Printable View
A site about 11 september (my birthday :D ) 2001, says things about that WTC had rigged explosives, which was the real cause of their collapse.
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/9-11_wtc_videos.html
two wars so far, and a global "war" on terrorism, based on a conspiracy,
now thats something big.
EDIT: google is your friend
http://video.google.com/videosearch?...plosives&hl=en
i can;t believe you just heard about this....and yeah u got the date wrong 9 september ? its 11 september haha anyways
look for a video called "loose change" on google video or youtube if you found that interesting....
If you want something closer to the truth............watch Towering Inferno........ it is a full length feature film and closer to the probable truth.
It wouldn't surprise me if at least a half of these conspiracy theories were financed by construction engineers, architects and politicians who might otherwise be sued? ;)
they were all after the insurance.........(money)
like "copyright" said........watch "loose change 911"
Perhaps he'd like to read something a bit more up to date?
http://www.mi5.gov.uk/output/Page602.html
:D:cool:
EDIT:Very astute, and another plausible "conspiracy" theory. these were revolutionary buildings in their design and construction. They were ectoskeletal, so their strength was on the outside and they were fundamentally weak inside.Quote:
they were all after the insurance.........(money)
The concept of electrolytic/catalytic influences is interesting, but not proven in this case.
The concept of "no steel framed structure being brought down by fire" is irrelevant nonsense. All that says is that "no building of this type in whatever condition it was in, had ever had an airliner run into it before" Nobody can model or calculate what should have happened...............it just did!
The building collapsing upon itself is exactly what I would expect, given its design and construction. It collapses from the centre inwards and pulls the ectoskeleton with it.
The real "conspiracy" as such is liability, money and compensation .............. nothing new there?
All of those conspiracy films about 911, were fabricated in peoples minds as part of a get rich quick scheme imo.
None of them hold any evidence of truth.
c'mon, both theories (which are anyways not "too" far from together) bring up dozens of interesting facts, which cannot be ignored.Quote:
Originally Posted by cheyenne1212
well steel is not the only material used in it, (which could be melted), what about the concrete that turned into dust, you know when the buildings started to collapse, there were masses of debris falling out, that covered the whole area for days. if the ony reason for falling is the airplanes hit, and they collapsed because of burning kerosine, i think concrete can withstand very high temperature.Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
I think that "at least" some people from bush's administration knew about the attack(which both theories agree on), and used it for their own goals, which is in my opinion something serious...
Hence the title :D
Exactly, just look around a modern office and you will see aluminium and magnesium alloys. Both substances were used to make incendiary bombs in WWII.Quote:
well steel is not the only material used in it
Today it is the aluminium in the solid fuel booster rocket of a cruise missile that lets our nuclear submarines fire them whilst submerged.
Just look at the RAF bombing raids on submarine pens in WWII, 4 ton and 8 ton bombs. Damage, sure, but NO powdered concrete. Look at pictures of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.........the only buildings left standing were steel framed concrete ones. How much C4 do you think it would take to emulate an ATOMIC BOMB? :eek:Quote:
what about the concrete that turned into dust
If concrete turns to powder and buildings collapse, that means the concrete was defective.
If you want to learn more, then please research "high alumina cement" ...... concrete turning to powder is a well known phenomenon;)
In reality, we have buildings that were supposed to have a life of 300 years and were insured as such. In reality their life expectancy was probably no more than 50 years.
The whole issue was whether the building owners would get an insurance payout (and how much). Also, whether they could be sued for allowing people to occupy a defective building that they owned.
Please remember that the insurable value of a building that is about to fall down is the current market value of its (second user) component materials, less the cost of demolition and transportation.
Actually I doubt if a half of them even know what day of the week it is....... just compare civil (public) servant payscales to those in the real World.....they are not the sharpest tools in the shed :DQuote:
I think that "at least" some people from bush's administration knew about the attack
As for "knowing" I posted a link to the British Security Service (MI5) website......OK they are in a state of denial but....................
20/20 superior hindsight is the only 100% exact science known to man.
You can find anything on the internet.
http://www.jfkmurdersolved.com/bush.htm
Well, I'm a little hazy on the dynamite:c4 power ratio, but I imagine to reproduce a 20kiloton nuclear blast would require something along the lines of 5kilotons of c4.Quote:
Originally Posted by nihil
As for debris flying out...gee, two big towers falling down have a lot of KE, surely enough to send some of the debris upwards. Especially with jet fuel and probably other engery sources available in the building.