110 replies to this topic

[Raillery]

Very few people in our society even know about these and the points I am bringing up. Many more people arn't willing to open their eyes and insist on being stubborn.


Phone calls out of the planes? Find me some from the planes going into the WTC and the Pentagon. kthx.

I know the speed the twin towers should have fallen at because it's a basic physics law, everything falls at the same speed. There is math that can be done to figure these things out. it's not that hard. Please read what people have previously posted about the buildings falling speed so i don't have to reword this for every new person that jumps into the conversation.

So what if it fell in freefall time? That doesn't mean shit if it did or did not freefall.

Are you kidding me? You honestly don't think that has anything to do with this? The fact they fell at freefall time disproves that the floors could've collapsed onto eachother. They would have slowed down and NOT gone down at freefall times.

Edited by LowLow, 23 February 2006 - 09:49 PM.

[|nfinite]

The tape of osama admitting to 9/11 is,
2.) Was translated by a government official who worked closely with the administration. Did you translate the video for yourself to see what he had to see? The quality of the video is so horrendous it's near impossible to make out what he's saying, much less read his lips.

Not to mention that Osama Bin Laden is "Left Handed", but in the video he is seen writing with his right hand.

Also note the ring on his finger.

It is against the Muslim religion to wear that kind of Jewelry.

He is a very religious man to the Islamic faith.

Umm yeah.... Two buildings once named the tallest buildings in the world hit the ground and the cement gets hurt...... So simple if you just think about it eh?

They were built with some very stable material.

But they ended up turning into dust?

Yeah right.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Very few people in our society even know about these and the points I am bringing up. Many more people arn't willing to open their eyes and insist on being stubborn.

lol.... yes, they are the stubborn ones... all them

Phone calls out of the planes? Find me some from the planes going into the WTC and the Pentagon. kthx.

Yes, because they were recorded. I guess the family members of the dead are all CIA plants and lied about it. Looks like the "fake 9/11" employee list has gone up in the hundreds or thousands now. And they can all keep the secret. Amazing.

I know the speed the twin towers should have fallen at because it's a basic physics law, everything falls at the same speed. There is math that can be done to figure these things out. it's not that hard. Please read what people have previously posted about the buildings falling speed so i don't have to reword this for every new person that jumps into the conversation.

....So the masterminds of the CIA and the White House came up with this grand scheme of immense complexity, but their big mistake was failing to realize that the complex physics involved in crashing planes, explosions, and falling buildings, could be figured out by the common internet denizen.

And no one else has figured it out. All those people with masters degrees in physics out there are making the mistakes, and people on the internet and documentary film makers that took some physics in high school are the experts on the subject.

Well then, if you're so correct, go report it to the media. Right now. It's the story of the century. I'm sure none of them have ever thought of it. Go on. Call em up. You'll be famous.

Edited by BrknPhoenix, 23 February 2006 - 09:55 PM.

[Mitch]

Not to mention that Osama Bin Laden is "Left Handed", but in the video he is seen writing with his right hand.

Also note the ring on his finger.

It is against the Muslim religion to wear that kind of Jewelry.

He is a very religious man to the Islamic faith.
They were built with some very stable material.

But they ended up turning into dust?

Yeah right.

Are you kidding me? you don't watch fox eh? They found out that was it was edited.

[Vegas]

oh man everythin i knew is goin down the drain.all this talk on physics and conspiracies....
but no..what BrknPhoenix said has sense to it.and just because tests and simulations say that it was inprobably to b real...doesnt mean its tru.also didnt they make the planes hit strategic parts in the buildin to make it fall faster and efficient the way they did.i would get more into this but i didnt read the whole thread and im kina sleepy.to tomoro!

[|nfinite]

Are you kidding me? you don't watch fox eh? They found out that was it was edited.

Fox is controlled by the Government.

Do you honestly THINK that the Government is going to let THEIR "Freedom of Speech" Media slander the Government and expose their lies.

"BULLSHIT."

[Raillery]

Yes, because they were recorded. I guess the family members of the dead are all CIA plants and lied about it. Looks like the "fake 9/11" employee list has gone up in the hundreds or thousands now. And they can all keep the secret. Amazing.

Thank you for putting words in my mouth, that shows what a strong case you have. I've showed you some sources, show me some of yours. I asked you to show me the phone calls, you just said "lol they were recorded!!!"

....So the masterminds of the CIA and the White House came up with this grand scheme of immense complexity, but their big mistake was failing to realize that the complex physics involved in crashing planes, explosions, and falling buildings, could be figured out by the common internet denizen.

Have you ever seen this topic discussed upon in the news? No. They knew this wouldnt' get out to the mainstream, after 9/11 everyone (even i) took in what had happened until they looked deeper. By then it was too late, no chance of this going on tv for everyone to see. It's restricted to the internet and talking in person with friends.

Well then, if you're so correct, go report it to the media. Right now. It's the story of the century. I'm sure none of them have ever thought of it. Go on. Call em up. You'll be famous.

The media won't cover this. Lots of the media is owned by republicans. The media is controlled. I really don't want to stray off on that topic now though. Make a new thread about that tomorrow and I'll prove that to you. Let's stay on topic.

You still havn't debunked any of what I have said. You've just told me I'm an idiot and tried to make a fool of me.

Please show me I'm wrong.

Edit:

Fox is controlled by the Government.

Do you honestly THINK that the Government is going to let THEIR "Freedom of Speech" Media slander the Government and expose their lies.

Fox is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a devot republican who is connected to people in the government. I'm glad that you know this though, you seem well informed.

"BULLSHIT."

Owned.

Edited by LowLow, 23 February 2006 - 10:02 PM.

[RandomNameIgnoreIt]

Alright, you guys... are a bunch of nuts. Seriously. I hope one day you can get a little sense knocked into you. I'm tired of this... Yes, everyone is out to get you. The government is evil. Little green men are real, get out your tin-foil hats. Jesus Christ, you act like I'm the one that has to prove something when simple common sense proves the case enough.

You can't seem to get through your heads the sheer amount of incredible unbelievable factors that would have to go into the government faking 9/11 and keeping it secret for this long. It's so little a possibility that it's not even worth thinking about. It basically works on the assumption that 99.9% of people on earth are completely retarded and blind.

You can cite all the physics you want (but until I see your college degree, I don't really give a damn because lots of real physicists would say you're wrong.) None of you have even addressed one of the common sense points I made. I talk about the vast impossibilities of this even working are, and you cite physics like your experts, when even real scientists couldn't be experts in this. It's the first time an event of this magnitude has happened. Once. People spent the better parts of YEARS studying this and there is no REAL compelling evidence to inspire a real investigation into it.

But I guess you like being the odd ones out. You continue believing what you want. Just remember how much common sense you had to leap over and ignore to make your theories work. Seriously, really think about it. The ignorance in this topic disgusts me. And with that, I'm done with it.

[Raillery]

Alright, you guys... are a bunch of nuts. Seriously. I hope one day you can get a little sense knocked into you. I'm tired of this... Yes, everyone is out to get you. The government is evil. Little green men are real, get out your tin-foil hats. Jesus Christ, you act like I'm the one that has to prove something when simple common sense proves the case enough.

You can't seem to get through your heads the sheer amount of incredible unbelievable factors that would have to go into the government faking 9/11 and keeping it secret for this long. It's so little a possibility that it's not even worth thinking about. It basically works on the assumption that 99.9% of people on earth are completely retarded and blind.

You can cite all the physics you want (but until I see your college degree, I don't really give a damn because lots of real physicists would say you're wrong.) None of you have even addressed one of the common sense points I made. I talk about the vast impossibilities of this even working are, and you cite physics like your experts, when even real scientists couldn't be experts in this. It's the first time an event of this magnitude has happened. Once. People spent the better parts of YEARS studying this and there is no REAL compelling evidence to inspire a real investigation into it.

But I guess you like being the odd ones out. You continue believing what you want. Just remember how much common sense you had to leap over and ignore to make your theories work. Seriously, really think about it. The ignorance in this topic disgusts me. And with that, I'm done with it.

You didn't adress but one of the points I made, please don't be a hypocrite, that wouldn't look good.

The level of physics involved in this is very simple, you don't need a college degree.

There is a lot of compelling evidence, I gave you it all. You brushed it aside because either

1.) You couldn't answer it
2.) You didn't want to

Neither of which is good.

[Vegas]

They were built with some very stable material.

But they ended up turning into dust?

Yeah right.

answers from a source of mine

The plane chasis was made of aluminium. The 2 towers steel support containedmajority of iron (like over 95 percent). If the towers support had not been galvinised or treated there would be iron oxide on the steelsupports ( this maybe to cut costs? very dangerous but possible!!!). The initial heat charge of the blast of the planes fuel tanks caused enough heat to react the aluminium with iron oxide(2Al(s) + Fe2O3(s) --> Al2O3(l) + 2Fe(l) supports creating a thermite reaction. This reaction is one of the most intense explosive reactions chemically. It brings about enough heat to melt all metals including tungstun! This thermic blast would sheer the structure no doubt, therefore causing the tower to tople.

and ther was no fire-proofin on the steel above the 64th floor

Edited by Scope, 23 February 2006 - 10:25 PM.

[|nfinite]

Um...

The Tower's Support was a combination of Titanium and Iron.

Tell me the melting point of Ti.

[Archon]

(1668 °C, 3034 °F)

Too much physics for me here, just thought I would help someone out.

[Mason]

Apparently everybody throws out the fact that much of the fire-proofing on the structure was ripped off of the beams by particles of drywall.

The beams didn't melt, don't be ridiculous. They simply became more malleable under the intense heat.

I know there's proof for both sides of this argument, but much of the "proof" from the side stating that it was in fact staged can be dismissed as speculation or guesswork.

You keep bringing up the pulverized concrete. Just because there were huge dust clouds does not mean that the concrete was pulverized by a massive explosion. Could it not also mean that the dust is just from massive amounts of concrete being broken and crushed?

And to let you know, I have not watched this video. I have dialup, so I'd rather not waste my time with it. I just thought I'd let you know this, as it's the reason why I didn't comment on the free-fall speed of the towers.

Edited by Mason, 24 February 2006 - 07:47 AM.

[Ives]

I don't like George W. Bush all too much, I disagree with many of his acts. But by no means in no way could 9/11 be pulled off so perfectly. And by no means would Bush be so cruel. It seems to me that the video contains pissed off democrats that want to do all they can to kick bush out of office. But not the legitamate way.

[|nfinite]

I don't like George W. Bush all too much, I disagree with many of his acts. But by no means in no way could 9/11 be pulled off so perfectly. And by no means would Bush be so cruel. It seems to me that the video contains pissed off democrats that want to do all they can to kick bush out of office. But not the legitamate way.

Bush wasn't the center of all this.

It involved everyone in his cabinet.

Bush is too much of an idiot to plan all of this out with "Military Precision."

[Ives]

Bush wasn't the center of all this.

It involved everyone in his cabinet.

Bush is too much of an idiot to plan all of this out with "Military Precision."

Still, not many people like the cabinet either. But who the hell would be so cruel?

[|nfinite]

Still, not many people like the cabinet either. But who the hell would be so cruel?

You'd be surprised.

Did you forget Hitler and Stalin?

They killed thousands, hell, MILLIONS of people, for no real reason at all.

The World isn't "Nice" and it's not as "Innocent" as you think it is.

To say "Who would be so cruel?" is a bit naive, no?

[Ives]

You'd be surprised.

Did you forget Hitler and Stalin?

They killed thousands, hell, MILLIONS of people, for no real reason at all.

The World isn't "Nice" and it's not as "Innocent" as you think it is.

To say "Who would be so cruel?" is a bit naive, no?

It's not the fact of cruel things. I'm not refering to that naively. I'm just refering to the fact there is no logical explanation of how it worked so "perfect". I understand another argument from you is the fact the media is controlled by a strong portion of the goverment and the media would never say anything. And my only response to that is : provide more efficent proof and ill believe this little scandal.

[Frizzle]

Ok, you have realised you compared George W. Bush to Stalin and Hitler? Ok, maybe he isn't a genius and sometimes deserves a punch, but comparing him to genocidal maniacs is a bit too much.

[Ives]

To those who think 9/11 is fake : Do you fancy Micheal Moore's documentaries?

[Mystical]

I don't know I don't care whoever was involved with it will go to hell and those who died I hope were at peace with god.

[|nfinite]

Ok, you have realised you compared George W. Bush to Stalin and Hitler? Ok, maybe he isn't a genius and sometimes deserves a punch, but comparing him to genocidal maniacs is a bit too much.

I wasn't trying to compare him to Hitler or Stalin, I was just trying to show him that there were people who were cruel enough to kill thousands of people.

That's all.

To those who think 9/11 is fake : Do you fancy Micheal Moore's documentaries?

Not really, because he tends to exaggerate things.

[Vegas]

man the more i research into this thing the more i start to believe that it was indeed staged and explosives were used in makin the wtc fall

this from a source of mine

The speeds at which the Twin Towers fell were not far behind free fall. Gaps are going to open up between the collapsing region and actual free-falling material as time goes passes, but the actual rate of collapse and the rate of free fall could not have been that much different. This is a problem because free fall in a vacuum, and "free fall" through masses of steel support columns, should yield quite different times.

In fact, I don't think the Twin Towers should have completely fallen at all. That is to say I think the collapse times should have been infinite (in terms of the immediate physics problems anyway, and not taking into account deconstruction, etc. of course).

Imagine WTC1. There were about 13 "upper" floors falling upon 97 "lower" floors.

The top 13 floors were the lightest, and had the smallest support columns, because they had to support less weight near the top of the building, as opposed to thicker columns in lower regions of the building, holding more weight.

The lower 97 floors not only had much thicker columns, and were just heavier floors in general, but, obviously greatly outnumbered the upper floors.

Now, skyscrapers are built very strong, and legally, must hold multiples of their own design weight loads. That is to say, if a building is expected to carry a maximum load of 10 pounds while in use, that building would legally have to carry loads of 20 or 25 pounds for extended periods of time, and stand strong without appreciable damage, before it could open. This is in NYC building code.

So the big question is: how far could 13 light floors get unto 97 heavier floors before being stopped dead in their tracks?

Common sense would hold that they wouldn't get very far.

Also keep in mind that there would be no free fall for the upper floors to gain momentum. There is resistance from all the structure steel right from the start, and that steel was designed to hold, on each floor, loads equivalent to multiple floors. So I seriously doubt that those 13 floors would crush every single freaking lower floor, all the way down, into nothing but dust and disjointed steel beams.

At least one individual has suggested that the weight of each floor increased the impulse destroying each floor, but this doesn't make sense because (a) a lot of energy was being exerted to destroy each floor into fine dust and disjointed steel beams, and support columns were not set up floor by floor, so basically what is being suggested is equivalent to a single steel column continuing to crush itself by the weight obtained through crushing itself, despite huge losses of energy in the system from the crushing itself (I hope this makes sense to you), and (b) most of the mass (the debris) was being ejected outwards and thus was not falling straight down upon remaining floors. Even if it were, the material would be largely deflected because of its utterly destroyed and dissossiated state.

Some have claimed problems with the trusses, but the problem here is where continued amounts of impulse would have come from to allow the collapse to continue, all the way down. All of this debris (probably 80% or more) was falling off the sides, and much energy lost in the destruction of each floor, so from where is the steady energy required to fall the trusses of each and every floor, without so much as a loss of velocity in the collapse rate? Trusses won't fail unless they have a reason to fail, and just because the floor above is missing, does not mean a truss will magically fail. Energy must be exerted. So we have the same problems as with any other theory blaming gravity alone.

We could go on further but basically I don't think any collapse time would be reasonable. The Towers simply should not have come down.

also with the theory on WTC7 being demolished to quick

In the case of WTC7, besides that building also not having any reason to collapse, it seems to have fallen at about the rate of free-fall in a vacuum, which is pretty much impossible outside of controlled demolition (just like symmetry, with the building falling straight down upon its footprint perfectly, etc.). A demo team literally could not have possibly done much better than WTC7's collapse as observed.

[Bão]

I believe it was a setup. I believe Osama is a set up as well.

Why is that? There are, literally, hundreds of videos of Osama speaking to the public. Usually, all videos are consistant with Osama speaking.

I have watched this video a few months ago and gave it lots of thoughs. First, why would Bush want to secretly plan to attack and kill tens of thousands of Americans? That would be insane. I'm a Bush fan but I know he wouldn't be able to create such a masterplan. He can't even pronounce "nuclear" correctly. Second, this is just one side of the story. Have you heard the expert's proof that the Twin Tower attacks were real? My mom works for American Airlines and hundreds of thousands of people were really getting laid off. Some of the people in her office actually lost relatives that they knew. American Airlines did lose the two planes that crashed into the buildings and it is a fact. The only thing I would truly doubt is the pentagon attack. I've seen lots of footage of the scene after the collision and it just boggles my mind.

[Vegas]

I have watched this video a few months ago and gave it lots of thoughs. First, why would Bush want to secretly plan to attack and kill tens of thousands of Americans? That would be insane. I'm a Bush fan but I know he wouldn't be able to create such a masterplan. He can't even pronounce "nuclear" correctly. Second, this is just one side of the story. Have you heard the expert's proof that the Twin Tower attacks were real? My mom works for American Airlines and hundreds of thousands of people were really getting laid off. Some of the people in her office actually lost relatives that they knew. American Airlines did lose the two planes that crashed into the buildings and it is a fact. The only thing I would truly doubt is the pentagon attack. I've seen lots of footage of the scene after the collision and it just boggles my mind.

yes i still am not sure about the fact that a guy such as bush would condone that sort of thing in his admin but the facts add up and physics says that the WTC building could not have collapsed on its own.remember i too was like u just last nite and thought that the WTC was all terrorists but after doing the research, unless the law of physics failed that day, it just cudnt have fallen on its own.about it being perpetrated by the government...i dont know and hope to God that it isnt true.the fact that 2 aa planes crashed into the buildin seems tru.

about the speculation about the pics of the pentagon attack not adding up...go to this link and read atleast the first post of this thread-Evidence
i hope that helps

edited:wrong link

Edited by Scope, 24 February 2006 - 07:23 PM.