9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

nimrod86

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

To do with the supposed "Plane Crash" into the pentagon during 9/11!

Sanjuro

Proper question though... how could a government that absolutely screwed up everything it put it's hand to- Iraq, Afghanistan, the economy, pretty much everything it was put in power to work on... how could this government possibly have pulled off an attack on it's own country and managed to fool pretty much the entire world (except those who believe the conspiracy theory) and make it look like an attack by a foreign terrorist group?

Wompa1

54% of voters so far are retarded...South Parks words not mine but...

teol

nimrod86 wrote: »

http://www.asile.org/citoyens/numero13/pentagone/erreurs_en.htm

To do with the supposed "Plane Crash" into the pentagon during 9/11!

That site doesn't explain the photos of the dead passengers of Flight 11 in the wreckage of the pentagon.

niallo27

Barrington wrote: »

Tower falling fast:
Once the top of each tower began to collapse, the weight falling down increases with each floor. To start, you have about 20 floors falling, with each floor it breaks through, the weight of that floor is added to the collapsing load. It fell fast, but not unnaturally fast.

Building 7:
The building was partially damaged by debris from the collapses of the other towers, not to the same extent as the towers when hit by the planes, but large fires on several floors with essentially no effort to put the fires out. I've read about a structural flaw in the design which also would have contributed, but don't know enough about it. Didn't seem like a controlled demolition to me though. And stell frame buildings have collapsed before due to fire, just not buildings of that size, and not having sustained the levels of damage they did.

Sorry I meant when the fell so fast I meant from the time of impact to the collapse,as for building 7, buildings a lot closer to the towers received more considerable damage and never looked like falling, also the BBC reporting on it before it fell, is a tiny part of you suspicious.

sunflower27

niallo27 wrote: »

Sorry I meant when the fell so fast I meant from the time of impact to the collapse,as for building 7, buildings a lot closer to the towers received more considerable damage and never looked like falling, also the BBC reporting on it before it fell, is a tiny part of you suspicious.

But it wasn't just a fire, imagine all the fuel from the plane that was burning...

Richard tea

sunflower27 wrote: »

But it wasn't just a fire, imagine all the fuel from the plane that was burning...

But surely that fuel would have burned up within a short space if time leaving office fires

niallo27

sunflower27 wrote: »

But it wasn't just a fire, imagine all the fuel from the plane that was burning...

No jet fuel in building 7, and wouldn't the jet fuel have being burnt up nearly instantly

Wompa1

niallo27 wrote: »

No jet fuel in building 7, and wouldn't the jet fuel have being burnt up nearly instantly

I'm no expert but jet fuel by itself being burned would burn out pretty quick but if you add all the debris and stuff in the building the fire could burn stay burning...or am I missing something?

droicead

what happened at the pentagon is the biggest lie of all!!!
there is no way a plane that big got down so quick and did that damage..
the parts that were found there were not even part of the make up for that plane!...the only way to prove this wrong is to look at the video tapes from the large building in the vicinity,these were lifted by the cia within an hour?

sunflower27

niallo27 wrote: »

No jet fuel in building 7, and wouldn't the jet fuel have being burnt up nearly instantly

Sorry, thought you were talking about the Twin Towers.

I think there would have been so many fires spread across so many floors.

I haven't read much about building 7, although a previous flatmate of mine is American and he is convinced it was an inside job.

niallo27

Wompa1 wrote: »

I'm no expert but jet fuel by itself being burned would burn out pretty quick but if you add all the debris and stuff in the building the fire could burn stay burning...or am I missing something?

Yes there were plenty of fires no doubt about that, I just find it odd they got hot enough to weaken steel so fast.

niallo27

droicead wrote: »

what happened at the pentagon is the biggest lie of all!!!
there is no way a plane that big got down so quick and did that damage..
the parts that were found there were not even part of the make up for that plane!...the only way to prove this wrong is to look at the video tapes from the large building in the vicinity,these were lifted by the cia within an hour?

Why don't they just release some footage and debunk it all instead of five ****ty frames

Wompa1

niallo27 wrote: »

Yes there were plenty of fires no doubt about that, I just find it odd they got hot enough to weaken steel so fast.

You wouldn't need the metal to completely melt though, right? The impact of the plane would have caused significant structural damage to the point that perhaps the 2 floors or so that was the focus on the main impact may have had very little in the way of weight support. The metal wouldn't have to completely melt, if it's already just about able to support the weight and you give it the extra element of extreme heat, you are compromising it further..does that make any sense? Before the metal melts it loses integrity...

Wompa1

niallo27 wrote: »

Why don't they just release some footage and debunk it all instead of five ****ty frames

Honestly, what do they have to gain by releasing it? People will still cry conspiracy and they'll be showing the position and view of some of multiple Security cameras and possible blind spots

niallo27

Wompa1 wrote: »

You wouldn't need the metal to completely melt though, right? The impact of the plane would have caused significant structural damage to the point that perhaps the 2 floors or so that was the focus on the main impact may have had very little in the way of weight support. The metal wouldn't have to completely melt, if it's already just about able to support the weight and you give it the extra element of extreme heat, you are compromising it further..does that make any sense? Before the metal melts it loses integrity...

Yes completely makes sense but the official report says the towers collapsed due to fire damage and not the impact of the planes hitting, I'm not questioning what you are saying about the towers, I just find the time they took to collapse amazingly short.

Building 7 is the dodgy one for me, that's why I'm skeptical

niallo27

Wompa1 wrote: »

Honestly, what do they have to gain by releasing it? People will still cry conspiracy and they'll be showing the position and view of some of multiple Security cameras and possible blind spots

If I was an amercian I would like to see it, I don't get your point about security cameras, one of the most guarded buildings in the world shouldn't have blind spots you would think

Wompa1

niallo27 wrote: »

If I was an amercian I would like to see it, I don't get your point about security cameras, one of the most guarded buildings in the world shouldn't have blind spots you would think

Security Cameras always have limitations. They can only view a certain distance away.

Also on your point about them saying the towers came down due to the fire. In my own theory there the fire would have been the cause as the structural damage was the Catalyst but the continued stress on the metal by the fire would have been the ultimate cause of the building coming down.

droicead

what do they have to gain by releasing it..are you serious?

Da Shins Kelly

I reckon it was a terror attack that the US had some idea was coming and failed to take the adequate measures to prevent it. I don't believe for a second that the US administration had not even an inkling that there was trouble brewing.

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

Sorry I meant when the fell so fast I meant from the time of impact to the collapse,as for building 7, buildings a lot closer to the towers received more considerable damage and never looked like falling, also the BBC reporting on it before it fell, is a tiny part of you suspicious.

From the time of impact? No. Once steel members have been damaged/displaced, coupled with fire weakening (not melting, weakening) the steel, it's very hard to say "Well this is how long it should have taken to collapse". You don't know how badly the steel was damaged, you don't know how much fireproofing was knocked off, or how large the fires were at each location. The towers were hit full force with planes. How quickly do you think they should have fallen?

Like I said, the was apparently some design element to Building 7 which I don't know enough about, but once it was weakened enough, it brought everything down with it. As for other buildings with more damage, they weren't built the same. If they were identical buildings you could compare them. Plus, I don't think the fires in any of them were nearly as bad, so the steel wouldn't have been weakened as much.

As for the news thing, it's called a mistake. Do you honestly think that if the US government planned it, they would tell any news outlet that a building collapsed before it did? It's more implausible to think that after so much planning, somehow setting up controlled explosions and pulling off everything else, that they would screw it up by announcing a building collapsed while showing it in the background. There were reports that they expected the building would collapse, someone obviously misheard.

I think several mistakes were made by the US government, but I don't think they planned it.

niallo27

Wompa1 wrote: »

Security Cameras always have limitations. They can only view a certain distance away.

Also on your point about them saying the towers came down due to the fire. In my own theory there the fire would have been the cause as the structural damage was the Catalyst but the continued stress on the metal by the fire would have been the ultimate cause of the building coming down.

But how could one video clip expose any blond spots anyway, on building 7, others buildings have burnt for days and not collapses, the towers themselves burnt in 1975 for hours with no structural damage.

WonderWoman!

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I reckon it was a terror attack that the US had some idea was coming and failed to take the adequate measures to prevent it.

I agree

niallo27

Barrington wrote: »

From the time of impact? No. Once steel members have been damaged/displaced, coupled with fire weakening (not melting, weakening) the steel, it's very hard to say "Well this is how long it should have taken to collapse". You don't know how badly the steel was damaged, you don't know how much fireproofing was knocked off, or how large the fires were at each location. The towers were hit full force with planes. How quickly do you think they should have fallen?

Like I said, the was apparently some design element to Building 7 which I don't know enough about, but once it was weakened enough, it brought everything down with it. As for other buildings with more damage, they weren't built the same. If they were identical buildings you could compare them. Plus, I don't think the fires in any of them were nearly as bad, so the steel wouldn't have been weakened as much.

As for the news thing, it's called a mistake. Do you honestly think that if the US government planned it, they would tell any news outlet that a building collapsed before it did? It's more implausible to think that after so much planning, somehow setting up controlled explosions and pulling off everything else, that they would screw it up by announcing a building collapsed while showing it in the background. There were reports that they expected the building would collapse, someone obviously misheard.

I think several mistakes were made by the US government, but I don't think they planned it.

Thanks for your reply, I accept the towers being weakened by the impact, it's all about building 7 for me, I did not know about a structural problem with this buildings, did it have fireproof protection, would the fires have reached an high enough temperature to weaken the steel

droicead

so could you please explain to me where did the aircraft parts come from that was found at the pentagon?or did the terrorists plan a hoax of grandes stature?

Geekness1234

Theres a word you guys all need to learn; "Actionable Inteligence".This means that unless they find their plan scrawled on the back of a knapkin the CIA won't do much about it.It has all changed now though.This pretty much debunks all conspiracy theorists idea of it being an inside job,because without serious evidence the CIA wouldn't risk the political backlash of "disposing of" 19 Saudis.
F###### ridiculous.

gbee

4leto wrote: »

A terror attack and its absolutely and totally moronic to think otherwise.

I step forward to claim the prize of the most moranic person on this planet.

The evidence has stacked up over the years that point to an inside opportunistic response from the Bush administration as Roosevelt did with Pearl Harbour and the Banks did for JFK.

My proof, Bush talks to God ~ sorry this is a sign of a madman.

The buildings were not built to code ~ some evidence says they were NEVER built to code and suffered low occupancy and their licence was about to expire ~ this is all fact: They would have had to be pulled at extreme cost:

Bush's relatives and in-laws owned the maintenance company for the towers, the towers were sold with the most unusual clause attached about a terror attack.

This ended up in court and delayed the rebuilding.

Finally only a fraction of the expected staff turned up on the day.

So I guess I can claim this moronic prize, I'm delighted to accept it.

I'll make one small request, all those who thanked the prize giver, should rush out an get tinfoil hats ... I'll post a picture of me with my prize and wearing my hat when it arrives.

4leto

gbee wrote: »

I step forward to claim the prize of the most moranic person on this planet.

The evidence has stacked up over the years that point to an inside opportunistic response from the Bush administration as Roosevelt did with Pearl Harbour and the Banks did for JFK.

My proof, Bush talks to God ~ sorry this is a sign of a madman.

The buildings were not built to code ~ some evidence says they were NEVER built to code and suffered low occupancy and their licence was about to expire ~ this is all fact: They would been to be pulled at extreme cost:

Bush's relatives and in-laws owned the maintenance company for the towers, the towers were sold with the most unusual clause attached about a terror attack.

This ended up in court and delayed the rebuilding.

Finally only a fraction of the expected staff turned up on the day.

So I guess I can claim this moronic prize, I'm delighted to accept it.

I'll make one small request, all those who thanked the prize giver, should rush out an get tinfoil hats ... I'll post a picture of me with my prize and wearing my hat when it arrives.

You don't win

You're special needs moronic:D

m5ex9oqjawdg2i

4leto wrote: »

A terror attack and its absolutely and totally moronic to think otherwise.

I'd consider this an "Ad Hominem Attack". It's silly to suggest people are moronic if the consider anything but your opinion to be fact. It's quite a weak argument to be honest.

4leto wrote: »

2 Planes hit it its neighbouring buildings,,,,,,,next

Conspiracy theories are nice, they mean we are in the know of some secret knowledge, we are important. Or the world is under control by powerful people and not at the hands of some random acts or events. There is a kind of security in believing in conspiracy theory.

But random events is very powerful and they happen under no control.

Why can random events and conspiracy theories coexist? Why must there be one or the other?

4leto wrote: »

No it wouldn't and black ops wouldn't have a clue how to make a controlled building collapse it is highly specialised work with highly qualified engineers involved.

Black ops could blow it up and that is about all.

And again he lost the insurance case he only got half the value of the claim.

What do you know about black ops? Apart from the missions you played on your Xbox. You don't know jack about Black Ops... Stop pretending you do.

4leto

I just watched "Seconds from disaster" about 9/11

I think the most shocking thing I have ever seen in my life was that second plane hit the tower live.

You have to give O Bin Laden credit foe that incredible daring plan, it has probably succeeded in bankrupting America as Afghanistan bankrupted the old Soviet Empire.

But I can't believe that was 10 years ago