 100% sure though, I might just be completely wrong too.

[ShaunCowdell]

I remember with Loose-Change they said something about secondary exposions happening while the towers were falling. As if it was a demolition.
When I first saw that footage I thought it was merely air being pushed down the tower and exploding through the windows a few stories down while the tower was collapsing...

Makes more sense than timed detonations...

[Zengotten]

I love a good conspiracy but after all the reading I've put into this one it's gotten to the point where I am just annoyed at it.
Whether it's true/false or tastes like peanut butter I don't care anymore.

One thing still bugs me... The pentagon, I've seen the videos and there is NO WAY an aircraft hit that.

I feel the same exact way.


But as the man himself said it:
THERE IS NO 9/11 CONSPIRACY YOU MORONS (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons)

*EDIT*

That was funny, I agree with him on the $20 bill thing, but the part about "proof that loose change is bullshit" I think is just his opinion. My dad claims to have read a lot of stuff on the theories and thinks that all of them are bullshit except one of them, I don't remember exactly what it was called but he said it had very reliable evidence that gives the government motivation to plan the attack with the terrorists. I will ask him about it and see if I can get a link, I myself haven't looked into it yet but I know my dad isn't easily swayed when it comes to stuff like this.

[Fallschirmjäger]

I have watched a lot of these documentries on the attacks,and conspiracy ones and they had lots of good info and believable realy.I support them going in on afghanistan,iraq?,but to do something like killing there own people would be realy bad.Whether the truth ever comes out in our life time?,who knows,there is still kennedy stuff to come out,there waiting on people involved maybe to die etc...

[SuperSoldier]

There was something about how top government people were told not to fly the day of the attacks. I don't really believe it but there was a crash of a plane that didn't make it (93 I think) where there was nothing but a small hole and metal shards. The hole was smaller than the plane and there no bodies to be found anywhere. I don't really care anymore though but you have to remember many people were killed by their governments in the past and thinking the U.S. govenment is "too good for any wrongdoing" is just stupid. There's a lot of stuff we don't know military wise at least according to my uncle who is a Lt. Colonel. He did tell us one thing though.

[Fallschirmjäger]

For the pentagon and the one in the field they did not happen i think,like the pentagon was not damaged enough for a big plane or burn on the inside for footage i saw,where is all the film evidence which there was,but they got a hold of first.
The twin towers happened of course,but the govt let them go in knowing all about it before hand it seems realy,the others was to make it look more bigger.

[bidiot]

http://911myths.com/

This has a lot of good non-ct Info.

I think the government had prior knowledge off an attack being a threat just not in what capacity and when.

[enigma]

One question, i dont believe ive seen this answered anywhere ...

Why would they do it?

[sid]

Exactly, if it ever got out, and lets face it it's politics so it would, it would be like Watergate a millionfold.

[Neo]

There's a lot of stuff we don't know military wise at least according to my uncle who is a Lt. Colonel. He did tell us one thing though.

Please, continue...

[enigma]

Please, continue...

*An officer in a clean, smart, freshly pressed suit enters the room*

<.<

>.>

<.<

The milatry now uses a top classified weapon which no one knows about, we call it a musket. It takes ages to reload and fires a solid metal ball ... our enemies wont know what hit them!

[SuperSoldier]

Please, continue...

It's a secret. ;)

[|:XAS:| Bravo]

The man who can't even say nuclear correctly planned all of this. Bullshit.

As for the Pentagon, I say again, click here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YVDdjLQkUV8).

One of my relatives was just across of the Pentagon when he saw the plane, or the remnants of it. Of course he couldn't tell if it was a plane, it did go in at what, full throttle was it? He did feel the heat wave though when it went in the building, with his window closed. I'm sure any guy in the military that's been around these big of explosions can tell you there's a heat wave.


Flight 93, there's recorded phone calls with a man who called up his wife and told her it was hijacked and that they were gonna rush the terrorists. As for no big hole, well things such as an airplane are aerodynamic, thus at the right speed and angle of attack can slice through things. Which is why the plane could blow up the Pentagon. Well frankly, I have never heard of anything that can slice through earth. The earth is tough isn't it? Especially when you're plummeting toward it. So if we made a very tough wall and rammed a military plane in to it will it crumble? Or will the plane "vaporize"? Hmm, clicky (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--_RGM4Abv8).

If you have ever taken a paper bag, blown it up, and popped it real loud in a crowded cafeteria, what will happen? Well aside from being thrown out the bag bursts and everyone jumps thinking another creeper is shooting up the school. Now try putting some debris into the bag before you pop it. Some confetti, flour (or corn starch which ever it's your pick), some staples, and etc. Let's say the paper is the WTC, the confetti a bunch of paper work, the flour would be dry wall (dry wall is really gypsum but we'll use flour as a substitute), and the staples would be...office chairs? Now let's pop the bag, the contents fly everywhere and it made "explosion" sounds. Make a tower of these things of about let's see, 150 bags. Yes there you go you have just made a winning science project for the fair. What makes everything burst outward? Air pressure. Now take a heavy book and drop it flat onto a your father's tax papers. The air jetting outward blows the papers away. So windows or without windows it's the same effect. Myth debunked.

Jeez I wish I would debunk some more for you all but I have some tasks to complete.

READ THIS HERE POST BEFORE YOU SCROLL DOWN TO THE NEXT ONE. IT'LL SAVE A LOT OF TIME IN THE FUTURE.

[Neo]

Has Bravo gone crazy? :p

[Fallschirmjäger]

I think the government had prior knowledge off an attack being a threat just not in what capacity and when.

And thats why the let it go through or prepare for it with some xtra help,to make it more dramatic so they could go to war in afghanistan and then most likely open that door to more war on terror ops in iraq.
And enigma thats why i think they did it all,so they could do all these places,afghanistan,iraq,iran?,nth korea? etc...

[lazlazlaz1]

I dont think a terrorist attack was needed to instigate an invasion of Iran. Infact, the attacks have hindered it more since we are totally stuck up in Afghanistan and Iraq, when Iran is clearly the more pressing threat and always has been.

[ShaunCowdell]

Pearl Harbour anyone?...
Same conspiracy just 60 years down the track. ;)

[Zengotten]

Yea if some of these 9-11 theories are true then it is the same thing, who's to say Pearl Harbor wasn't set up by the government too to help us out of the depression?

I'm not saying it was I am just open to the possibility.

[SuperSoldier]

Pearl Harbour anyone?...
Same conspiracy just 60 years down the track. ;)

:rolleyes:

[PF-Kenny]

what would the government gain from this?
we arent even using the oil in Iraq, yet people say thats why we invaded there

I personally think that it was a terrorist attack, as has been claimed by the government, but just to throw a little wrench into the works, I heard that the WTC was losing money, and that shortly before the attacks the owners put insurance that protected against terrorism onto them, so it would be they, not the government, who stood to gain from then being destroyed

[Valliko]

That is so much commie bullshit.