Here is the one and only legitimately weird thing about 9/11: When the plane hit the pentagon, the FBI confiscated all security camera footage captured from the entire surrounding area. It took four and a half years before the government finally released any footage of what happened that day, and the footage lasted four one-hundredths of a second. Literally four frames in which you can't really make out anything at all but an explosion. So, if they have all the surveillance footage why won't they show it? I'm not saying 'it's a conspiraceh!' by any means, but it sure is strange.
[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Were they supposed to be looking for anything like that? No. So even if they did see it chances are they wouldn't think anything of it. All these youtube videos say nothing, it's just word for word from one man's perspective to another. The government's word says fires and they're supposed to have the most in-depth description and documented study of it. Mystic-G
It doesn't just say fires. They say exactly what that last video says. Fire IN ADDITION to heavy damage to critical areas of the building. And you can just tell by the way it fell that it wasn't a controlled demolition. The building fell in parts.
Yeaa... about that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptvvbaR0-U
Looks all the same to me. Might wanna mute it after like 50 seconds otherwise u'll hear the same sentence over and over.
If it was a controlled demolition, then they sure did a terrible job. A TON of buildings suffered damage due to the collapse of all 3 towers.
@mems, the terrorist probably did not know how the Pentagon was built, so they just flew into it hoping to kill as many people as possible. The military didn't think they could pull off an attack, they do not have plans for everything, with attacks like that it hard to prepare for. Also where would the Secret Service take Bush, the school was a safe place at the moment. Rushing him out would not be a good idea, also it wouldn't be good to do in front of the kids.
mems_1224
they didn't know how the pentagon was built??? they spent years preparing for this and didn't research how the pentagon was built and just went in hoping they'd hit something?? :| right, the military didn't have plans for a airplane attack...thats why on 9/11 they were actually doing war games and running simulations of terrorists hijacking planes...... and you're right, there was no place to take bush, we have no where to take the president in case of an emergency to protect him. it was safer to be in a school, while a rogue pane in the air when everyone knew where the president was at that time....that makes a lot of sense, but god forbid we scare the kids :|
They were mainly wanting to cause panic, Just hitting the Pentagon was probably their mission, we do not know where they are aimming for. For the hijacking wargame, that is not the same thing with crashing planes into buildings. Normally with hijackings before the people land and make demands. So you rush him from the school and maybe into an ambush?
[QUOTE="Mystic-G"]Were they supposed to be looking for anything like that? No. So even if they did see it chances are they wouldn't think anything of it. All these youtube videos say nothing, it's just word for word from one man's perspective to another. The government's word says fires and they're supposed to have the most in-depth description and documented study of it. Mystic-G
It doesn't just say fires. They say exactly what that last video says. Fire IN ADDITION to heavy damage to critical areas of the building. And you can just tell by the way it fell that it wasn't a controlled demolition. The building fell in parts.
Yeaa... about that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptvvbaR0-U
Looks all the same to me. Might wanna mute it after like 50 seconds otherwise u'll hear the same sentence over and over.
How many controlled demolitions leave a crater in a neighboring building?
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Here is the one and only legitimately weird thing about 9/11: When the plane hit the pentagon, the FBI confiscated all security camera footage captured from the entire surrounding area. It took four and a half years before the government finally released any footage of what happened that day, and the footage lasted four one-hundredths of a second. Literally four frames in which you can't really make out anything at all but an explosion. So, if they have all the surveillance footage why won't they show it? I'm not saying 'it's a conspiraceh!' by any means, but it sure is strange. I imagine it was standard investigation procedure, and they just didn't see any need/were too lazy to dig up the videos and hand them back. Besides, it's not like that really means anything.
It doesn't just say fires. They say exactly what that last video says. Fire IN ADDITION to heavy damage to critical areas of the building. And you can just tell by the way it fell that it wasn't a controlled demolition. The building fell in parts.
BMD004
Yeaa... about that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptvvbaR0-U
Looks all the same to me. Might wanna mute it after like 50 seconds otherwise u'll hear the same sentence over and over.
If it was a controlled demolition, then they sure did a terrible job. A TON of buildings suffered damage due to the collapse of all 3 towers. Considering how massive they are compared to the rest I don't think they could've done too much better job.
[QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Here is the one and only legitimately weird thing about 9/11: When the plane hit the pentagon, the FBI confiscated all security camera footage captured from the entire surrounding area. It took four and a half years before the government finally released any footage of what happened that day, and the footage lasted four one-hundredths of a second. Literally four frames in which you can't really make out anything at all but an explosion. So, if they have all the surveillance footage why won't they show it? I'm not saying 'it's a conspiraceh!' by any means, but it sure is strange. Yeah, that part is kind of weird. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it was the Pentagon that was hit. Maybe it's some kind of security issue. I have no clue. Just spit-balling.
[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Mystic-G"] Yeaa... about that... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ptvvbaR0-U
Looks all the same to me. Might wanna mute it after like 50 seconds otherwise u'll hear the same sentence over and over.
Mystic-G
If it was a controlled demolition, then they sure did a terrible job. A TON of buildings suffered damage due to the collapse of all 3 towers. Considering how massive they are compared to the rest I don't think they could've done too much better job. It's not the first time a skyscraper would have been a controlled demolition.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwjjZliIV68
Now that one fell into it's footprint.... the WTC? It looks that way, but it didn't really. And did you see explosions all up and down the buliding and hear all of that like in this video? Nope, you didn't.
Why is controlled demolition such a big deal for CT's anyway?
Couldn't "The Gov't" just leave it at flying two big-*** planes into the towers and call it a day? Even if you believe that those planes couldn't have caused the towers to fall, the people's outrage wouldn't have hinged on their collapse. I'm sure just the attack itself would have been enough to fire people up.
What would have made "Them" defy possibility to set up controlled explosives in the towers?
Edit: Oh yes, and I should point out that I don't believe 9/11 was a Gov't conspiracy.
Why is controlled demolition such a big deal for CT's anyway?
Couldn't "The Gov't" just leave it at flying two big-*** planes into the towers and call it a day? Even if you believe that those planes couldn't have caused the towers to fall, the people's outrage wouldn't have hinged on their collapse. I'm sure just the attack itself would have been enough to fire people up.
What would have made "Them" defy possibility to set up controlled explosives in the towers?
Why is controlled demolition such a big deal for CT's anyway?
Couldn't "The Gov't" just leave it at flying two big-*** planes into the towers and call it a day? Even if you believe that those planes couldn't have caused the towers to fall, the people's outrage wouldn't have hinged on their collapse. I'm sure just the attack itself would have been enough to fire people up.
What would have made "Them" defy possibility to set up controlled explosives in the towers?
BMD004
Extremely good point. Two planes crashing into a building is too boring. They want to spice things up.
Why is controlled demolition such a big deal for CT's anyway?
Couldn't "The Gov't" just leave it at flying two big-*** planes into the towers and call it a day? Even if you believe that those planes couldn't have caused the towers to fall, the people's outrage wouldn't have hinged on their collapse. I'm sure just the attack itself would have been enough to fire people up.
What would have made "Them" defy possibility to set up controlled explosives in the towers?
CRS98
Extremely good point. Two planes crashing into a building is too boring. They want to spice things up.
I'm willing to bet that the lion's share of conspiracy theorists aren't from NYC or DC. But whatever. Those theories have been debunked. The best compilation is here.
Having nothing better to do than to see things boogie men where they don't exist offends and angers me as a New Yorker and an American. But what am I saying? I'm on a videogame site and most of you were probably school children when it happened.
Yes, ironically, I'll give my life so that everyone can have their say no matter how much I disagree.
I like thinking and arguing about various conspiracy theories, but I honestly believe that there isn't one to be spoken about when it comes to 9/11. All of the arguments made that I've heard are bogus and can go either way. People who hate us, bombed us, end of story.
[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Here is the one and only legitimately weird thing about 9/11: When the plane hit the pentagon, the FBI confiscated all security camera footage captured from the entire surrounding area. It took four and a half years before the government finally released any footage of what happened that day, and the footage lasted four one-hundredths of a second. Literally four frames in which you can't really make out anything at all but an explosion. So, if they have all the surveillance footage why won't they show it? I'm not saying 'it's a conspiraceh!' by any means, but it sure is strange. Yeah, that part is kind of weird. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it was the Pentagon that was hit. Maybe it's some kind of security issue. I have no clue. Just spit-balling. Yeah me too. I often wonder what the deal is with that. I don't think it = conspiracy theory though. :P
[QUOTE="BMD004"][QUOTE="Ninja-Hippo"]Here is the one and only legitimately weird thing about 9/11: When the plane hit the pentagon, the FBI confiscated all security camera footage captured from the entire surrounding area. It took four and a half years before the government finally released any footage of what happened that day, and the footage lasted four one-hundredths of a second. Literally four frames in which you can't really make out anything at all but an explosion. So, if they have all the surveillance footage why won't they show it? I'm not saying 'it's a conspiraceh!' by any means, but it sure is strange. Ninja-Hippo
Yeah, that part is kind of weird. Maybe it has something to do with the fact that it was the Pentagon that was hit. Maybe it's some kind of security issue. I have no clue. Just spit-balling. Yeah me too. I often wonder what the deal is with that. I don't think it = conspiracy theory though. :P
**** the US for not letting us know everything. This isn't a democracy, it's a corporatocracy.
What I don't understand with the conspiracy theorists is why would the Government do it? You guys really think they needed to destroy two massive and important buildings and kill 3'000 people just so they could launch a war in Afghanistan? That's just stupid. Hell, they could have come up with any reason and people would have supported the war. What reason did they have to invade Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction. They made it up and it everyone supported it. Why didn't they just say there where communists in Afghanistan or something? And this whole, "the Government wanted oil!" thing is also off the mark, because Iraq was the country with all the oil, not Afghanistan. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11 (it was because of the already mentioned non-existant WMD's).
What I don't understand with the conspiracy theorists is why would the Government do it? You guys really think they needed to destroy two massive and important buildings and kill 3'000 people just so they could launch a war in Afghanistan? That's just stupid. Hell, they could have come up with any reason and people would have supported the war. What reason did they have to invade Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction. They made it up and it everyone supported it. Why didn't they just say there where communists in Afghanistan or something? And this whole, "the Government wanted oil!" thing is also off the mark, because Iraq was the country with all the oil, not Afghanistan. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11 (it was because of the already mentioned non-existant WMD's).
That wouldn't have caused the molten metal that stayed molten for weeks after.
Why not? Things can smolder under the wreckage for quite a while. Also, your video references Zeitgeist, which makes Michael Moore and Ben Stein look like paragons of filmmaking integrity.
That wouldn't have caused the molten metal that stayed molten for weeks after.
Your video is from Zeitgeist, who also believe the world is secretly run by an elite group of bankers seeking to establish a one-world government and dominate the world.
That wouldn't have caused the molten metal that stayed molten for weeks after.
Why not? Things can smolder under the wreckage for quite a while. Also, your video references Zeitgeist, which makes Michael Moore and Ben Stein look like paragons of filmmaking integrity.
Sure they could've smoldered under the wreckage for a while but not enough for melting the metal.
What I don't understand with the conspiracy theorists is why would the Government do it? You guys really think they needed to destroy two massive and important buildings and kill 3'000 people just so they could launch a war in Afghanistan? That's just stupid. Hell, they could have come up with any reason and people would have supported the war. What reason did they have to invade Iraq? Weapons of mass destruction. They made it up and it everyone supported it. Why didn't they just say there where communists in Afghanistan or something? And this whole, "the Government wanted oil!" thing is also off the mark, because Iraq was the country with all the oil, not Afghanistan. The U.S. didn't invade Iraq because of 9/11 (it was because of the already mentioned non-existant WMD's).
That wouldn't have caused the molten metal that stayed molten for weeks after.
ANlMOSITY
Why not? Things can smolder under the wreckage for quite a while. Also, your video references Zeitgeist, which makes Michael Moore and Ben Stein look like paragons of filmmaking integrity.
Sure they could've smoldered under the wreckage for a while but not enough for melting the metal.
Different metals have different melting points, and as much as you claim it was iron or steel, you have no evidence of this, save for some quotes by people who are not in a position to identify a molten metal. Metals like aluminum can easily melt at such temperatures, and some metals, like gallium, will melt in your hand.
I have to say this is one of the stronger conspiracy theories i've heard out of all of them. If there weren't so many professional people like architects and engineers crying foul about it, i'd say i wouldn't believe it. But the facts they bring forward are as compelling as the facts toward it being terrorists.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"]That wouldn't have caused the molten metal that stayed molten for weeks after.ANlMOSITY
Why not? Things can smolder under the wreckage for quite a while. Also, your video references Zeitgeist, which makes Michael Moore and Ben Stein look like paragons of filmmaking integrity. Sure they could've smoldered under the wreckage for a while but not enough for melting the metal. The metal didn't have to melt. Given your response time, I can only assume you didn't even watch the video I posted.
I have to say this is one of the stronger conspiracy theories i've heard out of all of them. If there weren't so many professional people like architects and engineers crying foul about it, i'd say i wouldn't believe it. But the facts they bring forward are as compelling as the facts toward it being terrorists.
Morphic
Not really. A lot of the points they bring up, such as "freefall speed," are patently false. Also, the founder and main speaker for AE911Truth gave a highly embarrassing "cardboard box" presentation during one presentation. If you want professionals, I'd suggest looking up Ryan Mackey, a NASA engineer.
[QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"] Why not? Things can smolder under the wreckage for quite a while. Also, your video references Zeitgeist, which makes Michael Moore and Ben Stein look like paragons of filmmaking integrity. Sure they could've smoldered under the wreckage for a while but not enough for melting the metal. The metal didn't have to melt. Given your response time, I can only assume you didn't even watch the video I posted. He's referring to people talking about "molten metal" being there during the cleanup. there are explanations for this, including slag from cleanup crews, or still-smoldering fires. They often claim that it's evidence of thermite, despite the fact that A. Thermite has never been used to bring down a building, and B. thermite doesn't burn that long.
I am of the mindset that it's possible, but then, I don't really believe in saying anything is impossible. I also kinda laugh at people who say "our government wouldn't do that to the American people!" to which I say "bull". Yes they would, especially corrupt men in power looking for financial gain. I used to think the government was behind it; now I think they just knew something was going to happen and let it happen so they could justify a war, not knowing that the IT that was happening was gonna be so large. They thought it would be something small. I could be wrong though.
[QUOTE="PannicAtack"][QUOTE="scorch-62"][QUOTE="ANlMOSITY"] Sure they could've smoldered under the wreckage for a while but not enough for melting the metal. The metal didn't have to melt. Given your response time, I can only assume you didn't even watch the video I posted. He's referring to people talking about "molten metal" being there during the cleanup. there are explanations for this, including slag from cleanup crews, or still-smoldering fires. They often claim that it's evidence of thermite, despite the fact that A. Thermite has never been used to bring down a building, and B. thermite doesn't burn that long. Heh. My bad. The medication I'm on has been clouding a few thought processes. =P
[QUOTE="TBoogy"]I am of the mindset that it's possible, but then, I don't really believe in saying anything is impossible. I also kinda laugh at people who say "our government wouldn't do that to the American people!" to which I say "bull". Yes they would, especially corrupt men in power looking for financial gain. I used to think the government was behind it; now I think they just knew something was going to happen and let it happen so they could justify a war, not knowing that the IT that was happening was gonna be so large. They thought it would be something small. I could be wrong though. Yes, people in government are corrupt, but they are not murderers. Taking money is nothing compared to killing 3,000 of your own people. They may be corrupt, but they are still human. The thing about corrupt people in terms of money is that they feel like "well it isn't hurting anybody".
Even if you did feel that way, why would you come into a 9/11 thread to post your feelings about how you "don't care about it", unless you are looking to piss people off for no reason?
Twin structural trauma + fire. What's funny about that video you posted is that from the experts' responses about the twin towers, make Tower 7's collapse even more suspicious. What adds up for the Twin Towers doesn't seem to apply at all to Tower 7. They say the fires have to be a certain temperature to burn through the steel core. That the twin towers became unstable because of the initial impact wiping off all the fire proofing which made these lower temperature fires burn through the steel. Ok so what about the fire proofing in tower 7? Is this telling me Tower 7's fires burned hotter than the twin towers?
Log in to comment