Why do people continue to insist that 9/11 was staged?

[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"][QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Um all you have to do is look at the trucks that were pulling away with steel beams, thats taking away evidence that could of been investigated to see what the hell melted the steel beams. Instead it was taken away and sent off to be recycled. Don't see anything wrong with that?

xscrapzx

Oh, so that's where all the evidence went, huh? :roll:

Anyway, the jet fuel from the planes didn't have to melt through the beams in order to bring down the towers. The fires simply had to be hot enough so that the structural integrity of the beams would be compromised.

Which is true but how many floors again where burning and for how long? Also how many floors did those floors take out? Think about it. Just think of the 40 something beams in the middle of the building collasping on itself like a preztel and on top of the 80+ floors that crumbled like bread.

I'm not really sure what type of analogy you're using so I'm going to use one of my own...

The towers fell similar to how an accordian is compressed because you can see as the building collapses on itself, the oxygen is blowing out the windows on each floor. Again, this is because the beams could not support the weight of the floors above the point of impact.

Gosh, I think I've already made this point in similar 9/11 conspiracy threads.

Thats what I'm trying to say... Do you really believe that 10+ stories that were burning pretty hott, no doubt on that part. Took out 85+ stories below it with ease, with absolutely no resistence of any kind from the floors that is was collapsing on? Not only actually imagining the beams in the middle folding like an according, come on think about that, and you do you really believe if you dropped a piece of concrete from a thousand feet that it would break into powder?

Sorry to get into the middle of both of your discussion, but structural energy management is part of my day to day. With that said perhaps I can interject?

The best way I can discribe the situation would be like this;

Build a 25 level model, (roughly 1/4 in terms of floors) with four stand alone supports per level placed in each corner with a piece of tempered glass as the "floor" for each level. Lets make the glass an 1/8 of an inch thick and 8" squared and the supports made of hollow stainless steel tubes (EDIT: Lets make the tubes aluminum, based on the model I am playing with we may as well save the weight), with the base of the unit being a flat piece of cement.

Now place a standard 4.4 lbs red clay brick (4" x 2 2/3" x 8") on every level, except 7, 14, and 20 where you would place six hollow tubes rather then the standard four and no brick.

You will find that the tower should stand without issue, no cracks in the glass (Assuming you are using the correct glass). You could sit it like this for days and unless someone messed with it, it should just stand there.

Now tie a string to the four support beams on level 22, and yank em out.

You now have the energy of 13.2 pounds of brick slamming down on the brick on level 22. The weight or energy was being spread over four supports on each floor over the glass surface, now 13.2 pounds (plus the minimal weight of the supports and the glass) or force are being exerted on the highest point of level 22 (the top of the brick)

There should be a brief (less then a second) stop on level 20 which is a support floor but then the pile of bricks will smash right down the middle of the tower and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Because you are changing the way the energy of the building is being managed, and not only asking it to hold up to the weight it was designed for, but the applied force from above focused at one point.

To really summerize, your wooden shelf in the garage can hold your sledge hammer on the top shelf with no issue, but if I swing that hammer even lightly the applied force becomes much greater and chances are will smash right through the top shelf.

EDIT 1: Changed supports to aluminum

[QUOTE="Dutch_Mix"]

You don't need a video of the plane hitting the Pentagon to prove that it did in fact hit the building...

How do you know the video has been "clearly tampered with" if you've never seen it before? :lol:

xscrapzx

If you read it clearly they released the video 2 years ago, and if you watch it you can clearly see frames where cut out of the actual video! :roll:

But how do you know they omitted frames from the video if you hadn't watched the video before they confiscated it?

And I'm still waiting for you to address my point of not needing a video to prove a plane hit the Pentagon. ;)

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

Why don't you answer the question? Why take away footage of a so called plane hitting building to prove something and then not show it, or take all the footage away and never release any of it, but release one video clip of 2-5 second footage of an explotion, that doesn't make you wonder why the hell they would do that?

DeeJayInphinity

From a lot of the footage I saw people were unsure what they really saw hit the pentagon, some didn't even see anything. How am I making things complicated? I simple made the statement that there is more to 9-11 then two planes taking out buildings. I never said the government was behind it, I just feel that there was more to it then you see on those videos. How dense can you be? Just because taking everything that CNN says and what President Bush says to be 100% truth, I would be asking yourself that question.

From a lot of the footage I saw people were unsure what they really saw hit the pentagon, some didn't even see anything. How am I making things complicated? I simple made the statement that there is more to 9-11 then two planes taking out buildings. I never said the government was behind it, I just feel that there was more to it then you see on those videos. How dense can you be? Just because taking everything that CNN says and what President Bush says to be 100% truth, I would be asking yourself that question.

xscrapzx

World Trade Center 7. This is what completely makes the governments story fall apart. This was a demolished building, and there is plenty of people who agree with this. Videos alone are almost enough to give it away. Buildings do not collapse inside themselves like this without plenty of skillful demo work. I have no clue who engaged in it or how it was pulled off but I do believe there was some sort of black flag operation on that day.

It was recently admitted by our government that they did in fact missile down flight 93 in shanksville.

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

flowdee79

What about Willie Nelson? He's still walking around this earth with all his limbs saying the government was involved in 9/11. Unless thats sarcasm..

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

flowdee79

World Trade Center 7. This is what completely makes the governments story fall apart. This was a demolished building, and there is plenty of people who agree with this. Videos alone are almost enough to give it away. Buildings do not collapse inside themselves like this without plenty of skillful demo work. I have no clue who engaged in it or how it was pulled off but I do believe there was some sort of black flag operation on that day.

It was recently admitted by our government that they did in fact missile down flight 93 in shanksville.

jer_1

:lol:

"I don't know how it was done, or why, but I know the government did it and it was a conspiracy!!!!"

:lol:

And are there any links to this about the government missle down flight 93? Or is it more home-grown facts from the 9/11 truth camp?:roll:

It was recently admitted by our government that they did in fact missile down flight 93 in shanksville.

jer_1

O rly? You wouldn't happen to have a link to this fact would you?

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

From a lot of the footage I saw people were unsure what they really saw hit the pentagon, some didn't even see anything. How am I making things complicated? I simple made the statement that there is more to 9-11 then two planes taking out buildings. I never said the government was behind it, I just feel that there was more to it then you see on those videos. How dense can you be? Just because taking everything that CNN says and what President Bush says to be 100% truth, I would be asking yourself that question.

DeeJayInphinity

Look as it has been cool to sit here and debate, I have to go now. Don't want people to think that I have left without atleast saying goodbye. I just told you that from the footage that I saw of people near the pentagon (which are witnesses from what I know unless they are paid actors) some of them have mixed stories of what they saw or heard. All I have to say is that it is tough for me to believe that building fell that quickly with that many floors and all those beams in the middle just folding like accordings with no sense of friction what so ever. Not only that every, I mean absolutely everything turning into a pile of snow at the bottom, not a piece of concrete left to stand on.

The reason I suggest that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, is why take the video away from stores and gas stations? Why not show their footage of it? Why show me a hole going through the pentagon, and not something similar to that of the world trade center with a hug gash in the building? Who knows you have your opinions as I have mine and maybe I do have to do a little more research to maybe get a better understanding of it.

It was recently admitted by our government that they did in fact missile down flight 93 in shanksville.

jer_1

Really?

I was of the impression Flight 93 showed a total lack of prepardness by the US Airforce as during the 9/11 commission they admitted to scrambling planes late, and actually wasting time trying to find flight 11 after it already crashed into one of the towers?

Even most of the privately owned radars in the area showed the closest US Military planes in the sky were nearly 100 miles away, and those were unarmed planes with training pilots that had no live ammo.

Dylan Avery admitted on his own forums that it was bin Laden confessing in the video. What more do you need?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="xscrapzx"]

From a lot of the footage I saw people were unsure what they really saw hit the pentagon, some didn't even see anything. How am I making things complicated? I simple made the statement that there is more to 9-11 then two planes taking out buildings. I never said the government was behind it, I just feel that there was more to it then you see on those videos. How dense can you be? Just because taking everything that CNN says and what President Bush says to be 100% truth, I would be asking yourself that question.

xscrapzx

Look as it has been cool to sit here and debate, I have to go now. Don't want people to think that I have left without atleast saying goodbye. I just told you that from the footage that I saw of people near the pentagon (which are witnesses from what I know unless they are paid actors) some of them have mixed stories of what they saw or heard. All I have to say is that it is tough for me to believe that building fell that quickly with that many floors and all those beams in the middle just folding like accordings with no sense of friction what so ever. Not only that every, I mean absolutely everything turning into a pile of snow at the bottom, not a piece of concrete left to stand on.

The reason I suggest that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, is why take the video away from stores and gas stations? Why not show their footage of it? Why show me a hole going through the pentagon, and not something similar to that of the world trade center with a hug gash in the building? Who knows you have your opinions as I have mine and maybe I do have to do a little more research to maybe get a better understanding of it.

Because it is STANDARD PROCEDURE for the FBI to confiscate any video surveillance for a federal investigation! This is what people have told you, and you are just ignoring it.

[QUOTE="flowdee79"]

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

DeeJayInphinity

After the so caleld plane hit the pentagon no trace of a plance was found (hardly any shrapnel what so ever. The goverment said this was due to the heat of the fire melting the plane shrapnel. Scientists say that a fire caused by jet fuel is impossible to melt aluminium, steel etc and that is what planes are made of. And if the plance did melt how come dead bodies were being pulled out of the pentagon where it was hit. Wouldnt they of melted?

I believe that there was a lot more to it then just two planes hitting those buildings. I just have a hard time believeing that a plane hits the upper most part of a building, and then all of sudden a hour later 10 floors take out 90, not only does 10 floors take absolutely anihilate the building, but the whole building free falls to the ground acting as though there are no floors underneath one of another.xscrapzx

Well, maybe the twin towers were made out of jelly.

Look as it has been cool to sit here and debate, I have to go now. Don't want people to think that I have left without atleast saying goodbye. I just told you that from the footage that I saw of people near the pentagon (which are witnesses from what I know unless they are paid actors) some of them have mixed stories of what they saw or heard. All I have to say is that it is tough for me to believe that building fell that quickly with that many floors and all those beams in the middle just folding like accordings with no sense of friction what so ever. Not only that every, I mean absolutely everything turning into a pile of snow at the bottom, not a piece of concrete left to stand on.

The reason I suggest that something other than a plane hit the pentagon, is why take the video away from stores and gas stations? Why not show their footage of it? Why show me a hole going through the pentagon, and not something similar to that of the world trade center with a hug gash in the building? Who knows you have your opinions as I have mine and maybe I do have to do a little more research to maybe get a better understanding of it.

xscrapzx

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

edd678

After the so caleld plane hit the pentagon no trace of a plance was found (hardly any shrapnel what so ever. The goverment said this was due to the heat of the fire melting the plane shrapnel. Scientists say that a fire caused by jet fuel is impossible to melt aluminium, steel etc and that is what planes are made of. And if the plance did melt how come dead bodies were being pulled out of the pentagon where it was hit. Wouldnt they of melted?

No evidence? Really?

[QUOTE="xscrapzx"]I believe that there was a lot more to it then just two planes hitting those buildings. I just have a hard time believeing that a plane hits the upper most part of a building, and then all of sudden a hour later 10 floors take out 90, not only does 10 floors take absolutely anihilate the building, but the whole building free falls to the ground acting as though there are no floors underneath one of another.omfg_its_dally

Well, maybe the twin towers were made out of jelly.

That would be one cool building.

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

edd678

After the so caleld plane hit the pentagon no trace of a plance was found (hardly any shrapnel what so ever. The goverment said this was due to the heat of the fire melting the plane shrapnel. Scientists say that a fire caused by jet fuel is impossible to melt aluminium, steel etc and that is what planes are made of. And if the plance did melt how come dead bodies were being pulled out of the pentagon where it was hit. Wouldnt they of melted?

[QUOTE="edd678"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

Rhazakna

After the so caleld plane hit the pentagon no trace of a plance was found (hardly any shrapnel what so ever. The goverment said this was due to the heat of the fire melting the plane shrapnel. Scientists say that a fire caused by jet fuel is impossible to melt aluminium, steel etc and that is what planes are made of. And if the plance did melt how come dead bodies were being pulled out of the pentagon where it was hit. Wouldnt they of melted?

No evidence? Really?

Yes because that looks like evidence of a whole plane hitting a bulding :roll:

And also if it was hit by a jumbo 747 wouldnt it make a slightly bigger whole in the pentagon than this?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2043085.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED0102EE65F67A69475A5397277B4DC33E

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

No evidence? Really?

edd678

Yes because that looks like evidence of a whole plane hitting a bulding :roll:

And also if it was hit by a jumbo 747 wouldnt it make a slightly bigger whole in the pentagon than this?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2043085.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED0102EE65F67A69475A5397277B4DC33E

So, let me get this straight. A plane reportedly hits the Pentagon. Wreckage of that plane is found at the Pentagon. One of the pieces of wreckage is the engine from said plane. And none of this is evidence of a plane?

[QUOTE="edd678"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

No evidence? Really?

Rhazakna

Yes because that looks like evidence of a whole plane hitting a bulding :roll:

And also if it was hit by a jumbo 747 wouldnt it make a slightly bigger whole in the pentagon than this?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2043085.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED0102EE65F67A69475A5397277B4DC33E

So, let me get this straight. A plane reportedly hits the Pentagon. Wreckage of that plane is found at the Pentagon. One of the pieces of wreckage is the engine from said plane. And none of this is evidence of a plane?

[QUOTE="edd678"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

No evidence? Really?

Rhazakna

Yes because that looks like evidence of a whole plane hitting a bulding :roll:

And also if it was hit by a jumbo 747 wouldnt it make a slightly bigger whole in the pentagon than this?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2043085.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED0102EE65F67A69475A5397277B4DC33E

So, let me get this straight. A plane reportedly hits the Pentagon. Wreckage of that plane is found at the Pentagon. One of the pieces of wreckage is the engine from said plane. And none of this is evidence of a plane?

Don't forget about the eye-witness testimonies...

[QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="edd678"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

No evidence? Really?

MattUD1

Yes because that looks like evidence of a whole plane hitting a bulding :roll:

And also if it was hit by a jumbo 747 wouldnt it make a slightly bigger whole in the pentagon than this?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2043085.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED0102EE65F67A69475A5397277B4DC33E

So, let me get this straight. A plane reportedly hits the Pentagon. Wreckage of that plane is found at the Pentagon. One of the pieces of wreckage is the engine from said plane. And none of this is evidence of a plane?

It amazes me how high the truther's buerden of proof is, especially considering they haven't met theirs in any way.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"][QUOTE="edd678"][QUOTE="Rhazakna"]

No evidence? Really?

Rhazakna

Yes because that looks like evidence of a whole plane hitting a bulding :roll:

And also if it was hit by a jumbo 747 wouldnt it make a slightly bigger whole in the pentagon than this?

http://cache.viewimages.com/xc/2043085.jpg?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1934A2752006EF5F0ED0102EE65F67A69475A5397277B4DC33E

So, let me get this straight. A plane reportedly hits the Pentagon. Wreckage of that plane is found at the Pentagon. One of the pieces of wreckage is the engine from said plane. And none of this is evidence of a plane?

It amazes me how high the truther's buerden of proof is, especially considering they haven't met theirs in any way.

I'm just wondering, what do you conspiracy theorists think should be consequences of the government doing this? If in France, the majority arrived at the conclusion that the French government had killed thousands of civilians for imperial reasons, the government would've already been overthrown. Let not our complacency stop the Revolution!espoac

They think Bush should be thrown out, and Ron Paul should be elected king.

aparrently they somehow believe that the government was responsible for the deaths of a couple thousand citizens. i've nevr quite got the part about them hiring people willing to crash the planes and kill themselves.shoeman12

teh windowless remote control nwo planes111!!!!11

aparrently they somehow believe that the government was responsible for the deaths of a couple thousand citizens. i've nevr quite got the part about them hiring people willing to crash the planes and kill themselves.shoeman12

It's quite simple, really:

They trained Osama Bin-Laden to start Al Qaeda and train a bunch of extremists to attack America, when in fact it was America planning to attack America all along and then America would turn on Al Qaeda and declare war for oil.

That's an actual conspiracy theory, by the way.

[QUOTE="edd678"][QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="flowdee79"]

But why would the US govt. kill Dylan Avery, wouldn't that make it even more suspicious. A person presenting evidence of a government conspiracy is mysteriously killed?

CoInCiDeNcE?!?!?! You decide!!1!!

DeeJayInphinity

After the so caleld plane hit the pentagon no trace of a plance was found (hardly any shrapnel what so ever. The goverment said this was due to the heat of the fire melting the plane shrapnel. Scientists say that a fire caused by jet fuel is impossible to melt aluminium, steel etc and that is what planes are made of. And if the plance did melt how come dead bodies were being pulled out of the pentagon where it was hit. Wouldnt they of melted?

Did they? Its a conspiracy I tells ya. I'm sure of it.

It doesn't surprise me at all, really. I was a truther at one point.
MattUD1

[QUOTE="shoeman12"]aparrently they somehow believe that the government was responsible for the deaths of a couple thousand citizens. i've nevr quite got the part about them hiring people willing to crash the planes and kill themselves.Dracargen

It's quite simple, really:

They trained Osama Bin-Laden to start Al Qaeda and train a bunch of extremists to attack America, when in fact it was America planning to attack America all along and then America would turn on Al Qaeda and declare war for oil.

That's an actual conspiracy theory, by the way.

... ...... if someone said that to me and actually believed it, i don't even know how i'd respond.

[QUOTE="MattUD1"]It doesn't surprise me at all, really. I was a truther at one point.
DeeJayInphinity

Why are so may people incapable of looking at evidence without bias? Why do they cling to their stories despite all the contrary evidence?

[QUOTE="DeeJayInphinity"][QUOTE="MattUD1"]It doesn't surprise me at all, really. I was a truther at one point.
Rhazakna

Why are so may people incapable of looking at evidence without bias? Why do they cling to their stories despite all the contrary evidence?

I blame this woman.

Some people want to believe there was something more to a terrible event. That it couldn't be so simple as people out to cause damage to innocents.

That said, JFK totally was assassinated by the government.

Samwel_X

[QUOTE="Samwel_X"]

Some people want to believe there was something more to a terrible event. That it couldn't be so simple as people out to cause damage to innocents.

That said, JFK totally was assassinated by the government.

cool_baller

Yes, it was the mafia. I posted on page 1 or 2 how i know this if you want to check it out.

[QUOTE="Samwel_X"]

Some people want to believe there was something more to a terrible event. That it couldn't be so simple as people out to cause damage to innocents.

That said, JFK totally was assassinated by the government.

cool_baller

No no no; The government paid the mafia to assasinate JFK.

[QUOTE="cool_baller"][QUOTE="Samwel_X"]

Some people want to believe there was something more to a terrible event. That it couldn't be so simple as people out to cause damage to innocents.

That said, JFK totally was assassinated by the government.

Dracargen

No no no; The government paid the mafia to assasinate JFK.

Actually..it was me who paid them.

[QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="cool_baller"][QUOTE="Samwel_X"]

Some people want to believe there was something more to a terrible event. That it couldn't be so simple as people out to cause damage to innocents.

That said, JFK totally was assassinated by the government.

3eyedrazorback

No no no; The government paid the mafia to assasinate JFK.

Actually..it was me who paid them.

The only logical conclusion is that you are the government.:o

[QUOTE="3eyedrazorback"][QUOTE="Dracargen"][QUOTE="cool_baller"][QUOTE="Samwel_X"]

Some people want to believe there was something more to a terrible event. That it couldn't be so simple as people out to cause damage to innocents.

That said, JFK totally was assassinated by the government.

Dracargen

No no no; The government paid the mafia to assasinate JFK.

Actually..it was me who paid them.

The only logical conclusion is that you are the government.:o

I...uh...I...I..*Calls Mafia again*

Sorry to get into the middle of both of your discussion, but structural energy management is part of my day to day. With that said perhaps I can interject?

The best way I can discribe the situation would be like this;

Build a 25 level model, (roughly 1/4 in terms of floors) with four stand alone supports per level placed in each corner with a piece of tempered glass as the "floor" for each level. Lets make the glass an 1/8 of an inch thick and 8" squared and the supports made of hollow stainless steel tubes (EDIT: Lets make the tubes aluminum, based on the model I am playing with we may as well save the weight), with the base of the unit being a flat piece of cement.

Now place a standard 4.4 lbs red clay brick (4" x 2 2/3" x 8") on every level, except 7, 14, and 20 where you would place six hollow tubes rather then the standard four and no brick.

You will find that the tower should stand without issue, no cracks in the glass (Assuming you are using the correct glass). You could sit it like this for days and unless someone messed with it, it should just stand there.

Now tie a string to the four support beams on level 22, and yank em out.

You now have the energy of 13.2 pounds of brick slamming down on the brick on level 22. The weight or energy was being spread over four supports on each floor over the glass surface, now 13.2 pounds (plus the minimal weight of the supports and the glass) or force are being exerted on the highest point of level 22 (the top of the brick)

There should be a brief (less then a second) stop on level 20 which is a support floor but then the pile of bricks will smash right down the middle of the tower and the whole thing will come crashing down.

Because you are changing the way the energy of the building is being managed, and not only asking it to hold up to the weight it was designed for, but the applied force from above focused at one point.

To really summerize, your wooden shelf in the garage can hold your sledge hammer on the top shelf with no issue, but if I swing that hammer even lightly the applied force becomes much greater and chances are will smash right through the top shelf.

EDIT 1: Changed supports to aluminum

cosmostein77

I think this is the most sense I've read in this thread. A great read.