Quote from Boris Lozac :

Bring me some experts or show me the link where experts comments on this, i'm all ears in hearing how this could be done by an airliner...

So just exactly how many times do i have to post these links in this thread before someone actually looks at and bothers to read them ? This'll be the third time by my reckoning...
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/pentagonattackpage2
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.co ... onflight77evidencesummary

The main landing gear and parts of an engine are in that picture, and they're both damn heavy pieces of metal. Don't forget this thing was traveling at 500mph+.

So what else do you think would have made it ? A bunker buster ? a cruise missile ? If a missile got that far, then surely it would have exploded in that small section between the tiers. So ;
1. where is the missile debris ?
2. how could a missile cause such a huge blast on the outer wall, go through it, completely obliterate the insides of three separate tiers, and them still 'pop out' of the final wall, was it a bunker buster with 4 separate stages of explosives in it ?
3. and why is there aircraft debris scattered on either side of the hole ?

But i guess if well over 100 eyewitness testimonies, along with loads of photo's of the wreckage aren't gonna sway you into thinking it was an United Airlines 757 that crashed into the building. Then there's obviously nothing i, nor anyone else, nor any website can say that'll make you change your mind.

Quick edit: Just found this http://fire.nist.gov/bfrlpubs/build03/PDF/b03017.pdf
It's too big to upload in attachments, but it's the NIST report on the buildings structure during the crash. (should make for some interesting reading, although i've not had time to read it myself,waiting for my new telly to arrive)

Quote from Mazz4200 :

Then there's obviously nothing i, nor anyone else, nor any website can say that'll make you change your mind.

Sorry, i admit, i didn't found the time to check those links you posted, until now..
True, there are perfectly sane explanations there, maybe people (me included) want to see the conspiracy so bad and we overlook the evidence.. It's not that i believe that there's a conspiracy and i don't accept anything else, it's just that there are still (even with your links) unclear things, and suspicious to say the least..
Yes, the missile couldn't knock those poles out, yes maybe the heavy parts of the plane could go through all that concrete and punch a hole in the other side of the building as the plane was travelling 600 mph, etc etc... but, still, sorry, there's something there that still bugs me..
The biggest evidence here is, that it is simply unimaginable and way too unrealistic that hundreds of people are capable of being involved in such conspiracy, i really doubt that...

Quote :

but, still, sorry, there's something there that still bugs me..

Is it because the official explanation isn't interesting enough for you?

I don't like how certain people become so titillated by conspiracy theories. Asking the right questions, skepticism, that's great- but for some of us, it's not about finding the right answers, it's about propping up a good story by creating myths out of thin air from selected, half baked or non-existent evidence.

To be fair, I'd rather the collective imagination run riot with far flung theories, as opposed to simply having everyone swallow the official story and moving on with their lives, but I don't get why people want to hang onto this stuff either. Why would you 'want to see the conspiracy so bad we overlook the evidence..'? This is important stuff, the more clarity you can bring to the table the better. It's counter productive to want to believe in a conspiracy (because you hate the American Government or something), because at the end of the day you're just participating in another form of propaganda.

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The ... h Movement in Perspective in eSkeptic. It won't convince conspirationists at all, but to me it looks well-researched.

Quote from wsinda :

9/11 Conspiracy Theories: The ... h Movement in Perspective in eSkeptic. It won't convince conspirationists at all, but to me it looks well-researched.

Me likey!

With apologies to Tristan who no doubt knows better than the official US report ......

NIST and Underwriters Laboratories In August 2004, Underwriters Laboratories evaluated the Pancake Theory by testing models of the floor assemblies used in the WTC buildings. Despite all the previous expert testimony, the floor models did not collapse. NIST reported this in its October 2004 update, in a table of results that clearly showed that the floors did not fail and that, therefore, pancaking was not possible.14 NIST more succinctly stated this again in its June 2005 draft report, saying: "The results established that this type of assembly was capable of sustaining a large gravity load, without collapsing, for a substantial period of time relative to the duration of the fires in any given location on September 11th."15

[14] Table of results from Underwriters Laboratories August 2004 floor model tests, as presented by NIST in October 2004 (http://wtc.nist.gov/media/P6StandardFireTestsforWeb.pdf), 25.

[15] NIST, Final Report of the National Construction Safety Team on the Collapses of the World Trade Center Towers(Draft) (http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/NISTNCSTAR1draft.pdf), 195.

This is the OFFICIAL US report.

Next theory please.

( Guess the media missed this too )

Move on, nothing to see here ........

wsinda - nice to see a common sense explanation of everything

RacerX - The floors couldn't collapse? But I saw them collapse? Watch the videos - the WTC collapses via pancaking, from the top downwards... So which model do you believe? The full size one with desks, and electrical cabling alone adding many many tonnes to the mass of the building, or the little model which is probably only loaded in a very simplistic way???

I don't claim to know more than 'experts'. I just claim to know more than you. And that, 'mate', is enough to completely ridicule everything you have put forward as 'evidence', none of which you are capable of understanding.

I'm still waiting for your explaination about how structural steel differs from normal steel, or an admission that you pulled the two words out of your anus and attempted to be an engineer for 5 seconds... It would be inpolite, no it would be downright rude (and that's probably a sin in your religion, and you won't want to do that, so I guess you'll answer eventually) just to ignore my frequent requests for a response.

@ Tristan

Agreed.

Quote from tristancliffe :

wsinda - nice to see a common sense explanation of everything

RacerX - The floors couldn't collapse? But I saw them collapse? Watch the videos - the WTC collapses via pancaking, from the top downwards... So which model do you believe? The full size one with desks, and electrical cabling alone adding many many tonnes to the mass of the building, or the little model which is probably only loaded in a very simplistic way???

I don't claim to know more than 'experts'. I just claim to know more than you. And that, 'mate', is enough to completely ridicule everything you have put forward as 'evidence', none of which you are capable of understanding.

I'm still waiting for your explaination about how structural steel differs from normal steel, or an admission that you pulled the two words out of your anus and attempted to be an engineer for 5 seconds... It would be inpolite, no it would be downright rude (and that's probably a sin in your religion, and you won't want to do that, so I guess you'll answer eventually) just to ignore my frequent requests for a response.

If you choose to ignore the official results from the people given the job of reviewing the collapse that's your choice.

I'm not an expert in this area, they are.

I, at least am prepared to accept that I'm not an expert in everything, if anything I've posted here is wrong then I'm more than prepared to apologise for that.

However, I'm also prepared to listen to expert's in their field, investigate what they have to say, peer review that, and make a personal choice to accept that or not.

When the inquiry into something like this is stalled, restricted, only accepts VERY limited evidence then that is suspicious. In my opinion there are some very strange events that happened that day.

If people choose to accept the official story then that's fine.

Having been brought up in the cold war with a parent in the intelligence community I've learned to be somewhat suspicious of what get's released to the media and what is really happening.

There are more than enough reasons for this being an inside job, there's a great deal of evidence regarding who was running it, Norad being stood down, suspicious building collapse's, strange holes and unrepeatable flight pattens with the pentagon, cell phone call's ( impossible till 2006 ) and missing plane part's from flight 93.

If there seem's to be a major coverup that leds to the invasion of two countries that have nothing to do with the attacks, ( most of the official hijackers were Saudi ) but who do have major oil reserves or oil pipelines, when stated US policy is to access these reserves, as well as a VP who has major oil connections, who's stated policy is to create a new Pearl Harbour to create change in the US to access these resources then there's a reason.

For me anyway, that leds to suspicion. When you just happen to have excercises that mirror the attacks running at exactly the same time ( same with the London 7/7 attacks ) yet people claim that these attacks have never been imagined, that sounds suspicious as well.

When the patriot act is brought in the next day as a solution, an act that has been clearly drafted well before hand, there's something else.

It's really a number of thing's which, when all put together, make it all seem organised.

And let's not forget the fact that the hijackers were trained in the US.

Quote from tristancliffe :

wsinda - nice to see a common sense explanation of everything

RacerX - The floors couldn't collapse? But I saw them collapse? Watch the videos - the WTC collapses via pancaking, from the top downwards... So which model do you believe? The full size one with desks, and electrical cabling alone adding many many tonnes to the mass of the building, or the little model which is probably only loaded in a very simplistic way???

I don't claim to know more than 'experts'. I just claim to know more than you. And that, 'mate', is enough to completely ridicule everything you have put forward as 'evidence', none of which you are capable of understanding.

I'm still waiting for your explaination about how structural steel differs from normal steel, or an admission that you pulled the two words out of your anus and attempted to be an engineer for 5 seconds... It would be inpolite, no it would be downright rude (and that's probably a sin in your religion, and you won't want to do that, so I guess you'll answer eventually) just to ignore my frequent requests for a response.

NIST official report that STATES that pancaking wasn't possible.

Next theory please, no matter what you saw or not.

My theory explains this, whether you like it or not ......

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Next theory please, no matter what you saw or not.

My theory explains this, whether you like it or not ......

You say that as if your theory has no questionable aspects to it. The fact remains, however, that your theory also has many unexplainable parts too.

Also, I really, TRULY doubt that that scale test could come close to reproducing the actual situations that the two towers were placed in. Things to keep in mind are:

1. The floor was severely damaged when the plane hit. This would have shortened the time it would have withstood the fire.

2. The fireproofing was knocked off of some spots as a result of the impact, which would have shortened the time it would have withstood the fire.

I also do not understand exactly how much this proves. The report states that pancaking was not possible, but the buildings did not collapse as a RESULT of a pancake scenario. The buildings initially failed when the sagging trusses (which you can see sagging in the photos of the test in that report) compromised the strength of the outer skeleton. This simply resulted in the top section of the building falling and crushing the remaining part. Pancaking did not really occur. So I don't even see how this is that relevant.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Next theory please, no matter what you saw or not.

What I think you should be asking is why, while ground zero was off-limits to everybody except recovery crews and city officials, there are several photos in circulation of the wreckage being sprayed down by so-called officials using dihydrogen oxide. Don't you think it's suspicious that nobody has investigated the reason for them doing this?

Quote from SamH :

What I think you should be asking is why, while ground zero was off-limits to everybody except recovery crews and city officials, there are several photos in circulation of the wreckage being sprayed down by so-called officials using dihydrogen oxide. Don't you think it's suspicious that nobody has investigated the reason for them doing this?

I'm not stating that my THEORY is correct or the only theory, simply one that accounts for what happened.

The NIST has stated in it's official report that the floors DID NOT PANCAKE.

What's your theory, or any other official theory accounting for the non pancaking collapse of the two buildings ?

And yes, it's highly suspicious that no one has investigated this. But my point is that there are a large number of strange things that happened in regards to 911, and a full and complete investigation would clear these matters up. In fact, the kind of report that happens in any such instance anywhere in the world where people want to find out what caused a disaster and prevent it from happening again.

Shame the US administration block this at every attempt .........

Strangely similar to the 7/7 bombings that don't need investigating ..........

Quote from Racer X NZ :

The NIST has stated in it's official report that the floors DID NOT PANCAKE.

What's your theory, or any other official theory accounting for the collapse ?

Did you read my post? That's my theory. You're right... it didn't pancake! Read my post!!!

Quote from Racer X NZ :

There are more than enough reasons for this being an inside job, there's a great deal of evidence regarding who was running it, Norad being stood down, suspicious building collapse's, strange holes and unrepeatable flight pattens with the pentagon, cell phone call's ( impossible till 2006 ) and missing plane part's from flight 93.

:banghead: Over and over and over again. We really are wasting are time with you, arn't we.

http://video.google.com/videop ... 624447947169635420#27m39s If you can be bothered to watch. It's a Dutch film crew investigating many of the popular conspiracies. The English subtitles are hard to read, but you'll understand what they're saying. And at the end of the film they briefly mention the financial dealings and WTC, but unfortunately don't investigate to any real depth. But they raise a few points that i certainly was unaware of, which definitely require more investigation on my part.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

If there seem's to be a major coverup that leds to the invasion of two countries that have nothing to do with the attacks, ( most of the official hijackers were Saudi ) but who do have major oil reserves or oil pipelines, when stated US policy is to access these reserves, as well as a VP who has major oil connections, who's stated policy is to create a new Pearl Harbour to create change in the US to access these resources then there's a reason.

So you're claiming Pearl Harbour was an inside job now ? What about the Moon Landings, Chem Trails or the African Penis Thefts ?

However SamH just raised a very important point. I'd never heard of that stuff before, and it's damn nasty http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
I'd certainly like to know why this was never investigated in the official investigation...I mean, how dangerous would it be if something like that got into sewers and rivers.

One important property of Dihydrogen oxide is that it can *and* has been used in the past to conceal/disperse post-demolition remnants of both thermite *and* thermate charges, although it cannot be used to halt the reaction. This is why, I think, the wreckage was doused in dihydrogen oxide afterwards. They continued to use dihydrogen oxide at ground zero for several weeks after 9/11, and this can be proven with photographic evidence.

VERY suspicious indeed, obviously.

Quote from Mazz4200 :

So you're claiming Pearl Harbour was an inside job now ? What about the Moon Landings, Chem Trails or the African Penis Thefts ?

Actually, even the History channel now say's that the US had prior notice ( at least 12 days ) of Pearl Harbour, please do some research before calling me a liar.
Why do you think the carriers left prior to the attack ?

I'm checking the other details now.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Actually, even the History channel now say's that the US had prior notice ( at least 12 days ) of Pearl Harbour, please do some research before calling me a liar.
Why do you think the carriers left prior to the attack ?

I'm checking the other details now.

I have heard this as well. They were looking for an excuse to go to war, and the Pearl Harbour attacks were the perfect excuse. However, I've also heard that they were expecting the attack to come somewhere in the Philippines or something, and not Pearl Harbour. But I don't know too much on that.

As for the lunar landings... well if anyone here calls those fake, I WILL be laughing at them for a loooooong while.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

And yes, it's highly suspicious that no one has investigated this.

Damn straight it's suspicious! They use this shit in nuclear reactors, and in the manufacture of both chemical weapons and lethal pesticides such as benzene hexa chloride. To use it at ground zero, in such massive doses, they must have been desperate to cover something up!

Quote from Mazz4200 :

SamH just raised a very important point. I'd never heard of that stuff before, and it's damn nasty http://www.dhmo.org/facts.html
I'd certainly like to know why this was never investigated in the official investigation...I mean, how dangerous would it be if something like that got into sewers and rivers.

I hope your lack of smileys isn't indicative of a lack of sarcasm.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Actually, even the History channel now say's that the US had prior notice ( at least 12 days ) of Pearl Harbour, please do some research before calling me a liar.
Why do you think the carriers left prior to the attack ?

If you can find my first post in this thread you'll see that i do believe 9/11 was a second Pearl Harbour (i.e they knew about it, and stood back and let it happen) But i do not believe it was a second Reichstag, They did not burn down their own parliament.

I've been looking into this dihexy-whateveritscalled-stuff. And apparently in small doses it can actually be very beneficial to the human body. So i guess that explains why the fireman where able to put in shifts of 36 hrs straight during the rescue mission. And it's reported they would get very very angry when told to take time off and rest. Which is similar to the effects of an athlete taking anabolic steroids. But obviously in large doses, as would have been used at WTC its a very different matter. Now i come to think of it, i do remember people in New York having skin disorders and many inhabitants suffering from stomach complaints, lung diseases and even cancer.

Yunno, looking at that site i posted above, it says if large quantities get into the atmosphere it can effect weather patterns, even hurricanes and tidal waves....i wonder....i just wonder if there's any link with this stuff and Hurricane Katrina ? or is that a leap to far ?

Edit: Yeah i guess you're right Stang, but yunno, something must be causing all this odd weather and global warming stuff, so why not chemical compounds ? But, in my defense it is late here, so i guess i'm open to any suggestion going....

Quote from Mazz4200 :

i just wonder if there's any link with this stuff and Hurricane Katrina ? or is that a leap to far ?

That's a few leaps too far

Quote from SamH :

Damn straight it's suspicious! They use this shit in nuclear reactors, and in the manufacture of both chemical weapons and lethal pesticides such as benzene hexa chloride. To use it at ground zero, in such massive doses, they must have been desperate to cover something up!

What's also interesting is this report. -

223rd American Chemical Society National Meeting, Orlando, FL, April 7-11, 2002
Division of Nuclear Chemistry and Technology
Proceedings of the Symposium on Radioanalytical Methods at the Frontier of Interdisciplinary
Science: Trends and Recent Achievements
Elevated Tritium Levels at the World Trade Center��


Tritium, for those who don't know, is found after nuclear explosions.

This report apparently, which was produced surprisingly quickly after 911, explains the increased levels by stating it was due to exit signs.

I'm glad they explained this so quickly, in fact, before any claims were made.

Quote from Racer X NZ :

Tritium, for those who don't know is found after nuclear explosions.

Apparently, according this this report, which was produced surprisingly quickly after 911, explains the increased levels by stating it was due to exit signs.

I'm glad they explained this so quickly, in fact before any claims were made.

I think 'nuclear' explosives is taking things a bit too far, don't you? I think if you stick with 'regular' explosives your story will seem that much more plausible.

Perhaps you should do some research on Pearl Harbor as well. FDR and his administration knew nothing of the attack before hand. The two carriers then operating from Pearl Harbor, Enterprise and Lexington, were on missions to deliver additional fighters to Wake and Midway. These assignments sent the carriers west, toward Japan, widely separated and lightly escorted.

On Dec. 7th, Enterprise was about 200 miles west of Pearl and inbound to Pearl. Lexington was 400 miles to the west and heading for Midway.

"OK, but they were still out of port!"

Yes, but Enterprise was doing her best to get back into Pearl. Her first ETA was Saturday evening, but a storm delayed her. The next time set was 7 AM, 55 minutes before the attack started, but that proved too optimistic as well. She was, however, close enough to Pearl to send her aircraft ahead to land at Ford Island, and some of them were shot down by friendly fire.

What really crushes the "carriers hustled out of port" myth is the fact that Enterprise was scheduled to be in port on Dec. 6th and 7th, as shown in the Employment Schedule promulgated in August, '41. No orders were ever recieved to change this. The mission to Wake was planned to coincide with the original schedule so that it would not be known that the island had recieved additional air support. The trip was kept secret, even the loading of the planes had a "cover story".

Sorry one conspiracy theory at a time detective.