Let's hope you're right, but if that's the case they would've released the Pentagon videos so the whole world can see those evil terrorists..
- Why would the Larry Silverstein (WTC owner) insure the towers against terrorist attacks just months before?
- Why did they reinforced the Pentagon at the exact same spot where the plane struck?
In the best case scenario, they knew the attacks were coming, but didn't do anything about it, they reinforced the Pentagon so it sustains minimal damage, Larry Silverstein insured the buildings so he gains as much profit from the attacks as possible, and use all that as an excuse for the invasions..
That version sounds most possible to me right now..
Yeah, I know that second picture sucks. I was looking for a better one for more than 15 minutes, but I couldn't find one.
Anyway, what I really want to find, is a video I saw ONCE, and never found again. It was video of the tower as it started to collapse. The video was zoomed in on one side of the building so that it filled the whole screen. When the building collapsed, the first thing that happened, and it was really eerie and chilling to watch, is that the entire outer skeletal structure snaps outward from one side to the other. The theoretical explanation for this those failed trusses leading to a loss of integrity of the structure. There is no sign of a series of explosions or anything, the beams simply bend outward and snap. It's a really great video which depicts what I am trying to explain happened. I really, truly wish I could find it but I never could. I'll have another go and see if I can find it.
Look at that collapse and tell me you don't see explosive evidence. Also notice debrit falling from the tower a few seconds before it goes. There's no debrit falling at the beginning of the video. As it collapses you see large ejections of dust, alot of power behind them.
Well, I attribute the ejections of dust to the massive ejections of air that would have occurred during the collapse. The same effect you see in sinking ships - which can be powerful enough to blow-out the hull of a ship. The debris falling could easily be explained as debris ejected by these... ejections. That's one explanation. Obviously there are others, but you can't tell me that this one doesn't fully explain it...?
The people with power are too selfish to let 9/11 happen, they want to be elected for their next term, so they wouldn't let something happen that makes them look foolish and incompetent.
If they told the truth, and said a group of poorly educated angry people managed to carry out a crude plan to attack key landmarks without being detected by the intelligence services, then people would realise they needed a new government, one that could outsmart a group of morons.
Instead they convince people terrorism is a global threat that we have to wage war on, and the terrorists want to kill every "free" person in the western world.
I'm sorry, but that, to me, seems like a ridiculous explanation. Short of putting up a 6" thick solid steel plate wall in front of the pentagon, there is no way they were going to protect a building from a speeding aircraft of that size. So why would they have reinforced it? To "minimize" the damage?! That's millions of dollars for a pointless endeavor. If they were willing to let them crash an airplane into that building, I'm sure they wouldn't have cared if it penetrated through one extra ring.
Yes, it does seem like unlikely possibility.. But anyway, how do you explain the reinforcements of the building at that exact spot, and how do you explain the WTC owner insurance against terrorist attacks prior to the attack?
OK, so you are very coherent. You buy everything anti-american conspirationists invented to re-read 20th century history.
It's a pity most conspirationists do not realize they are used. They are tools.
For example, Thierry Meyssan, father of conspirationist theories (book translated in 27 languages, 2000+ books were written about his theory) concerning 9/11, does not appear on french TV, but on all major TVs of states having problems with USA (Syria, Iran, Venezuela, Russia...etc). He tells on Reopen911 website he is hired by Russian newspaper and Iranian TV and radios. His theory is a TOOL. Funny to see he appears on Transnistria TV, a region heavily disputed between Russia and pro-European Moldavia. In this region he is definitely used as a TOOL to maintain an acceptable level of anti-americanism among people.
In France in 1930's many conspirationists articles got a very large audience (coming from Germany and USSR)...at the end many many people sincerely believed the truth was hidden, and UK capitalists (and jews) were responsible for all the problems in Europe, not Germany (in spite of obvious facts). Conspirationists were repeating all the time capitalists and jews were searching for domination through war...as a result, in September 1939 Germany was able to invade Poland and prepare a very broad aggression while in the same time claiming everything was caused by UK and Poland UK-led provocations.
(Note the similarities...most 9/11 conspirationists theories claim Israel and US used 9/11 to extend their domination through war. Same thing about recent conflict in Georgia. The first conspirationist theory I heard about 9/11 was the day after, when a guy explained 4000 jews employees did not come to work on 9/11, because they knew about it, so it was planed)
And many people, prepared by years of conspirationists theories, bought that tale. Newspapers titles were "who wants to die for Dantzig?" explaining this was a UK inside job....etc. Some stupid tools were so sure truth was hidden and UK was somehow guilty in a hidden way, that they chose to destroy the entire fleet instead of joining with UK fleet. To sum it up, conspiracy theories had a strong effect on war duration, increasing it without any doubt.
I know this seems very OT, but this is important to know: most conspiracies, even if they come from sincere truth seekers, quickly become convenient tools for politics who want to bring chaos and increase xenophoby. It always work the same: it helps to make allied countries not trust each other anymore...and weaken their alliance.
Take the passenger list of the missing planes and pick every muslim foreigner. Simple. BTW, you are misquoting. At issue was the identities of the hijackers, not who organized the attack.
You missed the point. Your man "proved" that the firemen had foreknowledge of demolition. The link you gave contains technical arguments why fire can't have been the cause of collapse. Do you mean to say the firemen had considered all that when they were at the scene? Or did they perhaps use the rule of thumb that says a building that burns out of control is likely to collapse?
Of course, that has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the 1993 bombing... :rolleyes:
Yarrr, let's minimize damage when we're actually going for maximum fear and carnage to start a useless war that got us a badly crippled economy.
What we all have to realise here is that noone in this thread is going to be able to prove anyone else wrong, on anything. If you really want to believe that something fishy went down on 911, then you can find plenty of support somewhere, and possibly circle-jerk over the amazing 'evidence' you've found.
For christ' sake, there was a one-page discussion on whether or not the WTC had collapsed, and that video hadn't proven that it had, because it was crushed instead? what?
If you don't buy the silly conspiracy theories, then you can either ignore threads like these, or be interrogated repeatedly on several subjects like SamH was, eventually leading to a dead discussion and a possible brain-aneurysm.
We can't prove you wrong, you can't prove us wrong. It's all the same with religion - it will continue to exist forever, until an impossibly advanced alien race descends down onto Earth and finally says: "yo, you guys were our bio-experiment 3 billion years ago, how's it going?" which will then without doubt lead to a new argument for the fanatics: "we told you we were created, so those guys are God and we were right"
A comment was made some pages back that "we'll show you guys when the truth finally gets out and it's proven that it was a conspiracy" - it won't, ever. This is because:
a) it's not a conspiracy and this type of discussion is going to continue for decades to come (hurrah for that)
b) it is a conspiracy, but since it can't be proven because there is no ground-breaking, irrebutable, scientific, peer-reviewed, hard-core no-bullshittingaroundthefacts proof, this type of discussion is just going to continue for decades to come (and once again, hurrah for that)
I hope everyone is looking forward to another 50 years of discussing whether a building was crushed under its own weight, or collapsed.
Who knows, an impossibly specific question, as I'm sure you knew.
Why not?
So, other than the trusses between the floors, what supports the floors? The floors can't support themselves. You might say the walls, but it's perfectly valid to consider them as trusses for the sake of analysis.
Any idea how easy it is to heat steel to a temperature that it will lose a lot of it's room temperature properties? Easily. And when it conducts the heat away, the steel gets hotter. Where the bolts in single or double shear, or was the structure welded? Had the welds been heat treated afterwards (unlikely considering the expense)? You don't even know 1% enough to even begin to argue a structural theory.
Did the towers not move when a plane hit them, or as internal structures began to fail. Then, as one floor collapses and causes the structure immediately below to exceed it's elastic limit (perhaps reduced due to temperature, or perhaps because of a single poor weld) then that structure fails and we end up with a failure that is dynamic - a dynamic failure. A static failure would just be when the weight on top was too much and it broke, but it can't have been that as the building had been up for more than 5 minutes.
And a building. It's the same principles in many ways; how forces distribute themselves in structures close to failure (for whatever reason - a plane hitting them, the structure losing its strength etc).
No idea if it's been brought up before or not, but although Steel melts hotter than Jet Fuel burns, the steel would only need to lose some of it's rigidity, as that, combined with the shock of the impact and the weight above it would be enough to start the collapse (which starts off the chain reaction of energy).
Ok, I have read the responses but as I guessed, not one person has commented on the evidence I have shown so I'll go through it again...
1) Evidence of I beams used for the floors which actually held up the floor sections and trusses. http://www.ae911truth.org/docs/wtcconst.php Have a look through these images, particularly the 2nd and 3rd image. This evidence proves that the trusses could not have failed in the fashion we are told. It also shows that the exterior walls were not as seperate from the core as we believed at first. Also, look at the attatchments in my previous post. http://www.lfsforum.net/showthread.php?p=925595#post925595 This therefore disproves the theory that the trusses caused the initial floors to fail which then, supposidley, crushed the rest of the building. It would also be a much more intense grid of metal beams, so to say it crumbled like it did is ludicrous.
2) Evidence that proves steel frame buildings, even with unprotected steel beams, will not fail catastrophically. Therefore disproveing any theory which says office fires cause the steel frame buildings, towers and WTC7, to collapse. http://www.ae911truth.net/ppt_ ... show.php?i=28&hires=1
They are just some eyewitness reports, I'm sure you can find more.
5) Evidence, audio on video, of explosions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58h0LjdMry0 (This is from one of Obsolums previous posts) I'm also sure there are more videos with the sounds of explosions.
Now, with that evidence, I think there is a good enough case to say that the towers, and WTC7, did not fall on their own. Enough to disprove the official theory anyway.
The Tonkin incident is incomparable with 9/11 because there were no casualties. It was propaganda, but they didn't kill their own citizens.
The theory about Pearl Harbour is highly questionable. And if it were true, it was still the Japanese army that did it ("allowed" by the US goverment). To make it comparable to the 9/11 conspiracy, you would have to claim that the bombers were in fact disguised American planes. illepall
I never claimed anything other than they knew the Pearl Harbour attack was coming. But they never mentioned that to the people, or the soldiers who were attacked. So, it was an attempt, on their part, the government, to mislead the public to start another war. That's where the comparison is for me. And of course the Tonkin thing is related. Also like Pearl Harbour, it was an attempt to get the US into a war. Another false flag terrorist attack. So it too is related to 9/11. Obviuosly not in your eyes because you think the US government wouldn't kill their own citizens, I can assure you they care not for the average jo, or should I say "useless eater".
This Pearl Harbor theory works the same way 9/11 conspiracy does, and serves the same purpose. In both case USA face an attack, and conspirationists manage some way to switch the roles, ignore the attacker motivations, and focus on the victim to demonstrate how guilty it was.
In both cases, US gvt supposedly planned or let an attack against US citizen happen in order to play the victim and later launch a devastating attack against people who did not diserve it.
This way Japan and Al Quaeda crimes are half forgiven or simply denied, and USA plain guilty in spite of thousands victims. How convenient!
Same for the Lusitania...search for it. There is a very deep conspiracy theory stating UK and USA did everything possible to have the Lusitania shot by German U-boats in order to enter the war. Ireland too of course, you naughty.
For me the simple fact that every time USA is attacked the same conspiracy theory appears to switch roles, shared and believed among the same persons with the same political goals is very meaningful.
I can't believe that someone, once again, skips past my important posts, to reply to something which is way off topic, I understand it was brought in and I myself commented but it should be more important for you to respond to the evidence which disproves your theory.
Ok, at first I was going to ignore your comment and ask for you to comment on the evidence I presented but I decided to give my views on some of the things you've said here.
I don't know where you're getting your info from, or you're just expressing your own opinion but Japan and Al Qaeda cannot be compared. And in no way am I suggesting forgiveness in any way for the Japanese. Al Qaeda is a different story, I'm also not forgiving them but, if they were not involved in the attacks how can they be forgiven for something they haven't commited? Also, look up what Al Qaeda actually means and look up some interviews of writers who claim Al Qaeda doesn't even exist. There's a former British soldier who was in Afghanistan, who wrote a book called "Al Qaeda" I believe, who claims it doesn't even exist.
Anyway, less of the off topic subjects and back to 9/11. Have you looked at the evidence? Please do, if you haven't already, take the time to look at it because it disproves claims made by you and also others here.
You've shown some pictures, but why can't they buckle? which bit of the structure makes them stronger than anything ever made (i.e. resistant to failure)? A picture of the structure is not evidence of its failure mode.
Unable to watch this at work properly, but it looked like a test of a single beam, not a beam in a building that's been hit by a plane? Maybe I'll watch it at home later.
A building will only fall over if it's encouraged to do so, either because the CoG position within the structure, or the application of a side load. There is no such thing as falling with the path of least resistance without a side load from some source. As the plane didn't knock it over (an obvious side force), what would? Surely downwards is the only force direction (taken as a whole - obviously internal forces are distributed all over the place, but that's beyone your understanding).
Again, not watch, but how do they know what an explosion sounds like? How do they know it wasn't the noise of 'normal' structural failure and the release of energy by other means?
Could they be from other sources? Failure of trusses (can release a HUGE amount of energy - you wouldn't believe how much energy is stored in apparently dull things), normal gas cylinders... Can you provide any evidence of explosives being used?
Not watched, again, but at what temperature does steel I section bend with cracking or buckling?
Then why hasn't it been disproved? Why is there ANY discussion if it's so obvious? Where is the proof that standard failure (natural failure, if you will) can't and didn't happen?
There is no point answering precisely your so-called evidences. Because it requires technical speech and for example you do not (want to) understand the difference between energy and power. You do not (want to) understand how high pressure conditions can make metal soft as well as high temperatures...etc.
Every time you face some explaination you find a lame excuse to reject it. You will always manage to reject explainations, because there is a lack of information, a lack of videos, a lack of survivors, a lack of similar events occuring...some conspirationists say there was no man on the moon and manage to reject all possible explainations using the same twisted logic.
This is EASY for you. You list strange things, and we have to prove it may happen in such collapse. You list, we prove. What is easier?
Every explaination may take pages and involve calculations, and you can reject every line of it as easily as you listed strange things.
That's why a broader discussion about conspiracy theories and their conclusion is far more interesting.
Obviously not, but a picture can show what the structre was actually like. The whole official story rests on these trusses weakening, bending, pulling the walls and evetually shearing the "small bolts", which supposidley starts a chain reaction and a dynamic failure causes a total collapse. So, these I beam would be able to withstand considerably higher temps due to their thickness and design, compared to the trusses. I also never mentioned that they could not buckle, it is quite evident from the fire test I linked to that I beams will buckle from office fires, but as also stated in that video, the steel will not catastrophically fail due to office fires. Also, the man in the video is a FEMA official who stats he never, before 9/11, in his 20 years, has seen or heard of a steel framed high rise building collapse because of fire. The towers held their ground after the impacts and I would put my neck on the line and say they would have been able to stand there like that for days, weeks without failing any further if there was no fire involved. I also must mention that the steel in that test is unprotected, we have no evidence that the I beams in the towers were totally unprotected like these were.
I'd have to watch again but I'm sure there was a few rooms in this office so I doubt there was only one beam being tested. Ok, so some of the steel frame was damaged where the plane struck but how can you explain, after seeing the I beams connecting the core to the outer wall and it being such and intense grid of steel I beams, core columns and exterior columns, believe that it just feel into itself without any resistance at all. It seems physically impossible to me, as I have stated many times. I just can't picture it in my head, I can picture the entire building without any material but steel and it seems unbreakable, specially by itself, a lighter portion of itself for that matter, the top section.
Sorry? "There is no such thing as falling with the path of least resistance without a side load from some source." Do you think that steel loosing its strength would be a force to cause it to tip over? The first tower to collapse tipped over, so why didn't it keep going over? Like the image in that link. It seems like a reasonable conclusion to make. Once something, specially that big, begins to move in a certain direction, there's not much that can stop it. Downward force? Huh? Everything, everywhere is constantly under a downward force, gravity and atmospheric pressure, one thing I rember from my science classes. Anyway, the building were designed to withstand this downward force, other wise they wouldn't be standing.
Ok, the first is a firefighter, the second is a former Air Force dude, can't remember his title, and the third is a worker from the towers. And anyway, who are you to say they don't know what they are talking about? The air force lad obviously knows because of how he explains it, the firefighter chap seems to know what he's on about to. The worker is actually questionable but how do you explain explosions in the basement of the towers? Because if it was a structure failing he would be alive to tell the tale.
I just proved that these trusses couldn't have failed without the I beams failing first, which would need alot higher temperature to make them significantly sag and cause anything to fail. I'm not doubting steel that fails due to pressure has a high amount of energy. But steel which is subject to alot of heat will sag, sag some more, sag more, weaken and either melt on just totally deform from the sagging. Metal under intense heat will not go pop! and released a high amount of pressure.(ie catastrophic failure, as mentioned in the fire test)
I'm not sure, you'll have to ask a pro, or the chap in the video becasue that what he says. One of them says something like, I can't believe this bent without ANY buckling what so ever and the other one says something like, it would take 1000's of degrees to bend a beam this big like this without cracking or buckling. I haven't actually looked it up but I'm sure it's not hard information to find.
I won't contest that governments can lie and deceive to drag their country into a war (WMD, anyone?) I can even imagine that they would not prevent slaughter like 9/11, Pearl Harbour or the Lusitania, if it serves their purposes.
But their is a large ethical gap between not preventing deaths and actively causing them. This is supported by scientific research. And actively causing the death of 1000s is exactly what follows from the "controlled demolition" theory.
I wouldn't think it far-fetched if you stated that Bush just allowed Bin Laden to go ahead. But the claims of the Truth Movement imply that the 3000 victims of 9/11 literally fell at the hands of Bush and his pals. That would rank GW on a level of immorality that even surpasses great leaders like Hitler, Stalin and Mao. And that's just ludicrous... Unless you already believe that every government is a bunch of psychopaths.
Scientific? Not really as the people in question haven't actually taken the test so how can you scientifically judge their ethics?
So, lets say I forget controlled demo and say bin Laden was alowed to go ahead with 9/11. Why isn't he wanted for the attacks? Explain that, if you could. I also very much doubt Bush is actually behind the attacks or had any involvement in the planning of the attacks, I haven't once mentioned that in any of my responses. I think Bush is, like every other government official not only in the US, a puppet of the masters. But once again that is totally off topic and I don't think it's the place to get into that. This is also off topic, so I'll keep it short.
Ok, you still don't KNOW how these building were built apparently. You can't base your knowledge of the building design on one or two pictures you see. I fail to believe that Wikipedia, the History Channel, the Discover Channel, etc... all completely got the wrong design blueprints to these buildings. People on that site are simply saying that it LOOKS like the I-Beams were the main support - but they don't KNOW. They're basing their assumptions on a few admittedly poor, blurry pictures.
A case in point would be your supposed "evidence" in that other post of yours that you linked to. THOSE BEAMS ARE THE TRUSSES! You are not supporting your argument there!
*sigh* I actually have answered a lot of these points already, you just seem to ignore them. This video references a test done on a "typical" steel building. THE WTC WAS NOT A TYPICAL STEEL BUILDING. THE FLOORS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY I-BEAMS. EVEN IF THEY WERE, THE TRUSSES HOLDING THE OUTSIDE WALLS WOULD HAVE STILL FAILED.
I don't understand. I've explained ALL OF THIS in my previous posts, yet you blindly insist that no-one is answering your questions. That video SHOWS how steel can sag in a normal fire. With a normal I-Beam construction, that's not a big problem. The problem for the WTC, as I've stated before, is that the sagging I-Beams placed an un-planned-for force on the bolts holding them in place, which is what triggered the collapse.
That's simply ridiculous. The buildings that "fell over" fell over because the bottom of the structure failed. Small buildings like that are a lot more likely to remain in one piece under a collapse (the ratio of the thickness of the walls to their overall size is a lot greater) so they don't actually break apart. When that happens, the only possible way for it to fall is to topple over. The WTC was much larger, so when the top 20 floors started falling, it was a lot less likely that the building would stay together, so it simply got pulverized. Looking at the videos of the WTC collapsing, it should be intuitive to you that that would be the natural falling motion of the building. If you really believe that the top should have just fallen off to the side, then you simply don't have an intuitive train of thought when it comes to objects and physics.
Video 1: Unless that guy has been in the presence of another building collapse, I'm going to say that he probably just never heard a building fall down. Just because he was there does not make him an expert in building collapse noises. A lot of strange things happen when a building collapses. (He also kind of seems like not the brightest guy in the world too...)
Video 2: Dunno about the walkie-talkie countdown thing. Again, anything having to do with WTC 7 is out of my jurisdiction. I will say that it wouldn't have sounded like floors collapsing anyway (remember, WTC 7 was a solid steel boxed building) but IDK. I only know about the two towers.
Video 3: He doesn't do much explaining. Was he IN the elevator with the guy when the explosion occurred? Or did the elevator explode and he went in to help the other guy? Did this happen before or after the towers were struck? If it was just after, it could simply have been an elevator falling (many of them did). Here's another quote from an eyewitness (maybe the same guy at a later date?):
"What happened was: I was in the basement....all of a sudden we heard a loud bang and the elevators blew open...some guy was burnt up. So I dragged him out, his skin was hangin' off. So, I dragged him outta the parkin' lot...this is what was left on him."
Sounds a lot less like an explosion and a lot more like a falling elevator. And besides, an explosion small enough to not kill those guys is probably NOT strong enough to destroy the building. The building didn't collapse from the bottom anyway.
Again, dunno about WTC 7, but I did watch that video. The fact that CNN reported that WTC 7 had collapsed or was in the process of collapsing can just as easily be attributed to an error in communications. We all know how long it takes to confirm things in the media, such as an airplane crash. You'd think it would be easy for someone who is THERE to just say either YES, the plane has crashed, or NO there was no crash. But it's always a lot more complicated. How can the reporter be reporting that fact while she can still SEE the building standing? Maybe she just doesn't know which building it is!
The video also asks how the media can even consider reporting this without double-checking since it would be the first collapse of a steel-structure building due to fire. I'm gonna chalk that one up to the fact that people in the media are not engineers and don't know what the construction of WTC 7 is, much less the statistics of steel-framed building collapses.
To quote the first video you posted: "People who've worked with steel (welders), have just never seen the level of destruction and the level of deformation of this material in their lives." My answer to that is, well, have any of them ever worked at the site of a 110 story building collapse triggered by an airplane impact? No. This is an entirely different scenario. Who knows what a building MUCH bigger and of MUCH different construction that those before it will do when it collapses? Surprising things happen all the time.
There are anomalies in EVERYTHING that goes on in our world. When scientists see something they've never seen before that can't be explained by physics, they don't throw their hands up and exclaim, "Well golly gee whiz! This doesn't make sense! Maybe god DOES exist and evolution and all of science is a sham!" No! They hunker down and do a crap-load of research and down the road (sometimes not for centuries) someone finally comes up with the explanation as to why it occurred and all is well again!
As for the "meteorite," I don't know. It could easily be another odd result of the building collapse. All that falling kinetic energy had to go somewhere, and it all went into the ground. I could definitely believe that all this stuff was fused together in the moments after the collapse.
I'll respond to the rest later, have shit to do, but this is what I will say about that.
The blueprints for the buildings are CLASSIFIED so how these channels, organisations got hold of them I don't know. Blurry? LMAO. At least they aren't computer generated ones which you showed me. And anothe point where you CLEARLY have no clue how the towers were built. The trusses were NOT installed indiviually, the came as part of a floor structure, with 3 trusses attached to what looks like sheet metal. So saying "THOSE BEAMS ARE TRUSSES" is a truely uneducated, silly arguement.
I'll be back later to respond to the rest, I haven't actually read it all.
illepall