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
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



Around the Network
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.



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?



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.  Also, there were war games going on before and  during 9/11 (just like during Lodon bombings except they were doing training for the exact same thing that happened).  It is easier to pull off during war games because then confusion starts happening if it is really happening or not.

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?  

If you talk to people who lived under repressive regimes where there are these large scale conspiracies happening, while people may be "kept in the dark" everyone knows what is happening; and, because of this, there tends to be conclusive evidence to support these claims.



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?



Around the Network
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.



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 like my steaks how i like my women.  Bloody and all over my face"

"Its like sex, but with a winner!"

MrBubbles Review Threads: Bill Gates, Jak II, Kingdom Hearts II, The Strangers, Sly 2, Crackdown, Zohan, Quarantine, Klungo Sssavesss Teh World, MS@E3'08, WATCHMEN(movie), Shadow of the Colossus, The Saboteur

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 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!



“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’

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.