The 9/11 terrorist attack... What really happened?

[Metallicube]

Yakuzaice said:

Metallicube said:

What ridiculous theory have I mentioned? I'm only stating that the official story is simply not true. THAT is the ridiculous theory. It only happens to be the accepted one because it is an "official" story. I guess if the government said the tooth fairy was real, people would believe that too.. It's sad how the government is just an unquestionable authority to some.

*sigh* alright.. I wanted to end this, but you seem passionate to defend the official conspiracy theory, as am I with my view. So game on...

You seemed to be insinuating that the reason the WTC 7 collapsed was because of insider trading documents contained inside.  Now was that just a nice bonus or is that why the entire attack was planned?  Did their shredder break and they decided they better create a conspiracy consisting of thousands of people across the globe (I guess that means Al-Qaeda was either working with them or created by them as well) in order to destroy those documents.  After all, the best way to destroy incriminating evidence is to create a shitload more.  I guess next they'll nuke NYC in order to destroy the evidence from 9/11.

I'm merely saying it's fishy. This building was shrouded in secrecy. It's the center of the WTC complex wih emergency bunkers, and housed numerous insider investigations of insider trading and scandals, the biggest of which was of the Enron scandal. Here's a nice little bonus though: Larry Silverstein, new leaseholder of WTC 7, just signed a new insurance policy on.. guess which buildings? WTC7 and WTC 1 and 2, the only three towers that collapsed.. He eventually won $7 billion, while only investing $15 million from his insurance policy. Not a bad return.

I still find it quite incredible that you don't find the collapse of this building at least a little bit sucpicious, considering it fell at freefall acceleration with NO plane hitting it. Don't give me that nonsense about the "3 main trusses" either. The building had DOZENS of columns throughout. For the building to collapse the way it did, ALL of these columns would have had to give way SIMULTANEOUSLY. It also collapsed in a neat little pile, symetrically, which is almost unthinkable for an organic collapse.  I think you should really check out the video "blueprint for 9/11 truth." The guy has some nice credentials too, being an architect. There is much speculation that WTC7 was the hub for the 9/11 plan and that they simply were destroying the evidence of their crime.

Here's another bonus while I'm at it. One of the few people still in WTC7 after the towers were hit reported explosions throughout the building, the floors caving in, and claimed to be stepping over bodies. Remember, this is WTC7, not the main towers. Guess what? He died mysteriously, just days before the official NIST report of the collapse of WTC7 was released. Does that not souund a bit odd to you?

That comes back to the attack itself.  Why all the theories about missiles, holograms, thermite, controlled demolitions, etc....?  I mean any theory you have is going to require the terrorists to either be cooperating with the government or they were just fabrications created by the governemnt.  So why bother with another layer of conspiracy on top of that?  Did the FBI decide to fly planes into the WTC, but the CIA was like "that plan sucks, let's rig it for demolition too.  After all, making things more complicated is a sure route to success!"?  Then the EPA says "Hey, let's also hijack another plane, but instead of using that we'll shoot a missile at the Pentagon"...................and I could go on trying to translate the conspiracy theories into real life scenarios.

because thermite evidence was discovered? This is pssed theory now.. it is FACT. Google Professor Steven Jones. The blueprint of thermite, as well as thermate residue was found after analysis of the WTC dust. Nothing else could have made this blueprint. Again, this is FACT. Also, all you have to do is view the footage with an unbiased eye. Notice the giant pyroclastic, califlower-like cloud plumes that are a good 40 stories thick. Notice the cloud of smoke racing down at the speed of gravity. Notice the various explosive squibs running down the side of the building ahead of the demolotion wave. How does smoke and dust burst through windows 5-10 stories ahead of the main cloud? How would it travel that many floors down. Also, what's your take on Willam Rodrigez's testimony of being lifted into the air from a basement explosion, BEFORE the plane striking the first tower? Or of the several people claiming to hear explosions, some of which were actually injured by them? I have yet to hear you try to explain this. You only pick a select few of my points and proceed to provide your vague speculation.

Do you really not see how this gets ridiculous?  Instead of just sticking with a simple theory that it was perpetrated by a few dozen people, all of a sudden you've got thousands of people in on the plan because it is ridiculous and bloated.  I mean if the government could do all that, couldn't they just plant some WMDs in Iraq?

Why is it so implausible that thousands of people were involved? Every heard of the Manhattan Project? All it takes is a select few people at the very top of the pyramid giving orders, while the rest involved follow the orders, some possibly without even knowing exactly the ramifications of what they are doing. It's a matter of keeping it secret, even to those lower on the totem pole who assisted in the plan. Again, let me stress that I DO NOT claim to know what happened. I only know that the official story is NOT what happen, and from there I develop theories based on the several bits of evidence we have.

Then we get into the false statements you've made.

The WTC buildings did not collapse at free fall speed.  1 & 2 are especially easy to tell, the debris falls faster than the building itself.  Cut and dry.

Ok, but once the dust cloud reaches the ground, is the top of the building not gone from view very shortly after? You can really only add a few extra seconds at best, judging from the visual evidence from the videos. But even the building collapsing at NEAR freefall speed is completely implausible. An equation was  implemented for a pure progressive pancake collapse (the dominant official theory as to how the towers fell). Guess how long it would have taken according to that equation? 1 minute 30 seconds. Each floor has to give way for the next. This takes time, especially when you are talking about massive steel trusses that are both welded AND bolted to the sides. And you keep doging this fact, what about the massive steel cores at the middle of the towers? Also, what happens to the top part of the building and the large antenna? They complete disintegrate. In addition, the south tower collapse also clearly shows the top portion of the building tipping over once collapse innitiates, and momentum should have kept carrying it so it would have tipped over. Yet, this huge top portion of the building somehow shifts course and falls right through the middle, the path of greatest resistance.

You claimed the black box from flight 93 was vaporized.  It wasn't.  It was recovered and I linked you to a transcript of the contents.

Yet the people who got to listen were told not to discuss it, and the last few minutes were unaccounted for. Also, what of the other three black boxes? Do you not also find it a little odd that a bandana and passport were found at the sites, especially when there is no evidence of a plane crashing at either the pentagon OR in Shanksville?

You claimed all of the wreckage from flight 93 was ash or microscopic.  You can find plenty of pictures with wreckage that is easily identifiable as airplane parts.  I mean shit, some of the conspiracy theories center around wreckage being too far (in their opinion) from the crash site.

The largest debris was reported to be no bigger than a briefcase. This is absolutely unprecedented. EVERY plane crash consists of large pieces of the plane, as well as identifiable bodies. But there were neither in Shanksville. I personally believe that the plane was shot down by NORAD, which is why everything was reduced to ash, and there was a separate debris field miles away from the primary crash site. This would at least make a little more sense, since I find it impossible to believe that NORAD could fail in FOUR occasions on a single day.

Similar thing with the Pentagon, you seem to be focused on a hole in ring C, and assume it was what?  A missile?  I don't know, but you again ignored all the plane parts that littered the impact area.

I'm not talking about the C ring, I'm talking about the initial hole on the outside caused by the plane, before the wall collapsed. Look up photos of this damage. You can only see a relatively small circular hole, with NO imprints from the wings or the engines. I'd LOVE to hear your explaination on that one.. And also note, there was NO damage on the lawn. A plane did NOT hit the pentagon, especially not a massive 747.

You claimed the WTC buildings were designed to take multiple hits from 767's, then 707's.  They weren't.  You took the comments from someone who had no part in the design of the WTC and created a whole conspiracy around it.  Then you ignore the quote from the lead structural engineer on the WTC who states it was designed for a scenario where a plane was lost in the fog, attempting to land (low on fuel), and flying at a low rate of speed.  (in other words, exactly like the planes that crashed into the ESB and 40 Wall St.)

You claimed a 707 was bigger than a 767.  It isn't, the closest you can get is the biggest 707 is about the same size as the smallest 767.  I'm guessing you just saw a 707 had 4 engines and thought it must be about the size of a 747.

I made a mistake, I meant 707.. Guess that disproves everything else I said, right? :P I'm confused.. If the buildings were designed for a scenario where a plane was lost in the fog, doesn't that support my case? Also, Less Roberson was a chief engineer who built the tower, so I'm not sure why you are trying to discredit him. In addition, Frank A. DeMartini, project manager of the WTC construction, made the same claim of the building's ability to withstand a 707, and even went on to say he felt the building could withstand MULTIPLE jetliner impacts. At any rate, even if these steel buildings were NOT designed for such an impact, they should not have completely imploded in on themselves at near freefall acelleration.

The steel from below the impact zone would have been more than sufficient to hold it up intact. Steel is a relatively light building material with tremendous load bearing capacity. Have you seen footage of the massive fire on the steel building in Madrid, the Windsor? This is a HUGE inferno that spreads throughout most of the building, raging for several hours, completely dwarfing any damage the WTC recieved, yet this tower withstood it and remained standing. Yet two 110 story buildings imploded in roughly 10 seconds? That's over 10 floors a second! Steel does not behave that way.

Here's a way to put into the perspective the magnitude it all. Imagine your house, which we'll say is two stories. Then stack 4 more of those on top. Then reinforce your house in steel. You blink your eye, and all 5 of those houses have suddenly collapsed to the ground! See how ridiculous the notion is? It's ridiculous even with wood, let alone steel!

If anything, organic fire damage would have led to an asymetrical collapse, and it is higly unlikely the entire building would have fell..

You seem to be under the impression that anyone who disagrees with you is just a sheep who follows what the government or the media says.  How many of the claims you have made in this thread were your own conclusions and how many were you seeing some youtube video and thinking 'yeah, that seems plausible'?  I also have to ask if you have any background in engineering or physics?

I'm merely using common sense, and have questions about an official story that is about as plausible as the easter bunny. I don't consider everyone who disagrees "sheep." Many are have too great an image of the government to allow something to change their perspective, and many are just stubborn and want to be proven right regardless. With the power and influence the government and mainstream media has, I can't really say I blame these people. It's tough to fight against that kind of power and influence.