9/11 Attacks

namloc1980

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Well, having watched the first 'coincidence' video, the claim about no steel framed buildings collapsing aside from the WTC ones has been thoroughly debunked.

Not a good start. I hope the rest of them are more truthful.

Has it?

Monty Burnz

namloc1980 wrote: »

Has it?

Links here show that other steel frame buildings have collapsed, without the added 'benefit' of jet liners shearing through the middle of them. It's hardly relevant whether it happened before or after 9/11, except in so far as we think that distinction is important. And the only reason that distinction would be important is if we are postulating that the steel-frame building collapses that have occurred since have been staged to make the 9/11 ones look more suspicious.

The key point is this: is it possible for a steel-framed building to collapse due to fire alone? The answer is yes.

It's not a great leap from there to say that is possible for a steel-framed building to collapse due to the combined effects of a fire and an airliner smashing through the middle of it.

Incidentally, does anyone remember this incident?



Edit: just for clarification, I don't believe this is a steel-framed building, but it shows what happens when a plane hits a 10-story apartment block at low speed.

EarlERizer

Eeirly simular or something more sinister?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73qK4j32iuo

I'm trying to find footage of a towering inferno crumbling to the ground in the same manner but no luck as yet!

Monty Burnz

EarlERizer wrote: »

Eeirly simular or something more sinister?

Two things that look alike are not the same thing. Incidentally, the 'horizontal ejections' from the WTC collapse that are supposed to evidence of explosives - why were they blowing them up on random floors sometimes? And how did they detonate one or two random ones on certain floors without detonating them all?

windowgobo

Monty Burnz wrote: »

the 'horizontal ejections' from the WTC collapse that are supposed to evidence of explosives

the downward pressure of the falling building blowing out windows.

saying the towers were not brought down by planes is easy enough, just look at all the evidence with an open mind.
coming up with a detailed description of how they did? well thats allot harder when we are just working from photos and were not allowed near the evidence having said that some-one explain photo this to me

note this was taken before they started removing debris.
plane caused this, did it?

Di0genes

windowgobo wrote: »

note this was taken before they started removing debris.
plane caused this, did it?

And you can prove this?

Monty Burnz

Regarding that photo - I've no idea of its provenance. The beam in the centre (what scale are we talking here, by the way?) looks neatly cut through at an angle. The one on the left of it looks similar, but if you look closesly you can see it's not nearly so regular, with the 'cut line' wandering around quite a bit. The one on the far right is also not as regular as the central one (which is presumably why that particular one is framed in the centre - you're supposed to focus on that one).

windowgobo

Di0genes wrote: »

And you can prove this?

Nope, but i can put up an argument to support it
"The column we are talking about stands about six feet directly over the head of the confused fireman positioned atop a debris pile. A closer look at the column cut his here (pic) where I would direct your attention to the molten iron froth that appears on the inside ‘and’ outside of the severed column. Look how the molten iron (Thermite Residue) has spilled 75 percent on the outside and 25 percent on the inside to realize that any torch operator must stand inside the column itself and cut at a 45-degree downward angle to leave this kind of evidence. Why so little residue on the upper column and a higher amount on the lower column at a distance farther away from the operator? :0) No sir. What you are looking at is a column taken down using a 45-degree shaped charge that begins burning on the ‘outside’ to leave most of the residue and leave a smaller proportion on the ‘inside,’ because the inside is exposed only after the burn is complete.

The second problem for the ‘torch’ theory is all of the debris scattered around the immediate environment that must be removed by laborers before the skilled demolition crew even enters the scene. These 45-degree cuts are very dangerous, because the load can shift and kill somebody and no demolition supervisor is going to allow any 45-degree cuts in any demolition operation; because you waste time and valuable gas resources. The next problem is that you have these 45-degree angle cuts in locations where no man can even reach (pic = at top of pic), as if any demo supervisor is going to send a member of his crew way up a ladder in the middle of the debris pile to make a 45-degree cut. :0) Then you have the problem of all the “Severed Column Ends” poking out of the debris pile with debris piled on top that no steel worker has even touched."

its very hard to PROVE any thing,but its just highly lightly.

King Mob

windowgobo wrote: »

The second problem for the ‘torch’ theory is all of the debris scattered around the immediate environment that must be removed by laborers before the skilled demolition crew even enters the scene. These 45-degree cuts are very dangerous, because the load can shift and kill somebody and no demolition supervisor is going to allow any 45-degree cuts in any demolition operation; because you waste time and valuable gas resources. The next problem is that you have these 45-degree angle cuts in locations where no man can even reach (pic = at top of pic), as if any demo supervisor is going to send a member of his crew way up a ladder in the middle of the debris pile to make a 45-degree cut. :0)

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

windowgobo

i dont really have a comeback because there not my words, other than what does the rest of the picture show? i would like to see the sate of the ground first.

Di0genes

windowgobo wrote: »

Nope, but i can put up an argument to support it
"The column we are talking about stands about six feet directly over the head of the confused fireman positioned atop a debris pile. A closer look at the column cut his here (pic) where I would direct your attention to the molten iron froth that appears on the inside ‘and’ outside of the severed column. Look how the molten iron (Thermite Residue) has spilled 75 percent on the outside and 25 percent on the inside to realize that any torch operator must stand inside the column itself and cut at a 45-degree downward angle to leave this kind of evidence. Why so little residue on the upper column and a higher amount on the lower column at a distance farther away from the operator? :0) No sir. What you are looking at is a column taken down using a 45-degree shaped charge that begins burning on the ‘outside’ to leave most of the residue and leave a smaller proportion on the ‘inside,’ because the inside is exposed only after the burn is complete.

The second problem for the ‘torch’ theory is all of the debris scattered around the immediate environment that must be removed by laborers before the skilled demolition crew even enters the scene. These 45-degree cuts are very dangerous, because the load can shift and kill somebody and no demolition supervisor is going to allow any 45-degree cuts in any demolition operation; because you waste time and valuable gas resources. The next problem is that you have these 45-degree angle cuts in locations where no man can even reach (pic = at top of pic), as if any demo supervisor is going to send a member of his crew way up a ladder in the middle of the debris pile to make a 45-degree cut. :0) Then you have the problem of all the “Severed Column Ends” poking out of the debris pile with debris piled on top that no steel worker has even touched."

its very hard to PROVE any thing,but its just highly lightly.

Or alternatively, the beam was cut during the rescue operation.

King Mob

windowgobo wrote: »

i dont really have a comeback because there not my words, other than what does the rest of the picture show? i would like to see the sate of the ground first.

Why would the state of the ground be important?

If you are following what the copy-pasted text says and that they'd only work on clear ground then:
http://ifpaweb.ning.com/page/ifpa-presents-mike-heller

http://api.ning.com/files/LhWuaT8fHsbZNcFQviq7rZBHrnYUGFPheV3bdBBuU3acEO716*502j6YVQHhbG-MVCTfzH3Vkgn6TP7VM3AEQ3y41Z84i*cy/Heller_9111573.jpg
That image was taken in December 2001, yet the ground is still strewn with wreckage.

windowgobo

or a rescue operation wouldnt be given the go ahead until the towering beams were removed for H&S. at the moment im leaning twords your explanation but i wouldnt be surprised if the people responsible wear aware of the fact that cut cores could be explained by the rescue Operations but who knows.

King Mob

windowgobo wrote: »

or a rescue operation wouldnt be given the go ahead until the towering beams were removed for H&S. at the moment im leaning twords your explanation but i wouldnt be surprised if the people responsible wear aware of the fact that cut cores could be explained by the rescue Operations but who knows.

But that second explanation assumes a lot of other stuff for which there isn't a lot of evidence for.
So using Occam's razor...

Di0genes

windowgobo wrote: »

or a rescue operation wouldnt be given the go ahead until the towering beams were removed for H&S. at the moment im leaning twords your explanation but i wouldnt be surprised if the people responsible wear aware of the fact that cut cores could be explained by the rescue Operations but who knows.

Considering workers in the pile worked without proper breathing apparatus, and worked 7 days a week for ungodly hours completely unpaid, I find your notion that the rescue operation was delayed for H&S laughable.

Just the dogs alone. 2 Search and Rescue dogs died in the WTC rubble in the days after the attack. 11 more were seriously injured.

Hundreds of workers are dead or dying due to seriously health conditions they developed due to inhalation of toxic chemicals from the disaster site.

Delayed for H&S? The buildings had barely finished collapsing before FDNY members were clawing at the rubble with their bare hands.

Di0genes

EarlERizer wrote: »

1.Part of the steel framed section.

Yes the steel framed structure collapsed due to the fire.

2.The link you provided appears to be dead.

Works fine for other posters.

3. I posted the 'documentary' for anyone who wishes to watch it and form their own opinions without me prompting or hinting towards any particular part.Make your own choice wheter to watch or not,it's of no interest to me.

I'm glad you put the word 'documentary' in inverted comma's the concept of that film being a documentary is laughable.

4.I didn't start this thread,I use the search function when I feel the need to,I came by this thread by way of "latest topics" and decided to add what I deemed added to the topic i.e. '911 Attacks'

I started the thread, and the purpose of the thread for posters to clearly state what they believed happened on 911, not to publish a bunch of you tube videos.

5.If your bored with the topic been done to death then why feel the need to keep abreast of their current status?

I started the thread.

If you're not going to go to the trouble of stating what you think happened but instead point at a bunch of you tube videos I'm not really interested in what you think.

May I ask,are you a leading authority on all things relating to the subject,the conspiracy's,the spin,the facts etc?

No are you?

EarlERizer

Di0genes wrote: »

Or alternatively, the beam was cut during the rescue operation.

And you can prove this?

Di0genes

EarlERizer wrote: »

And you can prove this?

Why should I?


The person made the claim, that the beams were cut as part of his conspiracy theory. The onus is on them to prove this.

I've provided a perfectly logical alternative explanation.

EarlERizer

Di0genes wrote: »

Yes the steel framed structure collapsed due to the fire.

Or more accurateley,part of the steel frame fell away from the rest of the structure due to the fire.

Works fine for other posters.

Lucky them,i'm interested in reading through it,however it opens a dead page,my loss!

I'm glad you put the word 'documentary' in inverted comma's the concept of that film being a documentary is laughable.

I've no idea what the uploader intented them to be, 'film' or 'documentary' or just an amalgamation of interesting info for people to veiw and make their own minds up......It's no more laughable than the concept of what the Bush administration wanted people to believe happened.

I started the thread, and the purpose of the thread for posters to clearly state what they believed happened on 911, not to publish a bunch of you tube videos.

Sorry, I'll make myself clear so......It's my belief that the events of Sept 11th are not as clear cut as hijacked planes hitting the twin towers & pentagon,I also belive that alot of the info in the video's support my veiws of what really happened.

I started the thread.
If you're not going to go to the trouble of stating what you think happened but instead point at a bunch of you tube videos I'm not really interested in what you think.

See above,as for the video's, as previously stated, I thought they would give those interested some visual & audio stimulation and take from it whatever they feel.

No are you?

No, but i don't go on like I am!

Now, In the interests of fairness , here's a link to another YT channel (I wont go posting up a load of vids from this one this time as it appears to gall you so) ...

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

Some very interesting vids from this guy, he seems to be an in the know debunker ,so i'm sure yourself & other readers like Monty Burns would get what he has put out there.


.......only ........it appears his debunking theories have themselves been debunked :rolleyes: a right merry go round this 'conspiracy theory' stuff is.

windowgobo

There are so many single things that on their own would raise a few eye-brows. the physics just don't add up in general, im not getting into it all.
has NORAD been disused yet?
or what about the petagon



"The "plane" was supposedly circled around in a maneuver described by pilots to be very very difficult, executed by a man who was described by his flight teachers as barely able to maintain control of an aircraft, flown into the only section of the Pentagon specifically reinforced for aircraft impact, which was also not fully staffed that day. Then the footage of the crash is all confiscated and the frames that are released show no clear pictures of a 757."

Yes the CT is full of holes but its nothing compared to the official report.

Di0genes

windowgobo wrote: »

There are so many single things that on their own would raise a few eye-brows. the physics just don't add up in general, im not getting into it all.
has NORAD been disused yet?

Yup. I can link you to the vanity fair article where the entire NORAD tapes for the day can be listened to.

"The "plane" was supposedly circled around in a maneuver described by pilots to be very very difficult,

Other pilots describe it as a lazy turn.

And the plane flew so low over a 8 lane highway that it clipped lightposts. at 9:30 in the morning.

executed by a man who was described by his flight teachers as barely able to maintain control of an aircraft,

He was described as a decent pilot who could carry out the move, by his flight instructor.

flown into the only section of the Pentagon specifically reinforced for aircraft impact, which was also not fully staffed that day.

What are the odds?

Say one in five?

Then the footage of the crash is all confiscated and the frames that are released show no clear pictures of a 757."

Discussed to death on this forum already.

Di0genes

EarlERizer wrote: »

Or more accurateley,part of the steel frame fell away from the rest of the structure due to the fire.

Source.

Lucky them,i'm interested in reading through it,however it opens a dead page,my loss!

www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Sorry, I'll make myself clear so......It's my belief that the events of Sept 11th are not as clear cut as hijacked planes hitting the twin towers & pentagon,I also belive that alot of the info in the video's support my veiws of what really happened.

Please elaborate further.

No, but i don't go on like I am!

I don't either.

Now, In the interests of fairness , here's a link to another YT channel (I wont go posting up a load of vids from this one this time as it appears to gall you so) ...

http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4

Some very interesting vids from this guy, he seems to be an in the know debunker ,so i'm sure yourself & other readers like Monty Burns would get what he has put out there.


.......only ........it appears his debunking theories have themselves been debunked :rolleyes: a right merry go round this 'conspiracy theory' stuff is.

I'm really not interested in a thread where you post up a you tube video, and I post up another you tube video.

It's a discussion forum.

Please explain your theories, and discuss them.

Monty Burnz

windowgobo wrote: »

"The "plane" was supposedly circled around in a maneuver described by pilots to be very very difficult, executed by a man who was described by his flight teachers as barely able to maintain control of an aircraft, flown into the only section of the Pentagon specifically reinforced for aircraft impact, which was also not fully staffed that day. Then the footage of the crash is all confiscated and the frames that are released show no clear pictures of a 757."

Just a quick observation. I flew a plane once - a single seat Cessna, on one of those 'experience flying' type things. The real pilot took off, took us to about 3000 feet, and then gave me a heading to fly along, which we did for about 15 minutes. About half way through, he told me he was taking over, as I'd lost 1000 feet of altitude without noticing :eek: - I was preoccupied with keeping the direction right. After travelling 25 miles or so, the pilot turned us around, and I took over again for the trip back to the airport. This time I kept an eye on both height and direction (but not so much stuff outside the cockpit, which in reality you would have to focus on a lot). When we got back to the airport, the pilot said that my flying on the way back would have been good enough to pass an exam - he had no reason to bull**** me. Of course, he may not have known, noticed or cared that I wasn't looking outside the cockpit for other planes AT ALL, which I imagine would have meant an epic fail in this hypothetical pilot's exam. Much like if you did your driving test controlling the car ok, but never once looking in a mirror, or even ahead for anything unexpected.

I guess I'm just trying to illustrate that there's more than one way to be a bad pilot. Pointing the plane is pretty easy, same as steering a car. It's the other 90% of it that is difficult.

Di0genes

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Just a quick observation. I flew a plane once - a single seat Cessna, on one of those 'experience flying' type things. The real pilot took off, took us to about 3000 feet, and then gave me a heading to fly along, which we did for about 15 minutes. About half way through, he told me he was taking over, as I'd lost 1000 feet of altitude without noticing :eek: - I was preoccupied with keeping the direction right. After travelling 25 miles or so, the pilot turned us around, and I took over again for the trip back to the airport. This time I kept an eye on both height and direction (but not so much stuff outside the cockpit, which in reality you would have to focus on a lot). When we got back to the airport, the pilot said that my flying on the way back would have been good enough to pass an exam - he had no reason to bull**** me. Of course, he may not have known, noticed or cared that I wasn't looking outside the cockpit for other planes AT ALL, which I imagine would have meant an epic fail in this hypothetical pilot's exam. Much like if you did your driving test controlling the car ok, but never once looking in a mirror, or even ahead for anything unexpected.

I guess I'm just trying to illustrate that there's more than one way to be a bad pilot. Pointing the plane is pretty easy, same as steering a car. It's the other 90% of it that is difficult.

Also

http://www.911myths.com/html/flight_path.html

http://www.911myths.com/Another_Expert.pdf

It's a experienced Italian Pilot Giulio Bernacchia debunking some of the claims about the flight.

http://www.911myths.com/html/giulio_bernacchia.html

windowgobo

ok fair enough but a 757 didnt hit the pentagon in that photo

Di0genes

windowgobo wrote: »

ok fair enough but a 757 didnt hit the pentagon in that photo

It's a timelapse security camera from a traffic post.

This isn't the Jason Bourne movies security cameras don't work like that.

Talk E

FBI said the confiscated 80 or so tapes from the pentagon and surrounding businesses, but they wont release them on the grounds of security. Sound familiar ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15QngStkp-E

Di0genes

Talk E wrote: »

FBI said the confiscated 80 or so tapes from the pentagon and surrounding businesses, but they wont release them on the grounds of security. Sound familiar ?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15QngStkp-E

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/2815396

EarlERizer

Di0genes wrote: »

Source.

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/project/research/structures/strucfire/CaseStudy/HistoricFires/BuildingFires/default.htm

www.haifire.com/presentations/Historical_Collapse_Survey.pdf

Thanks,this one worked,I'll have a read through its contents.

Please elaborate further.

Anything specific?

I don't either.

OK.

I'm really not interested in a thread where you post up a you tube video, and I post up another you tube video.

I don't recall been asked to or asking anyone to post a video, I chose to post the ones I did as I felt they cover the area of the attacks & give reasons to support my veiw on same,again,it's of no interest to me wheter you or any other individual decides not to veiw them,and if others chose to post videos that's entirely thier decision.

It's a discussion forum.
Please explain your theories, and discuss them.

I'm of the opinion and therefore I theorise that a corrupt American Administration funded by members & associates of the Billdeburgh group,the Carlyle group & foreign influences with links to/involvment in/investment in Oil,Military Arms,Insurance,Banking etc fuelled by greed & power put a long awaited plan into place in order to go to war with strategic locations in the Middle East in a bid to gain control of the majority of it's Oil/Gas resources by removing the ruling body in said countries and replacing them with administrations of their choosing.

In order for the above to happen without condemnation from around the globe it had to be seen to have been the resulting action against an antagonist.

This is nothing new & has happened elsewhere in history before,The end goal might be different but the tactics remains the same.

I've no intention of typing up every one of my veiwpoints in detail in one fell swoop but if others want me to be more specific on certain area's,please feel free to ask,i'd be happy to give my opinions
.......and thats all they are,opinions!


p.s.
On a sidenote,I believe recent revealations about the alleged raid & successful assasination of OBL is a ruse to stoke up the fires of fear around the world that there's still an organised terrorist agenda against us all before the next strategic advancement by 'coalition forces' ....... there will be a big terrorist event in the near weeks/months just to elevate the fear and thus renew the support for the "war on terrorism" .

drkpower

EarlERizer wrote: »

I'm of the opinion and therefore I theorise that a corrupt American Administration funded by members & associates of the Billdeburgh group,the Carlyle group & foreign influences with links to/involvment in/investment in Oil,Military Arms,Insurance,Banking etc fuelled by greed & power put a long awaited plan into place in order to go to war with strategic locations in the Middle East in a bid to gain control of the majority of it's Oil/Gas resources by removing the ruling body in said countries and replacing them with administrations of their choosing.

In order for the above to happen without condemnation from around the globe it had to be seen to have been the resulting action against an antagonist.

Yet the Coalition of Evil you describe above, despite all of ther evil ways & means, forgot to tie in a link between Iraq and 9/11....... D'oh.:pac:

Seriously, did you ever sit down and think about any of this logically before hitting YouTube? I'm not saying that there arent things about 9-11 that dont leave me uneasy, but the rapidity with which some of you people go from questioning inconsistencies to absurd non-sensical conclusions is alarming.