Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Jinglemaster2]

Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...

The passport being found...  The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...

The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.

The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...

Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...

I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...

By that logic, a driver not wearing a seatbelt would never be cannoned through the windscreen in the event of a head-on collision. 

I have avoided this thread for several days and just watched the back and forth arguments.

Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I simply go on the facts.

1. It is impossible that a commercial aircraft the size of the ones that struck the WTC buildings 1 & 2, to collapse the buildings. It is not debateable at all. The structure of the lower 75 floors which were not in anyway effectived by fire or structural damage would prevent it.

2. As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged, yet the entire 40+ storey building fell down into a perfect heap, in its own foundations. Yet buildiungs 5&6 which were much more seriouslay damaged, remained standing.

3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.

If you are blind to the facts, that is fine. I do not know or frankly care why the demolitions took place. But demolitions they were.

IF a 767 hit the penatgon at the angle they claim, how come it wasn't seen by anyone on approach at all. Not a single witness saw it? How come it managed to miss all the 60ft high floodlights surrounding the penatgon? How come the wings caused no damage at all to the pentagon, yet they sliced through solid steel 4" thick at the WTC?

The only mystery here for me is Why? I have absoluitely no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the WTC was indeed hit by two commercial type aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there was an initial fireball, followed by relatively serious fires on 3-5 floors. But I also have absolutely no doubt whatsoever from an ex RAF engineers perspective, that you could slice out 6 floors of the WTC and drop the upper 30 floors directly down on to the remaining 65 floors and the WTC would still not collapse.

I am frankly amazed at the sheer stubborn viewpoint that some of you have when viewing the footage of the alleged collapse. Do you really believe it even possible for every single steel beam to give way at exactly the same time, without explosives?

How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?

What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?

As said already, how come build 7 was decalred to collapse before it actually did. Look at the building. It had no reason to collapse, except that it was menat to come down when flioght 93 hit it. Only problem? flight 93 never hit it.   they could hardly lkeave it standing filled with exlosives for people to see afterwards could they? So, bring it the hell down anyway. Why not!

I do not know the motives. I have suspicions, but nothing more. I do know a demolition when I see it though. And that was a demolition.

[cem_devecioglu]

I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one 

Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it.
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.

But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.

We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.

I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.

Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.

As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.

Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.

 

Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV,  magazines, newspapers etc.
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world.

mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..

[cem_devecioglu]

Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...

The passport being found...  The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...

The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.

The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...

Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...

I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...

By that logic, a driver not wearing a seatbelt would never be cannoned through the windscreen in the event of a head-on collision. 

I have avoided this thread for several days and just watched the back and forth arguments.

Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?

Everyone is entitled to their opinions. Everyone is entitled to their beliefs. I simply go on the facts.

1. It is impossible that a commercial aircraft the size of the ones that struck the WTC buildings 1 & 2, to collapse the buildings. It is not debateable at all. The structure of the lower 75 floors which were not in anyway effectived by fire or structural damage would prevent it.



2. As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged, yet the entire 40+ storey building fell down into a perfect heap, in its own foundations. Yet buildiungs 5&6 which were much more seriouslay damaged, remained standing.

3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.


If you are blind to the facts, that is fine. I do not know or frankly care why the demolitions took place. But demolitions they were.



IF a 767 hit the penatgon at the angle they claim, how come it wasn't seen by anyone on approach at all. Not a single witness saw it? How come it managed to miss all the 60ft high floodlights surrounding the penatgon? How come the wings caused no damage at all to the pentagon, yet they sliced through solid steel 4" thick at the WTC?

The only mystery here for me is Why? I have absoluitely no doubt whatsoever as to the fact that the WTC was indeed hit by two commercial type aircraft. I have absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there was an initial fireball, followed by relatively serious fires on 3-5 floors. But I also have absolutely no doubt whatsoever from an ex RAF engineers perspective, that you could slice out 6 floors of the WTC and drop the upper 30 floors directly down on to the remaining 65 floors and the WTC would still not collapse.

YES..

I am frankly amazed at the sheer stubborn viewpoint that some of you have when viewing the footage of the alleged collapse. Do you really believe it even possible for every single steel beam to give way at exactly the same time, without explosives?

Me too

How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?

Lizzie and Nick now its your duty to explain 

What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?

I'll answer that, because it has to kill people to create sorrow and pain and prepare the community..

As said already, how come build 7 was decalred to collapse before it actually did. Look at the building. It had no reason to collapse, except that it was menat to come down when flioght 93 hit it. Only problem? flight 93 never hit it.   they could hardly lkeave it standing filled with exlosives for people to see afterwards could they? So, bring it the hell down anyway. Why not!

I do not know the motives. I have suspicions, but nothing more. I do know a demolition when I see it though. And that was a demolition.

Mr RonaldMcBurger, thanks for those logical , definitive brief statements and questions 

[steve_daly]

Lets not forget the wrong date stamp on the Pentagon CCTV footage.

[bob.dent]

I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one 

Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it.
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.

But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.

We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.

I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.

Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.

As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.

Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.

 

Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV,  magazines, newspapers etc.
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world.

mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..

Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe!

[cem_devecioglu]

Kerosene fires burn at 287 celcius (549 F), Steel melts at typically above 1300 C (2500 F), so the melted steel could not be melted by the fires caused by the jet fuel...

yes.. and full stop.. even thats enough for us to believe somethings wrong with the scenario..

The passport being found...  The impact of the plane against the side of the building would have compressed a portion of the plane, anything escaping would have been compressed, shredded or burnt (the rear section of the aircraft would probably have burst open after entry into the building)...

The collapsing of WTC 7 20 minutes after it was announced it had fallen down.

The lack of a Black Box from either aircraft...

Explosives can be controlled by other means than cables...

I wouldn't say that there is no conspiracy, but, similarly, I wouldn't say it was a definative act of terrorism either...

[cem_devecioglu]

I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one 

Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it.
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.

But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.

We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.

I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.

Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.

As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.

Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.

 

Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV,  magazines, newspapers etc.
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world.

mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..

Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe!

yes..There are many patriotic Americans that I know well.. And so is here.. But there are people in every country that can do anything for money

and I think capturing a country full of oil reserves is more than enough reason..

[steve_daly]

I'm with Nickbat and Lizzie on this one 

Me too, I stopped believing in fairy tales many years ago.
Many conspiracy stories appear to be very feasible because their originators WANT you to believe it.
They're called conspiracy THEORIES because that's exactly what they are......theories.

But, the only reason anyone believes it was a terrorist attack is because they have been TOLD it was a terrorist attack.

We have all been TOLD it was this guy or that guy and all at the hands of Bin Laden.

I find it funny how people are so ready to believe when they are TOLD a handfull of guys from the Middle East can cause so much destruction, yet find the idea of it being a false flag operation instigated by the biggest world power completely implausible.

Bin Laden has not accepted resposability, it isn't even listed on his FBI rap sheet, yet it must be him and Al-Qaeda. I would rather form my opinions on fact and evidence, than what I'm told to believe.

As I said earlier, Operation Northwoods shows that these false flag operations are a possibility.

Until proved either way, I will keep an open mind.

 

Same could be said about conspiracy theories!
Conspiracy theories are generally originated by unscrupilous money grabbing barstewards hoping to make a quick profit from the misery of disaster or major events such as the moon landing - planting seeds of doubt under the heading of "conspiracy theory" in the minds of the public is always good for increasing the sale of stories to TV,  magazines, newspapers etc.
It happens nearly every time there's a major disaster or event in the world.

mostly true but not for this event.. any Usa Citizen saying against the govt will go in trouble sooner or later..

Sorry Cem, but I have to completely disagree with you on this occassion. Apart from the reasons I've already stated (and a few from pevious replies) I simply refuse to believe that fiercely patriotic Americans would contemplate such a thing to their own people and for what real useful purpose? I'm sorry but this conspiracy theory really is from the land of make believe!

http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html?q=northwoods.html

Planned such attacks before....

[cem_devecioglu]

and about conspiracy,

if an event happens and there are logical explanations for some parts of event scienfitically but cant fill all the blanks doesnt mean or make this theory/explanation a conspiracy even if its different than the official one..

[Nickbat]

Nick. Are you actually comparing a plane made from aluminium and with 10,000 gallons of aviatioon fuel hitting a steel framed building, with someone not wearing a seatbelt?

Yes, I am.

The WTC building was 70% air. There were steel columns, but obviously these were spaced far enough apart to permit an aircraft fuselage feasibly to penetrate without striking one full on. The outer covering of the WTC, in between floors, was largely glass. Thus, it is entirely possible for the cockpit to enter and not be totally crushed. Equally, it can be reasonably expected that the hijacker was not strapped in as a pilot would be. There is a great deal of debris ejected from the WTC face opposite to that of impact. It is entirely conceivable that some of that debris contained body parts and equally conceivable that some of those parts belonged to a hijacker.

As mentioned many times, WTC building 7 was only very slightly damaged

NY fireman say it was damaged enough to cause them to evacuate. Are they lying?

3. No plane hit the penatgon at all. Comparing the destruction of a Small Phatom F4 aircraft hitting 30 ft thick concrete at 600mph with the possibility of a commercial airliner hitting 6" thick walls of a building at 300mph, is nonsense.

So is the claim of 6-inch walls at the Pentagon. The walls were 24" thick!! Furthermore, the portion of the structure, known as "Wedge 1" had recently undergone a structural refurbishment. "The exterior walls had been reinforced with steel beams and columns, bolted where they met at each floor."
(See: http://www.architectureweek.com/2001/1003/today.html & http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.asp)

How does ANYONE here explain the steel beams, which were clearly cut at 45 degrees, excatly as they would be in demolition? Anyone at all?

Yes, they were cut at that angle during the rescue/clean-up operation. Cuts are made at that angle to prevent the columns toppling.
http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

What angers me and baffles me, is IF this was a demolition (which I absolutely believe) and someone was trying to hide it, why not evactuate the buildings first? You could still fly two planes into it and still demolish it, but why kill 3000+ people for nothing?

Because it WASN'T a demolition!

[Darth Loo-knee]

Seems to be getting a bit silly Guys, please calm it down.
Cheers

[Marks DTM Calib]

Inappropriate posts removed

[Banjax]

Whilst I don't fully subscribe to the conspiracy theory, there is one thing that's always troubled me from a structural engineering perspective..........

forget the twin towers collapsing, forget the pentagon being hit by something - a plane, a missile, whatever - forget all that: i'll buy it.

but a tall steel building collapsing due to fire? doesn't happen, never has, never will, with one exception: WTC 7, and this is a building designed and planned from the start to be much larger, with more floors than it eventually finished with - it was probably the most structurally sound, overdesigned building in New York! I reckon the USAF could attack that building all day long and it wouldn't come down, yet a paper fire melted the steel? 

[Mysteryman]

So. We are all agreed then. Good.

[PhilRich]

So. We are all agreed then. Good.

[/highlight]






I thought Marks MDT had removed all the inappropriate posts?^^^^