By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General Discussion - 9/11 was a conspiracy not a conspiracy theory

 

Do you believe the USA government was involved in 9/11?

Yes 181 40.58%
 
No 201 45.07%
 
Maybe 61 13.68%
 
Total:443
spdk1 on 20 June 2011

For those who keep posting Loose Change as a "credible source" it's funny that the movie has been re-edited what like 6 times due to glaring factual inaccuracies like claiming a B-52 hit the Empire State building, when in face a VERY small B-25 did it, and that's the tip of the iceberg. this site is basically awesome at making that whole movie look like total garbage.

http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/

Also Zeitgeist...lol

I never made it past the first 20 minutes when they claimed that all religions had the same story as Jesus then proceeded to twist historical facts around into a fun little fantasy package.

the best was the lengthy assertion that Horus was born of "a virgin mother" despite a quick recollection knowledge of middle school level ancient history coupled with a trip to Wikipedia (just to be sure) reminded me that he was born of Isis and Osiris...there are even a separate set of myths where he had different parents....yeah TWO parents.

If i am to trust a movie that claims to be some sort of esoteric "secret knowledge" of how things work, I'd like it not to get debunked from a simple search of wikipedia. then I found this:

http://conspiracies.skepticproject.com/articles/zeitgeist/



VGChartz PS3 Trophy League

The Official Pro Wrestling Thread

  
Around the Network
spdk1 on 20 June 2011
Porcupine_I said:
Yakuzaice said:

I know I said I didn't want to argue this, but I just need to clear up another thing.  Thermite is not an explosive.  If people were hearing explosions it wasn't thermite.  Also I'd like to see what kind of enclosure this thermite was in that could survive planes hitting at 800-1000 km/h as well as fires for an hour or more, and not have the thermite react immediately.

It was obviously made of unobtanium

some people think that they were holographic planes



VGChartz PS3 Trophy League

The Official Pro Wrestling Thread

  
Porcupine_I on 20 June 2011
sethnintendo said:
ArnoldRimmer said:
Porcupine_I said:
I don't know why conspiracy theories always have to be so complicated!

if the government was involved in ANY way, i would picture it like this:

"Mister President we have information about a planned Terrorist attack on the United States"

"Terrorist attack? Bombs huh? Well, i was looking for a excuse to wage war anyway, we stand down and let them do their thing and see what happens"

*WTC goes down*

WTF i didn't expect THAT!

That's actually pretty close to what I believe happened.

I don't think the US administration actually planned or carried out the attacks. But the list of oddities surrounding 9/11 is indeed just endless. Sure, as with every conspiracy theory, there is a somewhat plausible alternative explanation for everything. But the oddities are so numerous that I just can't believe the official version is really 100% true. The whole 9/11 commission for example appears like it was never actually supposed to reveal the truth: They got very few money, were not even allowed to interview the terrorist suspects, and Rumsfeld even warned them not to dig too deep. And every single sentence that went into the commission report had to be approved by ALL members of that commission, so "control" over a single member of the commission would have been enough to remove just any unwanted sentence from the report. (That's for example why there is not a single word about WTC 7 in the report)

I really think the US administration did not tell us the full truth. Personally I think high people in the US administration knew about the attacks, but decided to simply let it happen as it seemed such a great opportunity to convince the public for a looong stay in the middle east. Maybe they even decided to clear some small obstacles that might have ruined the terroris attacks - like sending the NORAD planes far away on that day, even though they had been warned about upcoming airplane attacks by multiple credible sources only weeks ago.

I am pretty much in the same boat as you guys.  While I think there was some involvement; I am not sure how much.  The government could have simply known it was about to happen and let it happen (aka Pearl Harbor).   The USA has been driven into many wars under false pretenses.  Vietnam War, 2nd Iraq War, Spanish-American War are all wars started because of misinformation/ false attacks.  Just going by history it doesn't prove too good of a track record for the USA.  USA citizens have been lied to many times to justify going to war, yet the public keeps falling for it.  It doesn't help much now that the media is pretty much in bed with the Pentagon.  They drool over whatever information the Pentagon gives them without second guessing.  The drum beat for the 2nd Iraq War was insane.  It was obvious the USA government was going to go to war no matter what and the media was right behind him.  Once the war started you had famous "reporters" on Fox News pretty much saying it is time to shut up,you are unpatriotic, etc.. if you are second guessing the war.  When in actuality they were the most patriotic people for wanting to make sure that the war was right to send USA troops there.

let me just state for the record, that our boats are not even in sight of each other.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

SosusOCR on 20 June 2011

Notice how its always conspiracy theorists that always dredge this shit up as if to remind the sane people that they still are around and want answers. And regardless of those answers they are never happy and always look for even more preposterous explanations to those answers.

I'm all for keeping an open mind but its a two way street, you want me to read what your saying then accept the fact you might be wrong and maybe 9/11 was caused by a bunch of pissed off terrorists looking to kill as many Americans as possible.






sethnintendo on 20 June 2011
outlawauron said:
Asks a question yet puts a definitive answer in the thread title?

Good work.

Well there are still tons of unanswered questions to me.  The USA government response was pretty vague on what "actually happened".   Maybe if the USA government did a more in depth analysis and explained all the anomalies I wouldn't have so many questions.  I know you will probably just come back and be like all the questions have been answered you just refuse to accept them.  Technically not all the issues with the 9/11 events have been fully explained and "debunked".



Around the Network
sethnintendo on 20 June 2011
Porcupine_I said:
sethnintendo said:

I am pretty much in the same boat as you guys.  While I think there was some involvement; I am not sure how much.  The government could have simply known it was about to happen and let it happen (aka Pearl Harbor).   The USA has been driven into many wars under false pretenses.  Vietnam War, 2nd Iraq War, Spanish-American War are all wars started because of misinformation/ false attacks.  Just going by history it doesn't prove too good of a track record for the USA.  USA citizens have been lied to many times to justify going to war, yet the public keeps falling for it.  It doesn't help much now that the media is pretty much in bed with the Pentagon.  They drool over whatever information the Pentagon gives them without second guessing.  The drum beat for the 2nd Iraq War was insane.  It was obvious the USA government was going to go to war no matter what and the media was right behind him.  Once the war started you had famous "reporters" on Fox News pretty much saying it is time to shut up,you are unpatriotic, etc.. if you are second guessing the war.  When in actuality they were the most patriotic people for wanting to make sure that the war was right to send USA troops there.

let me just state for the record, that our boats are not even in sight of each other.

Fine by me.  Wouldn't you at least agree the USA has been duped into going to war a decent amount?  I can think of at least 4 wars myself that USA had no business fighting in but based on certain events we were drawn into them.



sethnintendo on 20 June 2011
Tony_Stark said:
sethnintendo said:
Yakuzaice said:
sethnintendo said:

Or maybe they made it so "complex" so that anyone that had questions could be then made as a fool, idiot, etc...  It isn't like a thousand people were directly involved.   They could have been involved and not even known it.   I already gave instances like the Manhattan Project and tank development during WW1 where numerous people were involved that didn't have the slightest clue what they were actually helping make. 

Anyways, I would probably sit back and be able to take "what really happened" as the decent truth if it wasn't the fact of so many things.  How the hell does the WTC collapse within 1 hour and the other 2 hours.

The big difference with the Manhattan Project is they didn't drop the nuclear bomb on New York and then keep it a secret for a decade.

What is hard to understand?  The South tower was hit about 15 floors lower than the North tower.  That would put more than double the amount of floors above the damaged area.  You just need to know elementary school physics to realize that putting more weight on something will make it more likely to fail.  If the plane had hit at the 30th floor it would have fallen faster, if it had hit at the 105th floor, it might not have fallen at all.


I'm sticking with the engineers of the WTC.  They designed it to withstand an airline hit anywhere.  The way that it was built allowed it to take a blow and still be structurally safe.  There is no way both buildings that were designed to take a hit falling so quickly.  There are reports (from the firefighters that were on the floors where it was hit)  that the fire wasn't even that bad and was about to be contained when all of a sudden the tower went down.   Would you agree that most of the jet fuel burnt up outside the towers?  It looks obvious to me that most the fuel was burnt up outside the buildings. 

And the titanic was constructed not to sink...that one didn't work out as planned either.

 

Seriously, have you not heard of Thermite plasma? You take aluminum and rusty iron mix it together, add an ignition source, and boom, that stuff will burn through anything, it even melts through concrete to a degree, allthough with the heat from the jet fuel, and the thermite plasma, I'm sure the concret literally exploded. It's simple physics, the water that is left in the concrete boils and expands at impressive rates, which literally makes the concrete "explode" Then add to that, thermite plasma with burns through steel like a red hot knife through butter, and there is literally no way to put the stuff out (it even bruns under water) it does not surprise me that the buildings fell like they did.

Yes, thermite plasma taked precise amounts of both rusty steel, and aluminum...but I have a friend who worked at a machine shop, and he inadvertantly set a machine on fire because he was machining aluminum after steel was machined, and the machine wasn't cleaned out as well as it should have...and I saw the after effects of it...they couldn't put the fire out, so they put the chip pan out in the parking lot, where it proceeded to melt a huge hole in the pavement. So it does happen.


Okay say the jet fuel did weaken the steel enough.   Do you really think that the steel would be weaken on all sides of the building evenly to have the buildings collapse onto themselves perfectly.  To me it would seem that the side that got hit would make the building topple over from that side.  However, according to you and the official explanation all the sides must have burnt and weakened the steel evenly.  The planes did go inside and expel fuel in there.  Most of the fuel was burnt up outside right by the impact.  That would lead to most of the fuel being dumped or burning up on the side of impact.  I just don't see even bending of the steel to cause an uniform collapse.



Rath on 20 June 2011
sethnintendo said:


Okay say the jet fuel did weaken the steel enough.   Do you really think that the steel would be weaken on all sides of the building evenly to have the buildings collapse onto themselves perfectly.  To me it would seem that the side that got hit would make the building topple over from that side.  However, according to you and the official explanation all the sides must have burnt and weakened the steel evenly.


The steel weakens the most where the fire is strongest, these beams can no longer bear load. Extra load is therefore put on surrounding load bearing beams. This eventually causes mass collapse in the direction of the force acting upon it - gravity acts downwards not sideways.

The actual physics behind the collapse are well explained

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

You clearly have misunderstandings of 'the official explanation' and the physics involved if you think that for a building to collapse upon itself all sides must have been equally weakened.



Porcupine_I on 20 June 2011
sethnintendo said:
Porcupine_I said:
sethnintendo said:

I am pretty much in the same boat as you guys.  While I think there was some involvement; I am not sure how much.  The government could have simply known it was about to happen and let it happen (aka Pearl Harbor).   The USA has been driven into many wars under false pretenses.  Vietnam War, 2nd Iraq War, Spanish-American War are all wars started because of misinformation/ false attacks.  Just going by history it doesn't prove too good of a track record for the USA.  USA citizens have been lied to many times to justify going to war, yet the public keeps falling for it.  It doesn't help much now that the media is pretty much in bed with the Pentagon.  They drool over whatever information the Pentagon gives them without second guessing.  The drum beat for the 2nd Iraq War was insane.  It was obvious the USA government was going to go to war no matter what and the media was right behind him.  Once the war started you had famous "reporters" on Fox News pretty much saying it is time to shut up,you are unpatriotic, etc.. if you are second guessing the war.  When in actuality they were the most patriotic people for wanting to make sure that the war was right to send USA troops there.

let me just state for the record, that our boats are not even in sight of each other.

Fine by me.  Wouldn't you at least agree the USA has been duped into going to war a decent amount?  I can think of at least 4 wars myself that USA had no business fighting in but based on certain events we were drawn into them.

i tell you what, i agree with you that the USA has waged war for something else then the official reasons given to the public, if you agree with me that for doing that it is not nessesary to prep a skyscarper with exlposives to make it fall down after it has been hit by airplanes.



“It appeared that there had even been demonstrations to thank Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration to twenty grams a week. And only yesterday, he reflected, it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grams a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty-four hours? Yes, they swallowed it.”

- George Orwell, ‘1984’

sethnintendo on 20 June 2011
Rath said:
sethnintendo said:


Okay say the jet fuel did weaken the steel enough.   Do you really think that the steel would be weaken on all sides of the building evenly to have the buildings collapse onto themselves perfectly.  To me it would seem that the side that got hit would make the building topple over from that side.  However, according to you and the official explanation all the sides must have burnt and weakened the steel evenly.


The steel weakens the most where the fire is strongest, these beams can no longer bear load. Extra load is therefore put on surrounding load bearing beams. This eventually causes mass collapse in the direction of the force acting upon it - gravity acts downwards not sideways.

The actual physics behind the collapse are well explained

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/466.pdf

You clearly have misunderstandings of 'the official explanation' and the physics involved if you think that for a building to collapse upon itself all sides must have been equally weakened.

Okay well what I pulled from the Northwestern document why it didn't topple over was because

"Before disappearing from view, the upper part of the South
tower was seen to tilt significantly and of the North tower
mildly. Some wondered why the tilting did not continue,
so that the upper part would pivot about its base like a
falling tree of (Bažant and Zhou 2002b). However,
such toppling to the side was impossible because the horizontal
reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would
have exceeded the elastoplastic shear resistance of the story at
least 10.3x( Bažant and Zhou 2002b)."

just trying to think about in layman's term and can't really understand it because I don't know what elastoplastic shear resistance is or how they would even calculate that.

Now check it out on video at 20 secs in:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iwN-koZt1Ig&feature=autoplay&list=PL621A4B03C1169C78&index=10&playnext=10