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.
Hi Aard~,
"kilotons" does not refer to dynamite, it is a measurement against T.N.T. (trinitrotoluene). The power weight ratio of C4 to T.N.T. is 1:1.34
So, 20/1.34 = 14,925 tons of C4
The current (UK) price is £15 per kilo ex-works.
A sort of "dead cat bounce" effect? :DQuote:
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
EDIT: Actually "debris flying out" is probably more "falling away from"? If you look at how these buildings are constructed you will see that they all have external cladding which would fall off once the ties to the internal skeleton were severed. How these substantial panels would behave in free fall is rather unpredictable. Suffice it to say that it wouldn't be like a house brick.
dynamite is TNT mixed with clay isn't it to stabilize?
we made some "TNT" in A-level chemistry, but it wasn't tolulene we started with. He never did tell us what we actually made. Guess 17 year olds can't be trusted with potentially explosive chemicals eh?
As a general rule I find most conspiracy theories to be quite laughable. They all seem to fail on the simple question "but, why?".
Prime example here - blowing up the twin towers in sync with a known terrorist attack in order to claim the insurance. Why? "insurance" is not enough of a reason. If they want to claim the insurance there are many easier ways to destroy a building and having the investigation that would result from a terrorist attack would surely spot any foul play?
same with alien abductions...
"aliens flew X ly to stick a probe up your .... why?"
and the cydonia face...
"aliens built a 30km 'face' on their planet then died out leaving NO other trace of themselves....why?"
and pretty much any other conspiracy theory you can think of.
No, both dynamite and gelignite are nitroglycerine in a stabilising agent. They become particularly dangerous to handle when they "sweat", which is the process of the nitroglycerine separating from the stabiliser.Quote:
dynamite is TNT mixed with clay isn't it to stabilize?
Yes, that is patently ludicrous. The "insurance issue" would only explain the apparent cover-ups, different opinions and so on. I think that a lot of the conspiracy theories are also a cover up or smokescreen to deflect investigation into why the buildings collapsed the way they did.Quote:
Prime example here - blowing up the twin towers in sync with a known terrorist attack in order to claim the insurance. Why? "insurance" is not enough of a reason. If they want to claim the insurance there are many easier ways to destroy a building and having the investigation that would result from a terrorist attack would surely spot any foul play?
We all know how insurance companies try to weasel out of paying compensation? Any "insurance conspiracy" would only be to cover up the true structural state of the insured property, and hamper any insurance investigation.
The fact that it was the result of a massive terrorist attack was a lucky break for the property owners. It avoided an in-depth insurance investigation.
Any suggestion that an infidel western capitalist corporation could persuade Islamic Jihadists to help them in feathering their own nests is insane.
A well produced "documentary" such as LooseChange that so assertively states "fact" can be very persuasive but many of the so called "facts" don't pass scrutiny. It's amusing how many conspiracy theorists can be so skeptical of government and mainstream media but not apply that skepticism to unfounded claims posted on the internet. They have come to a conclusion first and then cherry picked and distorted the evidence to support that conslusion.
Popular Mechanics did a cover story on 9/11 myths and later published a book on the subject.
http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...w/1227842.html
http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-M.../dp/158816635X
It was the same people who did WaCO man. They are everywhere. Besides who said the concrete and metal had to melt. It just had to be weakened before bursting into pieces. One would think a few detonators or wire joints would have survived. The spooks must have scrubbed the place and killed witnesses or hauled them off to the same compound all the people on the planes are held in. Probably Blackpool.Quote:
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.
The REAL conspiracy is boring. The world is run by...
The Golf Cabal.
Seriously, the world is run from as handful of golf courses.
That's all you really need to know.
Think about it...
That takes the pressure off of us Freemasons....
Don't you mean "Skull and Bones"????????????????
You traitors are not allowed in our lodges.............or so the "head beaver" has told me.
Please think very carefully as to why J. Edgar. Hoover wasn't afraid of US politicians?
:D
His dresses were nicer....:DQuote:
Originally Posted by nihil
so every one said his point of view,
sure no one can spoonfeed you what you should think, and opinion is just personal freedom.
nice to see that this thread has popped up a couple of opinions.
i think the world is not a safe place as it should be, and we must do our duty to make it better.
we should keep an open mind to the world,
not just to look at the propaganda of whatever media, instead we should use our brain to think and to
decide for ourselves, and no one to decide for us.
for example, i was from the first day against the war on iraq, i was saying that war is just not the
answer, with war you can make the problem even more complex than it is. If we only used our brains to decide
for ourselves what we wanted to do about iraq, or whether what bush wants to do is right or not, or
whether to believe the propaganda that was on (fox news) or not, i think the world would have been a
little better place. Now look at iraq today it is more complex than it was, people talk about civil war,
american casualties, british casualties, etc..
That was just a single example, the world is full of examples that we can benefit from.
Terrorizing a nation to persuade it to support certain politics is not something too strange in history.
We shouldn't just ignore that without having the full view of that incident.
Especially if we look at things in that period, whether preceding or following.
I dont mean to say that the world is going in to chaos, and that bush is going to make a "new american
century" or whatever bush and the new conservatives have in their minds, although i think that something
like that is somewhere on paper. Looking at today Bush is facing an opposition inside america, let alone the world,
and blair looks sorry about his PM period, these are example things that somewhat bring hope.
I told my thoughts, as well as anyone who posts to this thread. thats it
HackerzMaster,
You start this thread insinuating America has gone to war based on a conspiracy. After the links you posted are shown to hold very little (if any) actual facts, you throw out some fireside chat garbage and try to come across as a "fair-minded" individual.
Fact is, you attempted to detract from one of the most horrendous events in US history to prove a personal belief.
As far as I'm concerned, you're a POS.Quote:
i was from the first day against the war on iraq
I told my thoughts, thats it.
if you dont read the *pages* that is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ShagDevil
i said IMO that the two events are not too far from each other in relation.Quote:
Fact is, you attempted to detract from one of the most horrendous events in US history to prove a personal belief.
if you are too offended by the title, little friend ;) i did not mean to insult them, rather than to tell what i think.
HackerzMaster,
I did read your links and all the others that followed. I also took the time to watch the "Loose Change" video. I also read the Popular Mechanics debunking of each conspiracy theory (many of which are in the links you provided). All of this long before your thread came to be.
The fact that you just posted this information May 1st of 2007 clearly shows your ignorance on the matter. You purport to be this open-minded individual, when in fact, you're a bigot with a personal agenda. There's a difference between sharing a constructive opinion vs. just spewing nonsense accompanied by old links to biased websites.
Speaking of which, I have proof that pink unicorns exist
http://www.geocities.com/SiliconVall...kunicorns.html
Also, irrefutable proof that the flying spaghetti monster exists!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vL7FcvEydqg&NR=1
Posting it on 1 may 2007 doesn't mean it was the *same day* i had an idea about the matter. ;) it was just the time or mood to post something since a while.
when it comes to linux, you windoze luser :DQuote:
you're a bigot with a personal agenda
Actually, I told my thinking/opinion like anyone on this thread, but you can think of it as you like.
About the links you provided, i dont know your intention,
but these are bs
This "conspiracy theory" is plain nonsense, as is the concept that there is any relationship between Afghanistan and Iraq. The World Trade Center was just one in a line of terrorist attacks that finally brought about the invasion of Afghanistan.
Saddam Hussein was not a sponsor of terrorism per se. He was too much of a control freak, and he had a minority government. Foreign terrorists are not the kind of people you want in your country in that situation ;)
Laugh all you want...
Saddam Hussein did not play golf.
...and now he's dead.
Think about it. ;)
I am huge on conspiracy, and the whole Loose Change thing is a pile of steaming horse ****.
Carry on.
I'm at work and the filters won't let me hit youtube or Google video so I can't get the link but search for Robin Williams on Golf. Robin Williams goes on a bout drinking with a Scotsman and how Golf was invented.
He doesn't mention the "Cabal"
ddddc,
Here it is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X04wZpqx3U
brokencrow, it's hard to play golf when the only club you can use is a sand wedge :D
Meh, with the weapons humanity now possess, war is only as complicated as we allow it to be.Quote:
Originally Posted by HackerzMaster
regarding concrete burning...
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/29/us...ec37fc&ei=5070
well, this article doesn't mention it but I remember hearing other news reports about it being so hot that the concrete was burning
I kind of follow that same philosphy.Quote:
war is only as complicated as we allow it to be.
Hmmm,
I am not so sure about that. When the Taliban were stiffing the Russians they were good guys, when Saddam was Ayatollah bashing he was a good guy................ so what went wrong? :confused:Quote:
war is only as complicated as we allow it to be.
Then we have the major arms manufacturers wanting their kit tested, and outfits like the CIA sneaking around trying to "extend the foreign policies" of their respective governments?
"The enemy of my enemy....."
Unfortunately we've had that philosophy far too long.
Yeah...............I would have hoped that we would have learned from our experiences with Joe Stalin :rolleyes:
That statement is not about choosing sides it's about choosing tactics. War IS as complicated as we wish it to be. There are dozens of countries the Soviet Union crushed before Afghanistan. The United States is hailed as the unstoppable army. We fought two superpowers at the same time and when we finished that we took on the Soviet Union in a political war that lasted for half a century. But we can't control a militia uprising within a country with the population of a small state in our own union? War is as complicated as we make it. We have superior intelligence, weapons, manpower and funding. Sadr is still alive, Iran walks into Iraq unabated, and Al Queda is using it as a battle front, etc. Osama was right back in the 90s when he said, he will beat the United States because we do not have the stomach to accept a few casualties. This was after the Black Hawk down incident where Bill Clinton esquire, ran from Mogadishu among other incidents.Quote:
I am not so sure about that. When the Taliban were stiffing the Russians they were good guys, when Saddam was Ayatollah bashing he was a good guy................ so what went wrong?