Kaendar
Well-Known Member
No, actually. I started seeing that things looked kinda fishy from the start (missing videos, etc). After I dove in, I then learned about the Bush situation.
911 conspiracy theory
- Thread starter guy incognito
- Start date
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Then it isn't icing on the cake, it's the foundation of your belief.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
Regardless, im a very skeptical person. I dont believe in most myths and such, but after extensive research into this subject, the facts all add up and it leads me to one conclusion. Al Qaeda took the blame for 9/11, but they werent the true culprits.
haight
Well-Known Member
What evidence?...................
OGEvilgenius
Well-Known Member
Actually the buildings were designed to withstand dynamic forces. IE: Earthquakes, planes crashing into them at high speed and wind sheer etc. I understand perfectly well. And the dynamic force of a building falling 8 ft, while large, isn't anywhere near the same as a building falling a few hundred feet. Anyway, you have no response to my points I can see, other than insults. So please, continue arguing something you don't understand. I was a manager for that company I worked for by the way.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
Go back and read thru this thread.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
I did respond to your points and provided links to detailed calculations that show it's not only possible, but it's exactly what should be expected.
http://www.nmsr.org/nmsr911a.htm
The entire building doesn't have to fall all the way down. The top portion of the building falling just a single story is more than enough to set off a chain reaction of structural failure. Let me know exactly which of the figures you dispute and we will get to the bottom of this together.
doc111
Well-Known Member
I think that people keep completely overlooking how the towers were constructed and the role it played in the collapse. The towers were built to withstand dynamic loading, ALL buldings have to be built to withstand SOME dynamic loading, but engineers made some critical mistakes when factoring in the expected forces from a jet slamming into the towers. When weight and speed were factored into the calculations for a plane strike, the largest, fastest passenger liner at the time, the 707 was used. What wasn't factored in was the fuel. They didn't factor in the heat which would be generated from the fires that would surely ensue from a jetliner striking the buildings, AND they didn't factor in the aircraft fuel weight. These engineers actually forgot to get the weight of a fuel laden jet, and made their calculations off of the Boeing spec sheets!!!!!!
Which don't factor in ANY fuel in their weight! 
They also didn't account for impacts shearing off fire resistive material on trusses and columns. Huge mistakes, but regardless, the towers performed extraordinarily well considering that the gross weight of jets wasn't factored in. The buildings actually withstood, and may have survived without collapsing altogether had there not been the fires that weakened the bolts and fasteners which held the floor trusses to the core and perimiter columns. Remember, there were NO structural elements which ran continuous from the ground to the tops of the towers. None of the structural elements went more than a floor or 2 up.
Vir.CDXX
Member
So i started reading this thread for shits and giggles and i got through about half of it before i figured out its probably all the same bullshit. I dont have a firm belief on the subject, and ive rarely researched either side of the situation to come to a full conclusion. Basically I dont care at this point for convenience.
But looking how everyone debates over the situation usually shows me who MAY be the more credible source, and for anyone thinking they are absolutely correct about this situation and then go and degrade someone elses opinions on the matter like an egotistical prick dont really hold any value to their word to me.
It sickens me to see such grade school tactics. Both sides seem to have some solid information... after seeing the info you debate it, not call it disinformation, or calling open-minded people paranoid and crazy. Its just quite sad, because these types of debate/argument tactics involving ego and belief structures dont ever really get to the point for everyone, just seems to divide us, and make everyone look retarded.
But looking how everyone debates over the situation usually shows me who MAY be the more credible source, and for anyone thinking they are absolutely correct about this situation and then go and degrade someone elses opinions on the matter like an egotistical prick dont really hold any value to their word to me.
It sickens me to see such grade school tactics. Both sides seem to have some solid information... after seeing the info you debate it, not call it disinformation, or calling open-minded people paranoid and crazy. Its just quite sad, because these types of debate/argument tactics involving ego and belief structures dont ever really get to the point for everyone, just seems to divide us, and make everyone look retarded.
haight
Well-Known Member
I did. I didn't see any evidence.
Kaendar
Well-Known Member
Then you are blind, or illiterate.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
I was about to challenge this, since the first 747 rolled out in '68 and the towers were opened in '73.I think that people keep completely overlooking how the towers were constructed and the role it played in the collapse. The towers were built to withstand dynamic loading, ALL buldings have to be built to withstand SOME dynamic loading, but engineers made some critical mistakes when factoring in the expected forces from a jet slamming into the towers. When weight and speed were factored into the calculations for a plane strike, the largest, fastest passenger liner at the time, the 707 was used. What wasn't factored in was the fuel. They didn't factor in the heat which would be generated from the fires that would surely ensue from a jetliner striking the buildings, AND they didn't factor in the aircraft fuel weight. These engineers actually forgot to get the weight of a fuel laden jet, and made their calculations off of the Boeing spec sheets!!!!!!
However I read a little deeper and found that the 747's design proper began in 1965, while the design for the towers was awarded in 1962.
B-36s and B-52s were both heavier than a 707, but the 36 had been retired in '59, and it was reasonable to assume that no B-52 would be allowed into NYC airspace.
So no challenge. cn
charface
Well-Known Member
My guess is that some Fully Pissed mofos had nothing but time and money to attract disalusioned looney tunes
to do their dirty work and after all these years they choked a bitch. (us) I hate it too but I do not thing it was a widespread plot by our gov. That is simply how I choose to see it. You feel free to adopt my method if it will help ya sleep. I still do not sleep well but I assure you it has nothing tpo do with ANY conspiracy theory. Thank Allah I have enough actual problems. I do however find the subject interesting much like I did bigfoot when I was a babe. I still want there to be a loch ness monster.
to do their dirty work and after all these years they choked a bitch. (us) I hate it too but I do not thing it was a widespread plot by our gov. That is simply how I choose to see it. You feel free to adopt my method if it will help ya sleep. I still do not sleep well but I assure you it has nothing tpo do with ANY conspiracy theory. Thank Allah I have enough actual problems. I do however find the subject interesting much like I did bigfoot when I was a babe. I still want there to be a loch ness monster.
guy incognito
Well-Known Member
Perhaps 911 was actually obamas fault? Probably.
cannabineer
Ursus marijanus
no no ... not the briar patch!! cn
mr sunshine
Well-Known Member
I think the towers blew up from within and onlt one plane hit it did anyone notice how the cameras where manipulating the whole situation. ...the camera showed the towers and miles and miles in every direction...then a few seconds later it zooms in and a fucken plane was in the picture crashing into a tower...seems very weird to me ...it was almost perfect deception. Except . For the human element involved in creating the lie...
ASMALLVOICE
Well-Known Member
I have but one question, can someone explain how a small amount of jet fuel and a rather small impact in reference to the statute of the building could have cut those steel columns, both internal and external. The answer is it didn't, it would have taken 15 more planes like that to bring those buildings down from just fire alone, and the fire would have not burned with the intensity long enough to accomplish that in the short amount of time from the first impact to the fall.
It takes heat far greater than anything that would have been generated from the airliner and it's contents, it takes thermite or some new evil equivalent to accomplish that, jet fuel will not ever burn hot enough or long enough to do that, so all I say is the fucking planes had a lot of internal help to bring those buildings down and where that help came from is everybody's guess.
Peace
Asmallvoice
It takes heat far greater than anything that would have been generated from the airliner and it's contents, it takes thermite or some new evil equivalent to accomplish that, jet fuel will not ever burn hot enough or long enough to do that, so all I say is the fucking planes had a lot of internal help to bring those buildings down and where that help came from is everybody's guess.
Peace
Asmallvoice