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
CaptainObvious said:
Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), and the World Financial Center complex and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. That's cause of the high heat weakened the steel of the twin towers and other building around the area.

I think you been smoking too much pot. These guys were the first to start the 9/11 conspiracy theories and they think Satan running the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29


Ever since the collapses of the Soviet Union these people been making up everything Bush Sr. wants to make a one world government, Bill Clinton Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, Bush Jr. 9/11 and Obama's red chip and market crisis.

Alex Jones is one of those fools making up all these dumbass things on his radio show.

Here's a good blog about how batshit crazy Alex Jones is: http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
Vetteman94 said:
sethnintendo said:
Vetteman94 said:
hudsoniscool said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlMXkWW_LM
If you dont believe that there was an explosion watch this video. At 6 minutes and 50 seconds it switches to a video that is by TWC. Just seconds before you hear the planes hit there is a clear thump from an underground explosion

Also jet fuel's maximum burning temperature is 1800 degrees F while steel melts at 2500 degrees, so how did building 7 a steel building collapse (like demolition charges) from a fire when its impossible for it to reach sufficient temperatures to melt steel. Explosives such as c4 can reach 3000 degrees. Fire engineering magazine had said before 9/11 that "no steel building has ever been destroyed by fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDCSR3HfhVk&feature=related
This video will show you everything you need to. Watch this then tell me 9/11 wasnt a conspiracy.

this video shows george bush clearly lie about seeing the planes hit the tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

While it may take 2500 degress F to melt Carbon Steel,  it only takes 1100 degrees F to make it lose half of its strength.   So how is a building supposed to support itself at half strength?  Thats not even including the columns the planes knocked out

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=65Qg_-89Zr8

So these buildings that burnt forever didn't collapse but the little jet fuel that remained (most burnt up outside) in the towers caused them to collapse?

Did those buildings also have a plane fly into them taking out many support structures?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78

World Trade Center designed to stand a jet impact/possibly multiple impacts.

And where is there proof that it could,  other than design theories? Was this ever put through a live test?

Being a Mechanical Design Engineer,  you know there is a difference between what is on paper and run in simulations and what really happens in real life testing.  Its not always the same outcome.



hudsoniscool said:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLlMXkWW_LM
If you dont believe that there was an explosion watch this video. At 6 minutes and 50 seconds it switches to a video that is by TWC. Just seconds before you hear the planes hit there is a clear thump from an underground explosion

Also jet fuel's maximum burning temperature is 1800 degrees F while steel melts at 2500 degrees, so how did building 7 a steel building collapse (like demolition charges) from a fire when its impossible for it to reach sufficient temperatures to melt steel. Explosives such as c4 can reach 3000 degrees. Fire engineering magazine had said before 9/11 that "no steel building has ever been destroyed by fire."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDCSR3HfhVk&feature=related
This video will show you everything you need to. Watch this then tell me 9/11 wasnt a conspiracy.

this video shows george bush clearly lie about seeing the planes hit the tower.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm73wOuPL60&feature=related

except Iron actually burns and heats up: http://www.debunking911.com/ironburns.htm



spdk1 said:
CaptainObvious said:
Along with the 110-floor Twin Towers of the World Trade Center itself, numerous other buildings at the World Trade Center site were destroyed or badly damaged, including 7 World Trade Center, 6 World Trade Center, 5 World Trade Center, 4 World Trade Center, the Marriott World Trade Center (3 WTC), and the World Financial Center complex and St. Nicholas Greek Orthodox Church. That's cause of the high heat weakened the steel of the twin towers and other building around the area.

I think you been smoking too much pot. These guys were the first to start the 9/11 conspiracy theories and they think Satan running the United States. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_World_Order_%28conspiracy_theory%29


Ever since the collapses of the Soviet Union these people been making up everything Bush Sr. wants to make a one world government, Bill Clinton Oklahoma City bombing conspiracy theories, Bush Jr. 9/11 and Obama's red chip and market crisis.

Alex Jones is one of those fools making up all these dumbass things on his radio show.

Here's a good blog about how batshit crazy Alex Jones is: http://leavingalexjonestown.blogspot.com/

Even I will admit some of the things Alex Jones talks about is pretty crazy.  However, some of things he talks about aren't too crazy.  I remember when he went to London (talking about state sponsored terrorism) and tried to do free speech near the parliament or some government building.  He was pretty much kicked out of the site.  Some of his points are valid.  Like loss of free speech/freedoms.  London to me looked like a police state after seeing the billions of cameras, areas that don't allow free speech, etc..



MrBubbles said:
Onibaka said:
sethnintendo said:
HappySqurriel said:
sethnintendo said:
HappySqurriel said:
Every time I see 911-truther's arguments I realize how bad the American education system is ...

First off, much like how cars are engineered with crashes in mind, when large towers are designed there is a considerable effort put towards managing how the building will fail. Being that you don't want a 100 story building to tip over and spread its destruction over many blocks, most of these buildings are designed to collapse inwards and fall ontop of itself.

Secondly, being that the weight of materials on tall towers is the primary stress on these buildings they're designed with a relatively small margin of error. When you (effectively) have the weight of dozens of floors falling 1 story because the structure beneath it has given way due to a fire damaging the structural integrity of the building, the force is so much greater than what the building can handle that every story will collapse as they experience this force.

Okay thanks for the unintelligent remark..  I thought Mr. Bubbles had that covered.  Anyways, I have heard those statements before.  I could correlate that was what happened except that apparently most of the jet fuel burnt up outside.  There is a flash before the plane even hits the building.  There are unknown huge things underneath the fuselage that are never on commercial flights (people at airport would have recognize them).  Witnesses said that the plane wasn't an American Airlines plane (didn't have markings).   How did the terrorist with little flight training pull of maneuvers that even trained pilots admit is impossible for inexperienced pilots to preform?

Can you explain all that too?  How about explaining the pentagon crash and why there was such little debris?  The hole wasn't big enough to fit the wing/engines/tail in yet there was barely if any wreckage outside.  Why did they release only one security camera footage of it when there were numerous more cameras.  Why can't you even see a plane in the footage?  Can you explain the Pentagon crash?

Ok, I'm going to ask you a simple question ... Which of the following is more likely

  1. A small group of well funded terrorists who have a long history of trying to attack the United States successfully executed a plan that took advantage of a government who failed to take the threat of terrorism seriously
  2. Tens of thousands of American citizens from all walks of life are involved in an elaborate conspiracy to kill their own citizens and begin a war in a country (Afghanistan) where there is practically nothing to gain? While it is nearly impossible to hide a conspiracy that involves more than a handful of members, this conspiracy has been kept underwraps even though there are tens of thousands of participants.

You don't need ten of thousands to be in on it.  Lets take the Manhattan Project as example.  Most people working on that didn't even have an idea that they were developing a nuclear weapon or lets take the production of the first tanks in WW1 (many people had no clue what they were helping to build).  You can leave a lot of people in the dark by just having them work on one aspect of the entire project.   Anyways, I am not 100% sure of involvement but it seems too likely.  There are just too many fishy things that went on during 9/11 that I can't just put a blind eye to.   Osama never even admitted to the attacks yet we blamed him right away.  You would think if a terrorist just pulled one of the biggest events in history that he would take credit for it?  

It's not a question if the tower was imploded or had a plane crash.

It's not a question if that was made by Us Government or Terrorists, but if the terrorist are CIAs agents or not.

People don't consider the history when review things....not every conspiracy theorist is dumb. For example, Aziz Ab'Saber, one of the biggest geographers ever called the IPCC Eco-terrorists. In the past, people that believed in the Bilderberg group were humillated, but now it's revealed that it actually exists.

All the conspirations of the US in implanting dictatorships across all the world during the XX century is now all true and confirmed by CIA themselves.

i bet youre one to believe that the it was one of the CIA clones of osama bin laden that was killed the in the raid and not the real one whos been dead for years.

I don't know....Nobody really knows what really is happening.

Maybe Osama was already dead, or not...

What I really know is that the World is not a sea of flowers....And, because of Internet, we have great access to information.

I don't have 100% certainty in most things that I know. And that's a good thing, because I like to think. Skepticism along with Curiosity is the base of most of our knowledge and evolution.

But back on topic, from the information that i gathered from different sources, I think that there is more than 99% of chance of existing a Global Elite powerful enough to shape the world as they want. Powerful enough to end the World's poverty. Powerful enough to make the world even more poorer(and that is what's happening). So if there is such people, then the question is what they want. And there is a enormous chance that they don't see a future so bright to "plebs".

What I don't like is the idea that all things happening in the world today are "spontaneous". If you want to know more of the truth, you need to search about all fields in modern society and how they correlate.



Around the Network
sethnintendo said:
badgenome said:
sethnintendo said:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q74MiBSqm78

World Trade Center designed to stand a jet impact/possibly multiple impacts.

Xbox 360 was designed not to overheat, but for the first few years, every goddamn one of them did.

I am pretty sure they were aware of the overheating issue yet they pushed it forward since they wanted to release it as soon as they could to get a jump start on Sony.  Yes, things that are designed to do something don't always hold up.  Point is valid and it did make me laugh. 

  I am pretty sure they were aware of a design issue yet they pushed it forward since they wanted to finish the WTC  as soon as they could to get a jump start on the Sears TowerYes, things that are designed to do something don't always hold up.  Point is valid and it did make me laugh.   



“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’

I actually dont think the collapse is too fishy at all. The integrety of the building would be majorly comprimised with an impact of a plane flying straight into it.

Also, eyewitness reports are starting to loose validity in court. The eyewitness' memory of the events become questionable immediatly after they happen. Example: A police officer asks a witness "was the suspect black" and right away the witness will agree with it if they werent sure to begin with... the thought will be implanted just from a simple question like that. Also, if the witness goes up to someone and then they talk about the events from their point of view the witness when recalling it later will mix their point of view up with the other one all while thinking this was their point of view the entire time. A witness might not have seena detail and convince themselves they missed it because it wasnt there to begin with (as for your question the planes paintings) Source: Psych 101.

Also, why are you questioning pentagon footage? LOL... you think the governement is going to realease footage of the most secrative building in the country...

Not saying their wasnt inside involvement in the events but these two arguements are poor at best.



Did the US Government plan it? Probably not.

Was it a convenient excuse for Bush to go after a target that had nothing to do with 9/11 and convince the public that Saddam was behind it? Absolutely.



"Naturally the common people don't want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY."  --Hermann Goering, leading Nazi party member, at the Nuremberg War Crime Trials 

 

Conservatives:  Pushing for a small enough government to be a guest in your living room, or even better - your uterus.

 

FinalEvangelion said:
Did the US Government plan it? Probably not.

Was it a convenient excuse for Bush to go after a target that had nothing to do with 9/11 and convince the public that Saddam was behind it? Absolutely.


I thought the us went after Saddam for not allowing the inspections...



the whole thing was controlled by americans
ONLY A FOOL would believe that this thing happened so easily
:P