Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

Options
1…89111314…18

Comments

  • Options
    #302
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Why was building 7 so weak though, should that not be investigating, building a lot closer to the towers never fell and didn't fall for weeks afterwards, they had to be demolished. Why was building 7s the only foundations and internal structure compromised that day.

    Because the closer buildings (WTC 5 and 6) were only 8 storey buildings - and didn't have the weight of 47 storeys acting on their equally compromised structural integrity. The Verizon building alongside WTC 7 took a lot of damage too, but didn't go on fire, and was built like a truck.


  • Options
    #303
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Why was building 7 so weak though, should that not be investigating, building a lot closer to the towers never fell and didn't fall for weeks afterwards, they had to be demolished. Why was building 7s the only foundations and internal structure compromised that day.

    its probably just how the cookie crumbled... not being smart, but again looking at earthquake situations, some buildings fall and some don't


  • Options
    #304
    niallo27
    Registered Users Posts: 16,031 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Deleted User wrote: »
    its probably just how the cookie crumbled... not being smart, but again looking at earthquake situations, some buildings fall and some don't

    Your probably right, your probably right


  • Options
    #305
    niallo27
    Registered Users Posts: 16,031 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    alastair wrote: »
    Because the closer buildings (WTC 5 and 6) were only 8 storey buildings - and didn't have the weight of 47 storeys acting on their equally compromised structural integrity. The Verizon building alongside WTC 7 took a lot of damage too, but didn't go on fire, and was built like a truck.

    I cant find a list of the surrounding buildings, but looking at the pictures that day, there looked like taller buildings than WTC 7 around the towers.


  • Options
    #306
    --Kaiser--
    Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    niallo27 wrote: »
    I cant find a list of the surrounding buildings, but looking at the pictures that day, there looked like taller buildings than WTC 7 around the towers.

    Here's a site purporting to explain the collapse and rebut the conspiracy thories


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #307
    Saila
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,751 ✭✭✭Saila


    havent read the thread the whiff of tinfoil put me off but just look at the poll every now and again, and wow! there are as many who believe it was an inside job as those who believe it was a terror attack

    I thought it would have been 20% tops, but being the internets I suppose..


  • Options
    #308
    niallo27
    Registered Users Posts: 16,031 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    Saila wrote: »
    havent read the thread the whiff of tinfoil put me off but just look at the poll every now and again, and wow! there are as many who believe it was an inside job as those who believe it was a terror attack

    I thought it would have been 20% tops, but being the internets I suppose..


    I think there should be "do you think something dodgy happened that day" option in there.


  • Options
    #309
    niallo27
    Registered Users Posts: 16,031 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    --Kaiser-- wrote: »
    Here's a site purporting to explain the collapse and rebut the conspiracy thories

    I have read them all man, try reading some on the other side as well, you'll find them interesting.


  • Options
    #310
    --Kaiser--
    Registered Users Posts: 6,461 ✭✭✭--Kaiser--


    niallo27 wrote: »
    I have read them all man, try reading some on the other side as well, you'll find them interesting.

    I have done, I venture over to the Conspiracy Theory forum if i want a good laugh


  • Options
    #311
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    grenache wrote: »
    The are too many holes in the official investigation's findings to believe it was purely a terrorist attack. There is a lot of stuff that has not come out yet. It's also very convenient that it happened only a year into Bush's presidency and that it led to an invasion of Iraq - a country that was not directly connected with the 9/11 attacks.

    It is convenient it only happened a year into Bush's presidency? How so? Wouldn't it have been more concenient 3 years into his presidency, thus guaranteeing him re-election?

    It is convenient that it led to the invasion of Iraq - so if it was an inside job, where the 'terrorists' were ficticious or selected by the government, they deliberately (bear with me) decided to represent it as an Al Qaeda terrorist attack carried out by Saudi and Egyptian members and facilitated by the Afghan taliban?

    Seeing that if it was an insdie job, with all details in relation to it being orchestrated by the American government, I would have thought the fact that (as you point out) there was no link between 9/11 and Iraq (apart from Saddam's public celibrations) would have been at the very least a huge oversight on the part of the US government?

    I'll let you fill in those holes for now. :D


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #312
    OneOfThem Stumbled
    Registered Users Posts: 934 ✭✭✭OneOfThem Stumbled


    If 9/11 was ever going to be an inside job, it would have involved a bombing of the World Trade Centre - thus following the same MO as that exhibited by Al Qaeda in the original bombing of the WTC.

    Having an inside job involve plane hijacking and kamakazee attacks is such a ridiculous idea that it is worthy of a South Park episode... well actaully... :D:D:D


  • Options
    #313
    SamHarris
    Registered Users Posts: 1,633 ✭✭✭SamHarris


    niallo27 wrote: »
    Was there not about 20 building surrounding it, WTC 7 was the furthest away and all the buildings surrounding it were fairly well intact even after WTC 7 fell itself, no big deal i just cant understand how people dont find it the slightest bit odd.

    The following organistations support the official story on how WTC 7 collapsed.

    To the loones who still believe in 9 11 consiprcy theroies, its nothign to just stretch it to another couple of 100 thousand people, to everyone else in the world its another nail in the coffin.

    You could find this out if you googled it. CTers are not interested in finding the truth though, they are interested in their own paradgims and reinforcing it.

    I find it telling that EVERYONE I know who consicously uses critical thinking does not believe in any of this mumbo jumbo...

    American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers the American Society of Civil Engineers Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

    That was just the official investigation. Every team of universities and engineering socieities that have investigated it have lead to the same conclusion.

    However if you do not believe it seems very possible, I think it is time they take a more thorough look at it :rolleyes:


  • Options
    #314
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    @niallo27

    In terms of reliable and accurate scientific findings the majority of experts in the relevant fields agree that the collapse of WTC7 was consistent with what one would expect given the observable damages and fires.

    There is no more too it. There is no reason to believe anything else went on in that building that we're not aware of. To presume something covert did occur is to ignore the evidence. As someone who is clearly interested in finding out the truth the evidence should be your utmost priority in coming to a conclusion. The evidence must be held to a higher respect than your own personal opinion, or the personal opinions of others.

    And the evidence only points in one direction.


  • Options
    #315
    BlackBlade
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭BlackBlade


    Ive looked at it from both sides but cant believe people even think it was a terror attack!
    there is way way to much to say it was an inside job!

    termite found in the remains!
    color of the flames when the plane went it!
    countless reports of explosions!
    a steel and concrete building burning??? ye right!

    inside job to give an excuse to go nick loads of oil!
    look up the stats, a war never started with the yanks unless they were suffering a down turn in the economy!


  • Options
    #316
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    Ive looked at it from both sides but cant believe people even think it was a terror attack!
    there is way way to much to say it was an inside job!

    termite found in the remains!
    color of the flames when the plane went it!
    countless reports of explosions!
    a steel and concrete building burning??? ye right!

    inside job to give an excuse to go nick loads of oil!
    look up the stats, a war never started with the yanks unless they were suffering a down turn in the economy!

    termites you say?!


  • Options
    #317
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    a steel and concrete building burning??? ye right!
    You know that the buildings weren't empty shells right? That they housed offices and that not everything in an office is made from steel and concrete?


  • Options
    #318
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    look up the stats, a war never started with the yanks unless they were suffering a down turn in the economy!

    Except for the ones during US economic booms?

    Off the top of my head - Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Greneda (does that count?), Panama, Bosnia, Gulf War 2.


  • Options
    #319
    hooradiation
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,922 ✭✭✭hooradiation


    alastair wrote: »
    termites you say?!

    Termites with ties to the CIA, dontchaknow.


  • Options
    #320
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    Ive looked at it from both sides but cant believe people even think it was a terror attack!

    Are you an expert on the subject? No? Well these guys[PDF] are and they disagree.

    Just sayin'.


  • Options
    #321
    BlackBlade
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭BlackBlade


    alastair wrote: »
    teHrmites you say?!

    yes yes my miss hap
    but have a look at this! NO amounts of fire burns threw 4" steel
    http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You know that the buildings weren't empty shells right? That they housed offices and that not everything in an office is made from steel and concrete?

    Ye thats true but the only lasted 3 hours!
    some buildings made the very same way have burnt 4-5 times longer and sted up!
    alastair wrote: »
    Except for the ones during US economic booms?

    Off the top of my head - Korea, Bay of Pigs, Vietnam, Greneda (does that count?), Panama, Bosnia, Gulf War 2.

    no no the US had booms because they went into those countries!
    seriously do your homework on it!

    Seachmall wrote: »
    Are you an expert on the subject? No? Well these guys[PDF] are and they disagree.

    Just sayin'.

    well lets just say I seen the fall from all vids at all angles and no letter from some dude will change my mind on what I seen!
    just look at the collapse its a controlled explosion!


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #322
    niallo27
    Registered Users Posts: 16,031 ✭✭✭✭niallo27


    SamHarris wrote: »
    The following organistations support the official story on how WTC 7 collapsed.

    To the loones who still believe in 9 11 consiprcy theroies, its nothign to just stretch it to another couple of 100 thousand people, to everyone else in the world its another nail in the coffin.

    You could find this out if you googled it. CTers are not interested in finding the truth though, they are interested in their own paradgims and reinforcing it.

    I find it telling that EVERYONE I know who consicously uses critical thinking does not believe in any of this mumbo jumbo...

    American Institute of Steel Construction, the American Concrete Institute, the National Fire Protection Association, and the Society of Fire Protection Engineers the American Society of Civil Engineers Simpson Gumpertz & Heger Inc., Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat, and the Structural Engineers Association of New York.

    That was just the official investigation. Every team of universities and engineering socieities that have investigated it have lead to the same conclusion.

    However if you do not believe it seems very possible, I think it is time they take a more thorough look at it :rolleyes:

    At the end there you say every team of university and enginnering society's have come to the same conclusion, nobody was allowed to study the rubble from WTC 7 it was taken away never to be seen again, hard to investigate the reason for the collapse without investigating the site afterwards


  • Options
    #323
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    have a look at this! NO amounts of fire burns threw 4" steel
    http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg

    Who do you believe claims that this happened on 9/11?


  • Options
    #324
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    no no the US had booms because they went into those countries!
    seriously do your homework on it!

    Ehh - no - the only debatable ones might be Grenada and GW2 - the first which happened as the Reagan boom was starting (and last I heard there wasn't much to plunder in Grenada), and the second came at the tail end of the longest US boom ever - courtesy of Clinton.


  • Options
    #325
    BlackBlade
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭BlackBlade


    alastair wrote: »
    Who do you believe claims that this happened on 9/11?

    why do you believe they didnt?
    alastair wrote: »
    Ehh - no - the only debatable ones might be Grenada and GW2 - the first which happened as the Reagan boom was starting (and last I heard there wasn't much to plunder in Grenada), and the second came at the tail end of the longest US boom ever - courtesy of Clinton.

    yes and thats why they went to war because it was coming to an end!
    think about it!


  • Options
    #326
    Seachmall
    Registered Users Posts: 7,041 ✭✭✭Seachmall


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    well lets just say I seen the fall from all vids at all angles and no letter from some dude will change my mind on what I seen!
    just look at the collapse its a controlled explosion!
    So you're not an expert?

    Case dismissed.


  • Options
    #327
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    why do you believe they didnt?

    Yep - just like everyone else does.
    BlackBlade wrote: »
    yes and thats why they went to war because it was coming to an end!
    think about it!

    I've thought about it. Yep - you're still wrong.


  • Options
    #328
    ScumLord
    Registered Users Posts: 28,789 ✭✭✭✭ScumLord


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    yes yes my miss hap
    but have a look at this! NO amounts of fire burns threw 4" steel
    http://www.debunking911.com/cut3.jpg
    I think you'll find that your wrong there, in fact fire is used to shape steel in the first place. I had just searched for the melting temperature of steel but the the first link is a response to the damage done to the WTC.


    http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html


  • Options
    #329
    Sam Vimes
    Registered Users Posts: 21,611 ✭✭✭✭Sam Vimes


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    Ye thats true but the only lasted 3 hours!
    some buildings made the very same way have burnt 4-5 times longer and sted up!

    Firstly I would like you to acknowledge that it's not so ridiculous to think of "a steel and concrete building burning", since there was much more than steel and concrete in the building

    And secondly, were these other buildings hit by planes?


  • Options
    #330
    BlackBlade
    Registered Users Posts: 187 ✭✭BlackBlade


    alastair wrote: »
    Yep - just like everyone else does.

    I've thought about it. Yep - you're still wrong.

    just cause you try and sound cockey that dont make you right!
    quite clearly a muppet :D
    Sam Vimes wrote: »
    You know that the buildings weren't empty shells right? That they housed offices and that not everything in an office is made from steel and concrete?

    just watch the vid dude! :rolleyes:
    alastair wrote: »
    Who do you believe claims that this happened on 9/11?

    you should also watch the vid!
    ScumLord wrote: »
    I think you'll find that your wrong there, in fact fire is used to shape steel in the first place. I had just searched for the melting temperature of steel but the the first link is a response to the damage done to the WTC.

    http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

    Eh no your wrong, steel is shaped by heating it in a blast furnace, fire alone wont melt any more than a beer can!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxm8lB-V2uI

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxm8lB-V2uI


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #331
    alastair
    Registered Users Posts: 19,309 ✭✭✭✭alastair


    BlackBlade wrote: »
    you should also watch the vid!

    I've seen more than my fill of this nonsense over the years. In relation to your molten beam - no-one but tin-foil merchants propose that was caused by the events of 9/11/. It's one of many beams that were cut with plasma cutters in the days and weeks following 9/11. No thermite (or trermites) involved at any point, no melting steel as a consequence of fires in the building/rubble.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement