9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

gbee

4leto wrote: »

You have to give O Bin Laden credit foe that

Thanks from : George Walker Bush and George Herbert Walker Bush

4leto

Cali Witty Vampire wrote: »

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.

I consider most conspiracy theory to be moronic as to why you listed it in your quote


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

It doesn't have to be, but these events happened in my lifetime I remember them and why on Earth would the loon Bush and his Neo Cons need 9/11 to attack the middle east, there are easier ways then killing their own citizens.



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.

Why would a black ops people be trained in controlled demolition, more trained in very messy demolition, that's just logic.

.

Edit I don't know what went wrong there

Conspiracy nuts tell me

Wertz

As reagrds WTC 7, you'd have to wonder why[edit] when it comes to demolishing large buildings [end edit] demolition teams bother with all those months of preparation, charge rigging and drilling when they could just knock out a few strategic support columns of a morning, put a match to the place and have it in a nice pile of smouldering steel and concrete by tea time for next to no cost or effort.
In something as disorderly as a fire, how the hell does it lead to a one-off total collapse, not a partial collapse followed by secondary and/or total collapse, or a collapse toward one or more sides (possibly where there is more impact damage), not simply a collapse with no resistance underneath as the building falls? It's a steel and concrete building, not a house of cards
The tennants of said building and the sensitive and potentially damaging data lost during the collapse is enough to set alarm bells ringing, never mind any insurance payout for the owner.

The whole problem with taking down WTC 7 is you need a diversion, a way to clear the surrounding area and not arouse suspicion about why it collapsed and to do that you either have to blow up the twin towers yourself OR be damn sure the hijacked planes, that you allowed to get as far as they did, manage to do the job.
Or a bit of both.
So you can't just say WTC 7 was done on it's own...it's all or nothing, and that's my only problem with it...the bigger and more complex it gets the tougher it is to believe that it was all pulled off with such brutal elegance.

Penn

niallo27 wrote: »

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

They would have had fireproofing, but in accordance with fire regulations at the time, not todays standards. And yes, the fires would probably have been hot enough to weaken the steel, coupled with the fact that they burned for 7 hours with little to no attempt to put them out.

We have a 9/11 forum which is a sub-forum of Conspiracy Theories if you're interested.

niallo27

Barrington wrote: »

They would have had fireproofing, but in accordance with fire regulations at the time, not todays standards. And yes, the fires would probably have been hot enough to weaken the steel, coupled with the fact that they burned for 7 hours with little to no attempt to put them out.

We have a 9/11 forum which is a sub-forum of Conspiracy Theories if you're interested.

I know we might be going around in circles a bit, but my point is i have seen building being left to burn out as they were unstoppable, huge building higher than building 7 and none of these have fallen. I dont think fire is hot enough to weaken steel, this has to be factored in when building any large structure.

marco_polo

niallo27 wrote: »

I know we might be going around in circles a bit, but my point is i have seen building being left to burn out as they were unstoppable, huge building higher than building 7 and none of these have fallen. I dont think fire is hot enough to weaken steel, this has to be factored in when building any large structure.

These structural engineers seem to think it can, but then they are probably in on it too..

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf

My name is URL

niallo27 wrote: »

I know we might be going around in circles a bit, but my point is i have seen building being left to burn out as they were unstoppable, huge building higher than building 7 and none of these have fallen. I dont think fire is hot enough to weaken steel, this has to be factored in when building any large structure.

It definitely can be hot enough to weaken steel!! I watched a large hay filled barn close to my home burn down a couple of years ago. The fire crew allowed it to burn itself out a good bit before attempting to tackle the flames.. the support beams were absolutely mangled by the end of it, and the only weight they were bearing was a flimsy galvanised roof.

niallo27

My name is URL wrote: »

It definitely can be hot enough to weaken steel!! I watched a large hay filled barn close to my home burn down a couple of years ago. The fire crew allowed it to burn itself out a good bit before attempting to tackle the flames.. the support beams were absolutely mangled by the end of it, and the only weight they were bearing was a flimsy galvanised roof.

Yes but you cant compare a hay barn with a high rise building, shouldnt fire destroy all high rise building so if it is hot enough to weaken steel

niallo27

Im not saying anyone is wrong here, just having read a lot about it, im not convinced about building 7

epgc3fyqirnbsx

I cannot believe any of these conspiracies for the simple reason of human nature and the inabilty for such a large number of people to keep such a huge secret. Impossible. Nonsense.

gbee

Gunnar Calm Locket wrote: »

I cannot believe any of these conspiracies for the simple reason of human nature and the inabilty for such a large number of people to keep such a huge secret. Impossible. Nonsense.

NASA. USAF. [?]

orourkeda

While I wouldnlt go as far as to say that 9\11 was a set up or conspiracy, I certain believe that there an element of criminal negligence on the part of the US authorities for their failure to do a better job of preventing the attack

droicead

so you fully believe a 757 hit the pentagon?

orourkeda

niallo27 wrote: »

Im not saying anyone is wrong here, just having read a lot about it, im not convinced about building 7

Its reasonable to have questions on that particular part of the attack.

enfant terrible

niallo27 wrote: »

I know we might be going around in circles a bit, but my point is i have seen building being left to burn out as they were unstoppable, huge building higher than building 7 and none of these have fallen. I dont think fire is hot enough to weaken steel, this has to be factored in when building any large structure.

None of those other building were hit by a falling 110 story sky scraper either.

It had a hole in it which firefighters described as about a third the size of the building.

Other firefighters described the whole corner of the building being missing.

I think people have a hard time imagining the damage a sky scraper can do when it collapses.

Here's some things the zeitgeist movie forgot to mention about WTC7.

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

4leto

Gunnar Calm Locket wrote: »

I cannot believe any of these conspiracies for the simple reason of human nature and the inabilty for such a large number of people to keep such a huge secret. Impossible. Nonsense.

That's really the crux of it and the more time passes and especially nowadays with the internet these stupid theories become more elaborate.

Eventually you will get someone who will cash in and say he was there in the planning and then it will go on and on.

I think the world is to chaotic to have any large scale conspiracy something always is unforseen.

I laugh at the neo cons and their effort to bring democracy to the middle east (and secure oil) with a war.

When all they had to do was start facebook, Twitter, and invent the mobile phone.

But I suppose the conspiracy theorists will say the CIA had planned all that, Conspiracy,, conspiracy,,

Burky126

It's all a matter of who you want to believe,an official government report on the investigation of the attack with multiple testimonies,references and documentation.....or youtube videos which can be made very easily with questionable sources unable to track down on the web with commentators with loose credentials.

Decisions


Since I've heard about 9/11 conspiracy theories I've been digging around for info,mainly around the time when Zeitgeist came out which was kind of facinating...

...when your 17.
didn't take long to find out that the majority of all the info was hokum and was majorly based purely on conjecture.The simple fact is when something happens,anything can be analyzed to relate in order to create some warped form of rhetoric.

Zeitgiest arguement on 9/11 debunked which is mostly everything discussed here.

marco_polo

droicead wrote: »

so you fully believe a 757 hit the pentagon?

No way man the evidence just doesn't stack up

droicead

does anybody here believe what was the offical line?

Phill Ewinn

Glad I read through this thread. Really cleared things up lol.

orourkeda

droicead wrote: »

does anybody here believe what was the offical line?

not 100%

orourkeda

Burky126 wrote: »

It's all a matter of who you want to believe,an official government report on the investigation of the attack with multiple testimonies,references and documentation.....or youtube videos which can be made very easily with questionable sources unable to track down on the web with commentators with loose credentials.

Decisions


Since I've heard about 9/11 conspiracy theories I've been digging around for info,mainly around the time when Zeitgeist came out which was kind of facinating...

...when your 17.
didn't take long to find out that the majority of all the info was hokum and was majorly based purely on conjecture.The simple fact is when something happens,anything can be analyzed to relate in order to create some warped form of rhetoric.

Zeitgiest arguement on 9/11 debunked which is mostly everything discussed here.

would it be fair to suggest that government officials are not above having loose credentials themselves

droicead

what about the fact that the plane parts found at the sene were not all from a boeing 757?where did they come from?

niallo27

enfant terrible wrote: »

None of those other building were hit by a falling 110 story sky scraper either.

It had a hole in it which firefighters described as about a third the size of the building.

Other firefighters described the whole corner of the building being missing.

I think people have a hard time imagining the damage a sky scraper can do when it collapses.

Here's some things the zeitgeist movie forgot to mention about WTC7.

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

If it partially collapsed i wouldnt be skeptical, it seem to free fall, it was badly damaged on one side would it no topple over, no other buildings around the towers came close to falling and they were much nearer, is there not a tiny doubt in your mind.

Good to have a bit of a debate instead of being called a nut job for asking a few questions

Het-Field

The Jet Fuel thing is irrelevant.

Regardless of whether jet-fuel can burn at a high enough termperature to melt steel, the buildings were never designed to have planes fly into them. Unless you are a verifiable engineer, with knowledge of what such impact would do to such buildings, I will choose to consider your conspiracy theories with derision.

My opinion: Terrorist Attack.

Burky126

orourkeda wrote: »

would it be fair to suggest that government officials are not above having loose credentials themselves

That's an unfair generalisation,its easy to accuse a government body of misconduct purely because they're politicans and solely on the few that only have their interests over the people at heart.

As bad as politicans can be,they're not as bad as the same mindless,anti semitic shrill you hear behind the reasoning of almost every conspiracy theory you've heard about.

RasTa

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

Sheepole

enfant terrible

niallo27 wrote: »

If it partially collapsed i wouldnt be skeptical, it seem to free fall, it was badly damaged on one side would it no topple over, no other buildings around the towers came close to falling and they were much nearer, is there not a tiny doubt in your mind.

Good to have a bit of a debate instead of being called a nut job for asking a few questions

I think it free fell because of the tremendous damage it suffered along with the fires that raged throughout most of the building.

Why do you think it free fell?

gbee

enfant terrible wrote: »

Here's some things the zeitgeist movie forgot to mention about WTC7.

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

A stupid immature summary TBH, if you don't believe then the fire-fighters were in on on it?

There is never one conclusion, facts actually support many fire-fighter reports ~ many of which were debunked ~ and TBH to be perfectly honest, fire fighters are not amongst the most intelligent, they are hard working, dedicated but somewhat simple individuals who have a magnanimous single focus in life ~ to save lives.

Too many reported the towers being demolished ~ these guys are like children ~ if they say there was a series of explosions, there was.

Their follow up silence is them obeying orders, it's not that "they are in on it"

niallo27

enfant terrible wrote: »

I think it free fell because of the tremendous damage it suffered along with the fires that raged throughout most of the building.

Why do you think it free fell?

I don't know, can we be 100% positive it fell for these reason.