Quantcast
9/11 was a conspiracy not a conspiracy theory

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
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’

Around the Network
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



sethnintendo said:
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

So your arguement is... a building can't collapse like that, because you don't understand the sceince behind it.

If someone handed me an academic paper on Nuclear Fision, i'm pretty sure i probably wouldn't understand it... but I'm not going to say Nuclear power is a conspiracy.

 

Elastroplastic Shear Restistance is EXACTLY what it sounds like.

The shear restistance of Elastroplastics...

In this case Elastroplastic Steel.

As for how you would test this.  Math formula, from previous stress testing of mateirals and practical tests.  Which you know... is pretty common.

Before you build a building, espiecally a giant freaking skyscraper you need to test how the building would react to tons of different situations such as, planes running into it and earthquakes.

If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes.



That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.


"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."

If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself. 

Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out? 

The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report.  An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first (FEMA report).  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating (600k is a lot but the government knows how to blow 600k in an eye blink).   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.  They came to the conclusion of building #7 "The specifics of the fires in WTC 7 and how they caused the building to collapses remain unknown at this time".  That is a pretty damn good conclusion if you ask me. 



sethnintendo said:

That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.


"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."

If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself. 

Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out? 

The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report.  An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first.  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating.   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.

 

See, this is the problem with this thread.  Your disporven, move on to another debunked theory, and just keep moving on as things keep getting debunked until you recycle your way around to other debunked things.

All of your arguements have been heard before many times over... and been rejected several times over because they're all contigent on cherry picking and outright removing sentences from eyewitness accounts.


As for why you need to hire expert demolition crews?  You know, so nobody freakin dies... and you could avoid things like electrical fires and shit and so you don't have random small chunks of derbies flying out and hitting people.

Also you know... measuring the right amount of explosives to use, so you don't over do it (Afterall the buildings are built up to what can reasonably be expected.) New York prepares for plane crashes and Earthquakes of NY level, not Japanese level (I believe) or under do it leaving an unsafe enviroment that still needs lots of demolition.

 

I mean heck, it fell inwards on itself, but actually, the twin towers falling was far from a controlled implosion.   You know... cause tons of surrounding buildings still got damaged.

It's why they're fire protection standards were updated after the studies.

It's like your give way bumpers working but your airbag not deploying.



Around the Network
Kasz216 said:

See, this is the problem with this thread.  Your disporven, move on to another debunked theory, and just keep moving on as things keep getting debunked until you recycle your way around to other debunked things.

All of your arguements have been heard before many times over... and been rejected several times over because they're all contigent on cherry picking and outright removing sentences from eyewitness accounts.

"Adherents of the 9/11 Truth movement would use the reverse scientific method to arrive at their conclusions, as they determine what happened, throw out all the data that doesn't fit their conclusion, and then hail their findings as the only possible conclusion."

- Thomas W. Eagar-MIT engineering professor

I think he put it best, they're starting with a conclusion - a belief-based methodology.



Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:

That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.


"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."

If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself. 

Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out? 

The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report.  An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first.  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating.   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.

 

See, this is the problem with this thread.  Your disporven, move on to another debunked theory, and just keep moving on as things keep getting debunked until you recycle your way around to other debunked things.

All of your arguements have been heard before many times over... and been rejected several times over because they're all contigent on cherry picking and outright removing sentences from eyewitness accounts.

I am just wondering if we are watching the same videos.  So after you look at all the videos you see nothing wrong with the collapses at all? 

 

Can you admit that the investigation should have been more thorough?  Should they have waited till the investigation was complete before they pretty much scrapped all the evidence?  The government even switched their stories from the FEMA report to the NIST.  They originally stated that the bolts failed then went to that the fires warped the steel.  So not even the government had their official story right.



"You call me a conspiracy theroist, Why? because i know more about the history of this country than you? Get the fuck outta here "

"Remember that history Isn't the way the corperate controlled media made it look like.Read between the lines and free your mind"

"you can't fathom the truth, so you don't hear me

You think illuminati's just a fucking conspiracy theory?
That's why Conservative racists are all runnin' shit
And your phone is tapped by the Federal Government"

"Now here's the truth about the system that'll fuck up your mind

They gave Al Queda 6 billion dollars in 1989 to 1992"

"But you act like America wouldn't destroy two buildings

In a country that was sponsoring bombs dropped on our children
I was watching the Towers, and though I wasn't the closest
I saw them crumble to the Earth like they was full of explosives
And they thought nobody noticed the news report that they did
About the bombs planted on the George Washington bridge
Four Non-Arabs arrested during the emergency
And then it disappeared from the news permanently
They dubbed a tape of Osama, and they said it was proof
"Jealous of our freedom," I can't believe you bought that excuse
Rocking a motherfucking flag don't make you a hero
Word to Ground Zero
The Devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th
The New World Order was born on September 11"

"I don't think Bush did it, 'cause he isn't that smart

He's just a stupid puppet taking orders on his cell phone
From the same people that sabotaged Senator Wellstone
The military industry got it poppin' and lockin'
Looking for a way to justify the Wolfowitz Doctrine
And as a matter of fact, Rumsfeld, now that I think back
Without 9/11, you couldn't have a war in Iraq
Or a Defense budget of world conquest proportions
Kill freedom of speech and revoke the right to abortions
Tax cut extortion, a blessing to the wealthy and wicked"

"And Dick Cheney, you fucking leech, tell them your plans

About building your pipelines through Afghanistan
And how Israeli troops trained the Taliban in Pakistan
You might have some house niggas fooled, but I understand
Colonialism is sponsored by corporations
That's why Halliburton gets paid to rebuild nations
Tell me the truth, I don't scare into paralysis
I know the CIA saw Bin Laden on dialysis
In '98 when he was Top Ten for the FBI
Government ties is really why the Government lies
Read it yourself instead of asking the Government why
'Cause then the Cause of Death will cause the propaganda to die.."

-Immortal Technique 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3u3JSEqNtlg



sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:

That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.


"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."

If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself. 

Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out? 

The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report.  An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first.  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating.   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.

 

See, this is the problem with this thread.  Your disporven, move on to another debunked theory, and just keep moving on as things keep getting debunked until you recycle your way around to other debunked things.

All of your arguements have been heard before many times over... and been rejected several times over because they're all contigent on cherry picking and outright removing sentences from eyewitness accounts.

I am just wondering if we are watching the same videos.  So after you look at all the videos you see nothing wrong with the collapses at all? 

 

Can you admit that the investigation should have been more thorough?  Should they have waited till the investigation was complete before they pretty much scrapped all the evidence?  The government even switched their stories from the FEMA report to the NIST.  They originally stated that the bolts failed then went to that the fires warped the steel.  So not even the government had their official story right.


I think that the case should have been kept open... but why waste all the tax payers dollars when its basically an open and shut case?

And no, there isnt anything wrong with the collapses... they are definatly not controlled. You can tell that from the puffs of dust alone. it goes from high to low as the building falls not expells from the bottom like controlled demos.



sethnintendo said:
Kasz216 said:
sethnintendo said:

That wasn't my argument... I was merely pointing out that I didn't understand exactly what the sentence "because the horizontal reaction to the rate of angular momentum of the upper part would have exceeded the elasto plastic shear resistance of the story at least 10.3x" meant.


"If you CAN'T gurantee it will implode on itself rather then tip over... you don't get to build... cause you know, otherwise your basically going to play city dominoes."

If your statement was correct then why would we need expert demolition crews to demolish buildings? If all buildings that fail would just "implode" on itself. 

Did you even watch the clip referring to the South tower? So the top part went from an angle of 20 or so degree and then straighten itself out? 

The government couldn't even get their story right with the FEMA report.  An amazing $600,000 was spent to investigate it at first.  So the biggest attacks on USA soil and the government barely spends any money investigating.   They pretty much destroyed all the evidence before any investigation could be completed.

 

See, this is the problem with this thread.  Your disporven, move on to another debunked theory, and just keep moving on as things keep getting debunked until you recycle your way around to other debunked things.

All of your arguements have been heard before many times over... and been rejected several times over because they're all contigent on cherry picking and outright removing sentences from eyewitness accounts.

I am just wondering if we are watching the same videos.  So after you look at all the videos you see nothing wrong with the collapses at all? 

 

Can you admit that the investigation should have been more thorough?  Should they have waited till the investigation was complete before they pretty much scrapped all the evidence?  The government even switched their stories from the FEMA report to the NIST.  They originally stated that the bolts failed then went to that the fires warped the steel.  So not even the government had their official story right.

Yes.  There was nothing wrong or suspisous about the collapse at all.... so long as you ignore the guy spouting nonsense and just look at the buildings collapse... which look nothing like controlled implosions.

Should the investigations have been more thorough?  Well no.  Hell investigations are still going on by structural engineers...

who all agree it was the plane and the fires.

 

The question isn't "WHAT DESTROYED THE TWIN TOWERS"


It's "EXACTLY HOW DID THE TWIN TOWERS GET DESTROYED BY THE PLANES."


The offical story didn't change.  What no doubt your conspiracy theory friends likely ignored is that in fact the Fema report DID find that the steel was warped by the fire.

They just thought the bolts failing due to the fire was more important to the collapse.

The NIST report says the steel warped by the fire was more important then the bolts failing.

Same story, different thoughts on which situation caused the other and which was at fault.

Both happened.

 

The FEMA study was looking for an explination and the NIST the chain of events.