9/11 Conspiracy Theories

[Llethander 230]

Thats a lot of great questions which until you post any evidence at all remain hypotheticals...

Technically none of those questions were hypothetical. Hypothetical quests generally have a "What if...?" ring to them, not "why?".

That's all I'm saying here.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Technically none of those questions were hypothetical. Hypothetical quests generally have a "What if...?" ring to them, not "why?".

That's all I'm saying here.

Ya, bad word :S

[AnarchyX6942 0]

Apparently you people don't know what the word debate means. Attacking someone's character just makes you all look immature. No one's going to listen to them if you call them names. The point of a debate is for people to get a better understanding of an issue of as a whole, determining if a person is right or wrong isn't the goal, its to get them to change their minds.

[bios 1]

Apparently you people don't know what the word debate means. Attacking someone's character just makes you all look immature. No one's going to listen to them if you call them names. The point of a debate is for people to get a better understanding of an issue of as a whole, determining if a person is right or wrong isn't the goal, its to get them to change their minds.

The problem is that many people will not listen and take in facts that are being stated. Their is too much spin in our society and it's no different on our board.

Foh, I have some facts for you. Only 3 steel frame buildings EVER to collapse because of fire, are WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. You might say the force of the impact destroyed 1 and 2, but what about 7? The GOVERNMENT'S explanation and OFFICIAL REPORT states that all three buildings collapsed due to intense fires that weakened the steel structure and caused the ultimate collapses. No other building in history has ever collapsed due to a fire. During WW2 a B-25 small bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. It burned for hours but was eventually extinguished. The building never collapsed. So how can a building built and designed in the 1970's not be able to sustain an airplane crash, when a building built and designed in the early 20th century had no problem with a plane crash. The "truss" system that the WTC was built on was much stronger and more stable than the Empire State Buildings steel cage design. The truss system is also better at distributing the load more evenly, even under intense situations such as this. The steel in WTC 7 was the same steel in WTC1 and WTC2. So why did 7 collapse? If no planes hit it, how could it have collapsed completely to the ground? The fire could not have burned hot enough for it to happen. In fact it has been proven by established and distinguished physicists and engineers.

[ame=

]

[/ame]

[ame=

]

[/ame]

The government counts on people like this to always defend their story. He thinks just because he's a fireman that he is the only one to deal with hard ship and loss. See, this guy says that he served in the military and the fireman dumps on him like it's nothing. Just because he isn't from NYC doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to express his opinion in a public forum. But, it's a great thing. These guys debating is what our country is all about.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf-buObxl8&feature=related]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf-buObxl8...feature=related[/ame]

[Guest Fohacidal]

The problem is that many people will not listen and take in facts that are being stated. Their is too much spin in our society and it's no different on our board.

Foh, I have some facts for you. Only 3 steel frame buildings EVER to collapse because of fire, are WTC1, WTC2, and WTC7. You might say the force of the impact destroyed 1 and 2, but what about 7? The GOVERNMENT'S explanation and OFFICIAL REPORT states that all three buildings collapsed due to intense fires that weakened the steel structure and caused the ultimate collapses. No other building in history has ever collapsed due to a fire. During WW2 a B-25 small bomber crashed into the Empire State Building. It burned for hours but was eventually extinguished. The building never collapsed. So how can a building built and designed in the 1970's not be able to sustain an airplane crash, when a building built and designed in the early 20th century had no problem with a plane crash. The "truss" system that the WTC was built on was much stronger and more stable than the Empire State Buildings steel cage design. The truss system is also better at distributing the load more evenly, even under intense situations such as this. The steel in WTC 7 was the same steel in WTC1 and WTC2. So why did 7 collapse? If no planes hit it, how could it have collapsed completely to the ground? The fire could not have burned hot enough for it to happen. In fact it has been proven by established and distinguished physicists and engineers.

The government counts on people like this to always defend their story. He thinks just because he's a fireman that he is the only one to deal with hard ship and loss. See, this guy says that he served in the military and the fireman dumps on him like it's nothing. Just because he isn't from NYC doesn't mean he doesn't have the right to express his opinion in a public forum. But, it's a great thing. These guys debating is what our country is all about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFf-buObxl8...feature=related

Now this is what I wanted. First off Bios, there are several easy explanations for why the Empire State Building could have never have collapsed. First lets look at the planes right? Now all of this info can be found anywhere on the internet but for the sake of time most of the links will be from wikipedia. Anyway the average wingspan, weight and speed of a B-25 bomber is 67 feet, 21,000 pounds and 215 mph respectively. The stats for a Boeing 767? wingspan of both planes that hit the towers were at about 160 feet, their weight was at about 400,000 pounds and their cruising speed was at around 400 mph. It doesnt take a mathmetician to see the Boeing is not only a lot larger, but MUCH faster and that is a lot of extra momentum, dont even get me started on the airframe differences.

B-25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25#Specifications_.28B-25J.29

Boeing 767 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

Now about the buildings themselves, just take a look at this picture...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3...irestate540.jpg

There you can obviously see the B-25 had to go through the thickest side of the empire state building which was is mostly composed of a strong strong mixture of thick granite and limestone bricks with a marble interior. Basically what you just told me is that the small B-25 hitting basically the equivalent of a tall rock is equal to a B-767 hitting a lighter and thinner building at twice the speed with over 3 times the jet fuel. Also youll have to take into account that todays jet fuel (while not high burning) is still a very high quality, high octane fuel and can burn very easily, the WTC tower was made to withstand a 707 hit, but its lightweight design and hollowed out steel columns (not the big main ones, although I think they were hollowed out to an extent) did not calculate the damage of a continuously burning fire in the building along with the hit of a plane like the 767.

Empire State Building - http://wonderclub.com/WorldWonders/EmpireHistory.html

Granite, Limestone and Marble Analysis - http://www.coldspringgranite.com/comparing...other_build.htm

Jet Fuel - http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

So ya, the argument (which Iv actually never heard before) of the B-25 hitting doesnt hold much ground because of all the variable changes, its just an unfair comparison.

Now for WTC7, this for me presents the hardest argument due to the lack of any real solid evidence (or at least that I can find) to support or deny any conspiracy theories. However out of curiosity a simple wikipedia check again (with cited sources) reveals that WTC7 had a huge diesel fuel repository in several of its floors, even in floors which the fires were reported on by the fire crews. Now seeing as the diesel was being stored to power several generators on WTC7 it was already compressed, all it needed was heat and air, and the intense friction/sparks and possibly heat from the debris that hit WTC7 was probably enough to ignite diesel which burns much more slowly then jet fuel allowing the flames to consume most of the building. It doesnt take an expert on architecture to know the regardless of a steel truss system fire weakens building and there is way to many variables (liquids in the building, furniture, ventilation) to take it to assume it was exactly an explosion or just fell because of fires.

Diesel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Burning_efficiency

WTC7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

As you probably already know WTC7 fell several hours after the other 2 towers did, and many of the resources that coudlve gone into helping the tower were put into rescuing and salvaging from the other 2 towers, not to mention with the extreme smoke and confusion from the collapses it would be hard for firefighter to get to WTC7 let alone get organized, as the fires grew they put in their best efforts but it had already grown to a point where that wasnt possible.

Also I believe WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse because of fires, but because of multiple variables in the plane crash, to think of them firing missiles or for there to have been controlled demolitions is just rediculous... yes there has been evidence of thermite and other controlled demolition substances in the area but most of it is inconsistant and all of the materials can easily be found on the building. Even thermite, which under coincidental factors could ignite due to simply rubbing any kind of paint against 30 year old possibly rusted steel. Its not completely plausible but its not an impossibility either.

Thermite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Think I answered everything I could, not sure because of all the information I had to call up D:

[bios 1]

Now this is what I wanted. First off Bios, there are several easy explanations for why the Empire State Building could have never have collapsed. First lets look at the planes right? Now all of this info can be found anywhere on the internet but for the sake of time most of the links will be from wikipedia. Anyway the average wingspan, weight and speed of a B-25 bomber is 67 feet, 21,000 pounds and 215 mph respectively. The stats for a Boeing 767? wingspan of both planes that hit the towers were at about 160 feet, their weight was at about 400,000 pounds and their cruising speed was at around 400 mph. It doesnt take a mathmetician to see the Boeing is not only a lot larger, but MUCH faster and that is a lot of extra momentum, dont even get me started on the airframe differences.

B-25 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B-25#Specifications_.28B-25J.29

Boeing 767 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_767#Specifications

Now about the buildings themselves, just take a look at this picture...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3...irestate540.jpg

There you can obviously see the B-25 had to go through the thickest side of the empire state building which was is mostly composed of a strong strong mixture of thick granite and limestone bricks with a marble interior. Basically what you just told me is that the small B-25 hitting basically the equivalent of a tall rock is equal to a B-767 hitting a lighter and thinner building at twice the speed with over 3 times the jet fuel. Also youll have to take into account that todays jet fuel (while not high burning) is still a very high quality, high octane fuel and can burn very easily, the WTC tower was made to withstand a 707 hit, but its lightweight design and hollowed out steel columns (not the big main ones, although I think they were hollowed out to an extent) did not calculate the damage of a continuously burning fire in the building along with the hit of a plane like the 767.

Empire State Building - http://wonderclub.com/WorldWonders/EmpireHistory.html

Granite, Limestone and Marble Analysis - http://www.coldspringgranite.com/comparing...other_build.htm

Jet Fuel - http://www.csgnetwork.com/jetfuel.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_fuel

So ya, the argument (which Iv actually never heard before) of the B-25 hitting doesnt hold much ground because of all the variable changes, its just an unfair comparison.

Now for WTC7, this for me presents the hardest argument due to the lack of any real solid evidence (or at least that I can find) to support or deny any conspiracy theories. However out of curiosity a simple wikipedia check again (with cited sources) reveals that WTC7 had a huge diesel fuel repository in several of its floors, even in floors which the fires were reported on by the fire crews. Now seeing as the diesel was being stored to power several generators on WTC7 it was already compressed, all it needed was heat and air, and the intense friction/sparks and possibly heat from the debris that hit WTC7 was probably enough to ignite diesel which burns much more slowly then jet fuel allowing the flames to consume most of the building. It doesnt take an expert on architecture to know the regardless of a steel truss system fire weakens building and there is way to many variables (liquids in the building, furniture, ventilation) to take it to assume it was exactly an explosion or just fell because of fires.

Diesel - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel#Burning_efficiency

WTC7 - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

As you probably already know WTC7 fell several hours after the other 2 towers did, and many of the resources that coudlve gone into helping the tower were put into rescuing and salvaging from the other 2 towers, not to mention with the extreme smoke and confusion from the collapses it would be hard for firefighter to get to WTC7 let alone get organized, as the fires grew they put in their best efforts but it had already grown to a point where that wasnt possible.

Also I believe WTC 1 and 2 did not collapse because of fires, but because of multiple variables in the plane crash, to think of them firing missiles or for there to have been controlled demolitions is just rediculous... yes there has been evidence of thermite and other controlled demolition substances in the area but most of it is inconsistant and all of the materials can easily be found on the building. Even thermite, which under coincidental factors could ignite due to simply rubbing any kind of paint against 30 year old possibly rusted steel. Its not completely plausible but its not an impossibility either.

Thermite - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermite

Think I answered everything I could, not sure because of all the information I had to call up D:

Well you yourself are answering your own question. Why did WTC7 fall? Well you even said that you don't think that it was fire. Well, all the stories and documents the government has released point to the FIRE not the impact of the jet as the cause of the collapse. So how can a sustained fire at 4000 degrees be possible with jet fuel? Without a sustained feed of jet fuel it cannot possibly get that hot. The chemistry and physics don't allow for it to happen. Why would the government list fire as the cause of the collapse if that is not the case? You yourself are arguing that the planes impact and speed was what caused it. So the Empire state building example is a fair comparison. While the B-25 bomber is a much smaller plane,it surely ignited a fire. So do fires burn hotter in 2001 than in 1944? Both fires were not sustained by a constant fuel source. But that is what the government is saying happened. They could have just as easily said the planes impact was what caused the collapse, but that would be debunked because if was indeed the planes impact that caused the collapse then the towers would have collapsed immediately. Before you respond watch the movies that were posted. I can tell you didn't. Also, wikipedia, not the best source of information. They are ok for some things but not very much. I know they were sourced but it's still wikipedia. How did all three towers fall at nearly free fall speed? Surely with that large of a structure, the collapse would have encountered some resistance.

Another question. How did 200+ passengers on flight 93 vaporize? Wouldn't there be some kind of body parts? None ever recovered. What about the Pentagon. Titanium Pratt and Whitney engines vaporize?

Answer those.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Well you yourself are answering your own question. Why did WTC7 fall? Well you even said that you don't think that it was fire. Well, all the stories and documents the government has released point to the FIRE not the impact of the jet as the cause of the collapse. So how can a sustained fire at 4000 degrees be possible with jet fuel? Without a sustained feed of jet fuel it cannot possibly get that hot. The chemistry and physics don't allow for it to happen. Why would the government list fire as the cause of the collapse if that is not the case? You yourself are arguing that the planes impact and speed was what caused it. So the Empire state building example is a fair comparison. While the B-25 bomber is a much smaller plane,it surely ignited a fire. So do fires burn hotter in 2001 than in 1944? Both fires were not sustained by a constant fuel source. But that is what the government is saying happened. They could have just as easily said the planes impact was what caused the collapse, but that would be debunked because if was indeed the planes impact that caused the collapse then the towers would have collapsed immediately. Before you respond watch the movies that were posted. I can tell you didn't. Also, wikipedia, not the best source of information. They are ok for some things but not very much.

Another question. How did 200+ passengers on flight 93 vaporize? Wouldn't there be some kind of body parts? None ever recovered...

Answer those.

First off, the fires from the ESB accident were taken out in 40 minutes and at most only covered a section of 2 floors, even the engines that flew off didnt start anything fires. So no, in terms of fire, in terms of damage, in terms of momentum, in terms of proportion or in terms of structural integrity it is not a fair comparison, not in any single way.

Ok bios, I dont want to answer a question with a question but you tell me, how would you expect to recover 200 corpses from a mangled up burnt up plane after it hits a building, and then after that building collapses on itself, turning a lot of stuff into just dust, bodies recovered yes but many were mangled up to the extent of where it was unrecognizable or just pulverized.

Also Iv watched ever video in here, like I said I may not believe everything the government says (way to suspicious) but Im not about to find 50 farfetched reasons for the towers collapse, fire didnt bring down the other buildings, thats impossible, other steels buildings have survived worse, but I can tell you WTC7 was definately taking a huge beating from it.

[bios 1]

First off, the fires from the ESB accident were taken out in 40 minutes and at most only covered a section of 2 floors, even the engines that flew off didnt start anything fires. So no, in terms of fire, in terms of damage, in terms of momentum, in terms of proportion or in terms of structural integrity it is not a fair comparison, not in any single way.

Ok bios, I dont want to answer a question with a question but you tell me, how would you expect to recover 200 corpses from a mangled up burnt up plane after it hits a building, and then after that building collapses on itself, turning a lot of stuff into just dust, bodies recovered yes but many were mangled up to the extent of where it was unrecognizable or just pulverized.

Also Iv watched ever video in here, like I said I may not believe everything the government says (way to suspicious) but Im not about to find 50 farfetched reasons for the towers collapse, fire didnt bring down the other buildings, thats impossible, other steels buildings have survived worse, but I can tell you WTC7 was definately taking a huge beating from it.

Seriously... Flight 93 crashed in an empty field outside Pittsburgh... Hence the movies made about it. You still didn't answer any of the questions I asked. Why is the government saying it's fire, and you are saying it's the impact. Read the official reports. You obviously have not read as much about it as I have because you don't even know what Flight 93 is. And you still didn't explain how the titanium vaporized at the Pentagon. The list goes on and on. I know you can't answer most of these questions because I know that a bunch are actually impossible happenings.

I'm just proving my point that you are not being open minded because I am presenting you with evidence and facts that are proven and you still reject those facts because they don't fit your beliefs or your agenda.

[Guest Fohacidal]

Seriously... Flight 93 crashed in an empty field outside Pittsburgh... Hence the movies made about it. You still didn't answer any of the questions I asked. Why is the government saying it's fire, and you are saying it's the impact. Read the official reports. You obviously have not read as much about it as I have because you don't even know what Flight 93 is. And you still didn't explain how the titanium vaporized at the Pentagon. The list goes on and on. I know you can't answer most of these questions because I know that a bunch are actually impossible happenings.

I'm just proving my point that you are not being open minded because I am presenting you with evidence and facts that are proven and you still reject those facts because they don't fit your beliefs or your agenda.

Bullshit Im not close minded, apparently me posting evidence to support my claims that refute yours means jack because for your world to be perfect I would have to accept your conclusions...

Also about flight 93, I must have skipped over that part or something was edited because I didnt seem to notice it, I thought you meant the bodies from the other planes. So before you start calling me ignorant (like you have time and time again, internet tough guy) you might want to wait until I can explain myself.

Not to mention you edited your post to include the vaporized engines, if you keep editing your posts how the hell do you expect me to answer everything? Even more ironically is I make a well organized post full of factual information, you completely dismiss everything I say and STILL you call me close minded...

[bios 1]

Bullshit Im not close minded, apparently me posting evidence to support my claims that refute yours means jack because for your world to be perfect I would have to accept your conclusions...

Also about flight 93, I must have skipped over that part or something was edited because I didnt seem to notice it, I thought you meant the bodies from the other planes. So before you start calling me ignorant (like you have time and time again, internet tough guy) you might want to wait until I can explain myself.

Not to mention you edited your post to include the vaporized engines, if you keep editing your posts how the hell do you expect me to answer everything? Even more ironically is I make a well organized post full of factual information, you completely dismiss everything I say and STILL you call me close minded...

Dude you call me paranoid. I didn't edit shit. You still didn't answer the question. Keep dodging it. I see your evidence. It's duely noted. I understand that a bunch of circumstances could have lead to the collapse but the problem is that all these circumstances add up to something fishy. If this were a criminal law case the person would get convicted on circumstancial evidence. Please go abck to the statements and figure out how those bodies and the engines at the pentagon vaporized. No DNA evidence what so ever. Sounds fishy to me.

[Triv 79]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo&feature=related]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo...feature=related[/ame]

[Contract Killer 24]

Ever heard of let sleeping dogs lie?

Posting a video and saying nothing does not convince any one to watch it, or motivate them to believe you.

[UnknownLegend 5480]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvj7Q9LRAJo...feature=related

NOW I'm impressed Shocker. That was a good video.

-10 points for resurrecting the topic though.

[Guest Fohacidal]

NOW I'm impressed Shocker. That was a good video.

-10 points for resurrecting the topic though.

You know its kinda weird, if you notice when the first tower does collapse the top half actually leans to a side and doesnt collapse down flat.

[HoboInArmy 7]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Read it all. LOL!

[Neur0 34]

Demolitions don't always go as planned. I find it a pretty credible story. Very interesting and also very convincing. Good link, Shocker.

[UltimateOreo 145]

That is the best conspiracy video I've seen yet, it actually has some pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

Now, for my part, blind patriot, ect ect.

If the government wanted to kill their own people, hence making their "campaign" more successful, why would they be practicing/conducting evacuation drills?

[UnknownLegend 5480]

That is the best conspiracy video I've seen yet, it actually has some pretty strong circumstantial evidence.

Now, for my part, blind patriot, ect ect.

If the government wanted to kill their own people, hence making their "campaign" more successful, why would they be practicing/conducting evacuation drills?

They wanted "what was best" for "us."

They wanted to minimalize casualties.

or, it would have been an excuse to clear out the building for a good half hour. Take your pick.

Question is though, why order evacuations like this, so frequently just before this event (assuming it wasn't a planned event)? They hadn't been done nearly as often before. I think we're talking about a plan to collect billions of dollars in insurance fraud, that had other benefits for other people as well.

[Guest Fohacidal]

I dont see why putting controlled demolitions is something the government would do. They arent stupid, and they know that minimalizing casualties wont do much because a plane is ramming itself into a building. To put in demolitions to avoid it from falling over just seems a bit to obvious...

[Contract Killer 24]

I think Hobo's link sums up this thread and makes good points.

[Guest Fohacidal]

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Read it all. LOL!

LOL!

[UnknownLegend 5480]

I dont see why putting controlled demolitions is something the government would do. They arent stupid, and they know that minimalizing casualties wont do much because a plane is ramming itself into a building. To put in demolitions to avoid it from falling over just seems a bit to obvious...

Exactly. But you would be surprised how many people won't even acknowledge the fact that it is weird that they fell straight down. I'm not talking about government conspiracies, just the simple fact that it is odd how perfectly they fell, and only shortly after it was rammed with a plane.

[UltimateOreo 145]

I thought the same thing, I'm sure if our Government was going to do something like this, they would have covered their ass a hell of a lot better than this.

[Hyperwhoar 0]

One thing I want to add for Flight 93:

A black box: An UNDESTROYABLE object that is meant to withstand ANY circumstances of a plane crash, even constant heat.

When the plane hit, the black box wasn't found, let alone anything else OTHER then a passport.

Heres a quote from the article below:

"And even if we forget the steel, there's the curious incident of the planes' black boxes - not ONE of the EIGHT black boxes - two per plane - survived! Not just those of the planes that crashed into the Twin Towers, but also of the other two planes! Not even of the one that crashed into the ground in Pennsylvania."

Why did one of the worlds weakest materials survive this crash, but the black box didn't?

Another quote from the below:

"FLIGHT DATA RECORDER

Time recorded: 25 hour continuous

Number of parameters: 5 - 300+

Impact tolerance: 3400Gs /6.5ms

Fire resistance: 1100 degC/30 min

Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft

Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz

Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation

COCKPIT VOICE RECORDER

Time recorded: 30 min continuous, 2 hours for solid state digital units

Number of channels: 4

Impact tolerance: 3400 Gs /6.5ms

Fire resistance: 1100 deg C /30 min

Water pressure resistance: submerged 20,000 ft

Underwater locator beacon: 37.5 KHz

Battery: 6yr shelf life 30 day operation "

HOW THE FUCK?

And for evidence that it was partly the government, read this:

http://homepage.mac.com/ardeshir/9-11.html

This is probably the most rock solid evidence on the theories know to the interwebz.

Also, I can guarantee if it was Osama they could catch him.

My dads friend knows the person that's in charge of the US Homeland Security, and he answers to Bush.

He said that they know where Osama Bin Laden is 24/7, but the war generates too much money for them to get him.

[Contract Killer 24]

Once again with Hobo's article, the Government isn't stupid, they would have covered it up way better than this, how do do you keep that many people quiet about it.