Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Loose Change
iGrandTheftAuto.com Forums > GTA4.TV/GTA-SanAndreas.com Archive > Old Forum Archive (Read Only) > General > Political & World Issues
Pages: 1, 2, 3
JasOnZx
http://nineoneone.nl/Media/documentaries/9...documentary.wmv

Anyone who reads this topic I highly suggest to download and watch this video. It will change everything you thought about 9/11. The video is about an hour long but it gos into great detail about 9/11. Take my word on it its a great video. Not like good like funny but very seriouse and almost scary.

It's kinda hard to descrip so just watch it for your self.
Mattay
I just watched the entire movie.

It has changed almost everything I knew about the events that took place on September 11, 2001. Some of the hijackers are still alive? That the planes we thought crashed into the World Trade Centers, Pentagon, and Pennsylvania were not really the planes reported hijacked? The planes that were said that crashed into their destinations, were seen differently. One plane that crashed into the Trade Centers was said to be a Boeing 757, but after witnessing numerous accounts of video tapes, the plane looked nothing at all like a 757. And, right before the plane hit the building, an explosion detonated inside the building right where the plane hit. But this happened before the 757 even touched the Tower. A missle? Set explosions? Both sides are explained thoroughly in this video.

When the other airliner hit the Pentagon, there were eyewitness accounts of the plane sweeping only 50 feet of the ground. Right over cars, if an airliner that size was to travel over a car, at that altitude, the car would be swept off the highway. But their cars were still intact with the ground. And, the two six ton jet engines that were on the plane when it hit, were no where to be found. Instead, a few parts of an A-16 (I think that was its name) were found inside the Pentagon.

Was the story you and I believe just a conspiracy by the FBI just to keep our mouths shut? If any of you have seen the topic I made ( http://www.gta-sanandreas.com/forums/index...showtopic=62288 ). You'll see one of the 9/11 hijackers. I thought, and I was damn sure he was dead, because I don't think many people could survive a colision with a building and a commercial airliner. He was alive because this young man's father recieved a phonecall from his son on September 14, 2001.

But was the plane that crashed into the Pentagon an airliner? Witnesses say they saw a C-130 cargo plane fly right overhead the Pentagon seconds before impact. And how the light posts were ripped from the ground, not cut in half by the wings from a plane flying that low to the ground. There was also no sign of wings crashing through the Pentagon with the airliner.

Could there have been something else? Missles maybe? Instead of planes.

It is an ongoing experiment trying to figure out what really happened. Could the attacker even be Usama Bin Laden? In his confession video found in Afghanistan, then released to the people on December 14, 2001, there was a man that looked nothing like Bin Laden that said he was. Also, the man was writing a note with his right hand. Even though Usama Bin Laden is left handed. He was also wearing a gold watch and a gold ring on his right hand, a violation in Islamic culture.

Watch this video, even though it may be long, you'll be glad you did.
OptimumPx
I hate conspiracy theories. dry.gif

QUOTE
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

...Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.


QUOTE
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.

And tell me this: how the hell was the government going to plant controlled demolition explosives in three (in you count WTC #7) insanely busy office buildings in the middle of downtown Manhattan without a single person noticing anything what-so-ever?

The US Government can barley get anything done on a good day, much less keep something like that quiet.
QUOTE
http://mckinneysucks.blogspot.com/
Think about this kind of scenario: the evil PNAC cabal wanted a war and needed a massive terrorist attack as a pretext. They think, we could fly some "hijacked" planes into the WTC towers. Just one problem with that idea -- burning jet fuel isn't sufficient to bring the towers down [No, I don't believe that nonsense. I'm humoring these morons, focusing on the scenario itself. -- Ed.] and the public might not support our Pertpetual War if the towers don't collapse. Oh yeah, and don't forget about WTC 7. The plan won't work unless we rig explosives to bring down that building, too. And don't worry about getting caught. It's easy to rig three office buildings in downtown Manhattan with enough explosives to bring them down without anyone noticing.

Now, a "controlled demolition" that succeeds where the 1993 WTC bombing failed should be sufficient, but for some reason, the neocon cabal thought it necessary to go through with the hijacked planes plot, even though they were deemed insufficient to do the job. And they managed to coordinate them in such a way so that they crashed into the buildings at the exact locations of the rigged explosives -- can't have anyone seeing explosions in another part of the buildings -- and manage to do that without setting off the explosives prematurely ...

What fucking planet are these people from?


QUOTE
http://cointelprotool.blogspot.com/2003_09...389955927810681
Take the BBC, for example, which did in fact report, on September 23, 2001, that some of the alleged terrorists were alive and healthy and had protested their being named as assassins.

But there is one wrinkle. The BBC journalist responsible for the story only recalls this supposed sensation after having been told the date on which the story aired. "No, we did not have any videotape or photographs of the individuals in question at that time," he says, and tells us that the report was based on articles in Arab newspapers, such as the Arab News, an English-language Saudi newspaper.

Bradley tells us that at the time his reporters did not speak directly with the so-called "survivors," but instead combined reports from other Arab papers. These reports, says Bradley, appeared at a time when the only public information about the attackers was a list of names that had been published by the FBI on September 14th. The FBI did not release photographs until four days after the cited reports, on September 27th.

The photographs quickly resolved the nonsense about surviving terrorists. According to Bradley, "all of this is attributable to the chaos that prevailed during the first few days following the attack. What we're dealing with are coincidentally identical names." In Saudi Arabia, says Bradley, the names of two of the allegedly surviving attackers, Said al-Ghamdi and Walid al-Shari, are "as common as John Smith in the United States or Great Britain."
CaldMagi
Riddle me this OPX.

According to the "Law of Falling Bodies" originally put together by Galilelo the total distance traveled at the end of any specific time in a total vacuum is calculated by this formula: Distance = (32.16/2) X Time in seconds squared..

So if there is ANY resistance, than time of "falling bodies" slows down in relation to the resistance.

1350 feet = (32.16/2) X time in seconds squared and you will get 9.1627 seconds.. and this would be the FASTEST time these building would come down. South Tower came down in 10.4 seconds and the North Tower came down in 8.4 seconds!

And there was resistence - the massive lower sections of the building. These are the buildings that were built with 47 massive interior steel core columns together with 236 large exterior steel columns that were welded together by steel plates. There was also steel trusses which connected every other steel column. Not to mention the concrete in a corrugated pan.

With that said, we find that one building could POSSIBLY fell as fast as 9.1627, which is VERY UNLIKELY, due to the massive resistence, but it is possible. The other tower (which came down in 8.4 seconds) actually fell FASTER than it would have in a vacuum.

Galileo’s finding from the inclined planes experiment:
– The distance traveled by a uniformly accelerating
object is proportional to the square of the time:
Distance traveled = (1/2) x (acceleration) x (time^2).
– For a freely falling object, d = gt2/2.

With this equation, the distance the top brick on the building would travel in 8.4 seconds is (1/2) x (9.8m/s^2) x (8.4s^2) = 345.744 metres OR 1134.3307103856 ft (1 metre = 3.2808399 ft)

Let's round the numbers off: (1/2) x (10) x (8.4^2) = 352m x 3.3 (3.3 ft in a metre) = 1164.24

The top brick of the WTC could ONLY travel 1164 feet within the 8.4 seconds it took to fall EVEN if it were in a total vacuum and did not have the resistance of 110 floors beneath it! That simply CANNOT explain how it actually fell 1350 feet (according to FEMA) within that time. It is not scientifically tenable.

The only scientific reason that could explain why the tower fell faster than the law of gravity is that it is NOT GRAVITY bringing it down!! A brick can be thrown down or pulled down faster than 9.8 m/s^2, but it cannot fall down faster! It's impossible.

The "official" story that's fed to us it that the towers "pancaked", meaning each floor would hit the one under it, and that would give way then hit the next, etc. So we're talking about resistance at EVERY floor. If there was resistence (and there obviously was) the building COULD NOT have fallen down faster than it would have in FREE FALL. Imagine this: if there was only ONE floor, with NO floors to hit beneath it, it would've actually taken LONGER for the floor to reach the ground, than it would have during 9/11, hitting EACH floor on the way down, coming down FASTER than it would have during free fall!!

A 110 storey building came falling down in 8.4 seconds. That is more than 13 floors EACH SECOND. Imagine you walking across a 13 storey building and seeing it crumble due to damage. One moment there is a 13 storey building on fire, ONE SECOND LATER, the entire building is lying in crumbles. It goes against all physics and common sense!

These are undisputable facts, not conspiracy theories!!!
OptimumPx
Uh-huh. So the North Tower was a second faster? And I guess the fact that after about halfway down the dust and debries blocking our view of anything that happened after that is nothing?

Bombs don't make things fall faster, they just throw them but gravity is still what brings it down.

And besides that when each floor hit the one below that added more weight each time to crush the one below that. AKA more force to counteract resistence.

Besides that how often have people timed how long it takes an office tower to fall in on itself?

-EDIT-
Also, like I said before, how do you think they managed to plant explosives in key ares of 3 major office buildings without anybody seeing anything at all in the middle of downtown Manhattan?

Also from Wikipedia.org:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_domestic...e_Center_towers
As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects thrown away from the building are photographically depicted falling only slightly faster than the actual building, suggesting the towers fell at free fall speeds.
Lord Steve0
On the topic of the Pentagon plane, has anyone ever seen that video of a jet fighter being shot down a runway into a concrete block at 200mph? When the plane hits the entire thing, excpet the wings which miss the block, is totaly blown into dust. There is not a single piece of aircraft left that you can identify, just a big hole in the block and lots of totaly smashed debris.
I reckon that if an airliner hits a building/ground at 200mph or there abouts, there is going to be very little left of it intact at the end.

I'm still not sure on the WTC ones though. I was certain this was planes and terrorists. I watched it live on TV and saw that 2nd plane hit and saw the towers fall down.
But now after seeing these vidoes i'm a bit skeptical. Though i don't know anything about the physics of it so i can't check it all out myself.
I'd like to see 2 explanations, the official and this one in the video, but both including all the balistics, and physics models that can be used to explain the incident.

There's still a lot of evidence for the terrorist story though. I think the conspiracy theorists are looking too hard for this one. They really would love to show the US government did this, i'm just convinced they are wasting their time looking for something that is not there.

And to be honest, if the government wanted to blow the towers up and get away with it then why not copy the failed attempt in 1992 (might have that date wrong). The plan there was to drive a truck full of C4 and hydrogen cylinders into the carpark and blow a hole in the outer wall of tower one (this gives all the strength to the tower). It would collapse as the outer wall holds most of the weight, and would fall over onto tower two, brining them both down.
That seems like a far better plan to me, and you could cover it better and still blame Mr Bin Laden and his buddies.
CaldMagi
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 27 2005, 08:07 PM) [snapback]1009820[/snapback]

Uh-huh. So the North Tower was a second faster? And I guess the fact that after about halfway down the dust and debries blocking our view of anything that happened after that is nothing?

Even if it came down in 10 seconds, it doesn't make sense because the resistence of 100+ floors would slow down the speed of which the towers came down, not accelerate it.

QUOTE
Bombs don't make things fall faster, they just throw them but gravity is still what brings it down.

When you throw a basketball of a roof, the basketball would reach the floor earlier than if you would simply drop the basketball, doesn't it? I hope you're not trying to say that if explosives brought down the towers, the speed of which it would've come down would not have been effected by this. Because that's absolutely ridiculous.

QUOTE
And besides that when each floor hit the one below that added more weight each time to crush the one below that. AKA more force to counteract resistence.

Fair enough. But then again, 13 storey's collapsed each second. There is no doubt each floor added more weight to cursh the one below, thus the lower floors would've collapsed at a faster rate than that of the upper floors. Meaning, the lower floors would actually fell EVEN FASTER THAN 13 STOREYS PER SECOND. Look at the video's of the towers collapsing, there is not much diffirence in the speed the top floors came crashing down and the lower floor crashing down - it came down at a pretty consistent rate.

QUOTE
Besides that how often have people timed how long it takes an office tower to fall in on itself?

Never. But people have timed how long office towers have been on fire and how many came down due to this. Apart from the Twin Towers, and WTC7, no office towers have collapsed due to fire, and towers OLDER than the WTCs have survived WORSE fires which raged for WAY LONGER, and DIDNT came down.

QUOTE
-EDIT-
Also, like I said before, how do you think they managed to plant explosives in key ares of 3 major office buildings without anybody seeing anything at all in the middle of downtown Manhattan?

Watch the video.

QUOTE
Also from Wikipedia.org:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_domestic...e_Center_towers
As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects thrown away from the building are photographically depicted falling only slightly faster than the actual building, suggesting the towers fell at free fall speeds.


Yes, free fall speeds. How? How can 110 storeys of concrete and massive steel collums come down at free fal without any resistance whatsoever?
OptimumPx
Oh ya CaldMagi, the guy (Jerry Russell, Ph.D.) who came up with your theory here later stated the he was wrong and refuted himself saying that he was wrong here. happy.gif

QUOTE
At any rate, I claimed to have proof of controlled demolition, and I certainly did not. In retrospect, I should not have posted the article without checking it with a structural engineer.
Strike
Another 9/11 conspiracy theory, eh?

Quite an interesting video, actually. Freaky, maybe, but none-the-less very interesting and informative. After watching that, I may never look at 9/11 in the same way. And the planes? Where did they go? They smashed and then disappeared. I think not. Either Bin Laden is a talented magician or they disintergrated on contact. I guess we shall never know.
CaldMagi
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 27 2005, 09:13 PM) [snapback]1009891[/snapback]

Oh ya CaldMagi, the guy (Jerry Russell, Ph.D.) who came up with your theory here later stated the he was wrong and refuted himself saying that he was wrong here. happy.gif

Your point being?

You obviously thought he was wrong when he came up with this theory, but when he suddenly changes his opinion in your favor, he is right? Suuuuure. How do you know he is right this time? The truth about 9/11 doesn't evolve around this single personality.
OptimumPx
Yes but he does say that he was wrong.
CaldMagi
Well... if a paper passport of a hijacker can survive a blast and conveniently land next to the WTC wreckage for an FBI agent to pick up, then I guess anything is possible.

EDIT: What about this guy: http://freepressinternational.com/wtc_manager.wmv

"The building was designed to have a fully loaded Boeing 707 crash into it (note that a Boeing 707 is about the same size as the Boeing 767s that hit the towers).

That was the largest plane at the time.

I believe that the building probably could sustain MULTIPLE IMPACTS OF JETLINERS because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door...

This intense grid... and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting.

IT REALLY DOES NOTHING TO THE SCREEN NETTING."

I bet the CONSTRUCTION MANEGER of the WTCs is wrong, and a wild conspiracy theorist who says he was actually wrong in saying explosion brought down the tower is right.. Yep yep.
OptimumPx
It was designed to take an impact from a lost plane trying to go to the airport after the journey (low on fuel) moving at slower speeds.

Not an impact at full speed with full tanks of jet fuel ready for a cross-country trip.

Quite a difference. Also the 767 is 61,400 pounds heaver then the 707.

Besides that:
QUOTE
http://www.ussartf.org/world_trade_center_disaster.htm
According to one of the designers of the World Trade Center (WTC), the towers were originally designed to take the impact of a Boeing 707; and the impact of the aircraft on Sept. 11th did not take the buildings down. In fact, WTC One stood for 1 hour and WTC Two stood for 1 3/4 hours after impact. Engineers familiar with the chain of events suspect that heat from the massive and extraordinary fires weakened the structures and initiated the progressive collapses.
...
"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire" - World Trade Center construction manager.

"It was the fire that killed the buildings. There's nothing on Earth that could survive those temperatures with that amount of fuel burning," said structural engineer Chris Wise. "The columns would have melted, the floors would have melted and eventually they would have collapsed one on top of each other."

The building's construction manager, Hyman Brown, agreed that nothing could have saved it from the inferno. "This building would have stood had a plane or a force caused by a plane smashed into it," he said.
CaldMagi
"Nothing is designed or will be designed to withstand that fire" - World Trade Center construction manager.

This fire?

IPB Image

Alot of the jet fuel exploded outside the towers, there wasn't much fuel burning in the towers itself. If you believe office paper, wooden desks and carpet was able to weaken 2 massive steel collums, causing it to collapse, while there are countless of other similiar (and even weaker) structures that didn't collapse due to (way heavier) fire, then you are seriously out of touch with reality.

EDIT:
IPB Image

IPB Image

Odd enough, the tower with the lessest fuel burning collapsed first. Care to explain me this one?

EDIT2:
While you're at it, you might as well tell me what is the source of this intense heat at ground zero.
http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/rubblefires.html
Lord Steve0
I think people d otend to avoid the fact an airliner just hit the towers. They argue about how fire could not damage them badly wnough for a collapse. But they seem to forget that a plane hit both towers, in the case of tower two, right on a corner where most of the tower strength lies.
Apparently the fireproofing on the beams was poor, there have been investigations to show that fire did mess them up pretty bad. If you go and look at the debris if there's any left anywhere it is pretty warped from heat damage.
The fire was pretty dammed intense as well, it was in an enclosed area, with lots of oxygen as well. Winds up there would fan the fires, and the last thing the designers of fire control systems expect is for jet fuel to be burning 110 floors up a skyscraper. I've seem thermal images from the event and it looks extremly hot in there, easily enough to damage pillars and warp beams.

The evidence for bombs is pretty weak though. A few puffs of smoke and dust! The whole thing was caving in on iteslf! Just because you get debris flying out of windows a few stories below the main collapse doesn't mean there was a bomb. In fact when the first plane hit, it sent burning jet fuel shooting down the lift shafts to the ground floor and blew out all the windows there, that could be what happened when it collapsed.
And i think what OPX was saying about bombs not making it fall faster makes sense. A bomb would not blow the entire building down to the ground, if that was the case it would need to be above the building to push it down with it's explosive force. A bomb inside would send force every direction, it would probably slow the collapse not speed it up as debris would be going all over the place.
I just don't think there is anywhere near enough evidence to say bombs were involved. It was clearly obvious a plane hit each tower and blew a huge hole in each one, and the fire would seriously damage any internal pillars. I think people just want an alternative and are fitting their theories round whatever evidence they like.
OptimumPx
I was referring to this fire, which might I add laid smoldering for many days afterwards before it finally went out.
IPB Image
QUOTE
http://www.wpi.edu/News/Transformations/20...ring/steel.html
There is no indication that any of the fires in the World Trade Center buildings were hot enough to melt the steel framework. Jonathan Barnett, professor of fire protection engineering, has repeatedly reminded the public that steel--which has a melting point of 2,800 degrees Fahrenheit--may weaken and bend, but does not melt during an ordinary office fire. Yet metallurgical studies on WTC steel brought back to WPI reveal that a novel phenomenon--called a eutectic reaction--occurred at the surface, causing intergranular melting capable of turning a solid steel girder into Swiss cheese.

Materials science professors Ronald R. Biederman and Richard D. Sisson Jr. confirmed the presence of eutectic formations by examining steel samples under optical and scanning electron microscopes. A preliminary report was published in JOM, the journal of the Minerals, Metals & Materials Society. A more detailed analysis comprises Appendix C of the FEMA report. The New York Times called these findings "perhaps the deepest mystery uncovered in the investigation." The significance of the work on a sample from Building 7 and a structural column from one of the twin towers becomes apparent only when one sees these heavy chunks of damaged metal.

A one-inch column has been reduced to half-inch thickness. Its edges--which are curled like a paper scroll--have been thinned to almost razor sharpness. Gaping holes--some larger than a silver dollar--let light shine through a formerly solid steel flange. This Swiss cheese appearance shocked all of the fire-wise professors, who expected to see distortion and bending--but not holes.

A eutectic compound is a mixture of two or more substances that melts at the lowest temperature of any mixture of its components. Blacksmiths took advantage of this property by welding over fires of sulfur-rich charcoal, which lowers the melting point of iron. In the World Trade Center fire, the presence of oxygen, sulfur and heat caused iron oxide and iron sulfide to form at the surface of structural steel members. This liquid slag corroded through intergranular channels into the body of the metal, causing severe erosion and a loss of structural integrity.

CaldMagi
The fires at the WTCs have been reported by FEMA to be 800ºC (1472ºF), yet after 5 days of continuously spraying water over the WTCs debris, the temperature at ground zero was still 700 to 750ºC (1300 to 1400ºF). Meaning, the temperature of smoldering debris, 5 days after the attacks with thousands of gallons water been sprayed over it, was actually HOTTER than the actual fire that brought down the towers. Or do you have another fancy article ready which says the fires that "raged" in the WTCs were, say, 1250ºC (2230ºF) or something? Anyway, I'm dying to know what the source of the intense heat at ground zero was.
OptimumPx
Two 110 story buildings lying in a burning pile, around 4 stories deep into the ground, and you expect the fires to be put out quickly?

And of course it got hotter, all of the flammable materials all collected together.

Look into the smoldering coal on the Titanic for similarities.
HB~Sauce
I'd download that video, but I have dial up, damn you Motorola! BOT, I have never heard this side of 9/11.
OptimumPx
QUOTE(P4yn3 @ Nov 27 2005, 07:17 PM) [snapback]1010121[/snapback]

Optimum's sources are a bunch of shitty blogs.

No offense, but XD

Hey! I only used 2 blogs. mad.gif

And at least I named all my sources. sleep.gif
CaldMagi
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 28 2005, 12:07 AM) [snapback]1010087[/snapback]

And of course it got hotter, all of the flammable materials all collected together.

Flammable materials such as?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 27 2005, 08:08 PM) [snapback]1009884[/snapback]

QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 27 2005, 08:07 PM) [snapback]1009820[/snapback]

Uh-huh. So the North Tower was a second faster? And I guess the fact that after about halfway down the dust and debries blocking our view of anything that happened after that is nothing?

Even if it came down in 10 seconds, it doesn't make sense because the resistence of 100+ floors would slow down the speed of which the towers came down, not accelerate it.

QUOTE
Bombs don't make things fall faster, they just throw them but gravity is still what brings it down.

When you throw a basketball of a roof, the basketball would reach the floor earlier than if you would simply drop the basketball, doesn't it? I hope you're not trying to say that if explosives brought down the towers, the speed of which it would've come down would not have been effected by this. Because that's absolutely ridiculous.

QUOTE
And besides that when each floor hit the one below that added more weight each time to crush the one below that. AKA more force to counteract resistence.

Fair enough. But then again, 13 storey's collapsed each second. There is no doubt each floor added more weight to cursh the one below, thus the lower floors would've collapsed at a faster rate than that of the upper floors. Meaning, the lower floors would actually fell EVEN FASTER THAN 13 STOREYS PER SECOND. Look at the video's of the towers collapsing, there is not much diffirence in the speed the top floors came crashing down and the lower floor crashing down - it came down at a pretty consistent rate.

QUOTE
Besides that how often have people timed how long it takes an office tower to fall in on itself?

Never. But people have timed how long office towers have been on fire and how many came down due to this. Apart from the Twin Towers, and WTC7, no office towers have collapsed due to fire, and towers OLDER than the WTCs have survived WORSE fires which raged for WAY LONGER, and DIDNT came down.

QUOTE
-EDIT-
Also, like I said before, how do you think they managed to plant explosives in key ares of 3 major office buildings without anybody seeing anything at all in the middle of downtown Manhattan?

Watch the video.

QUOTE
Also from Wikipedia.org:
QUOTE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9-11_domestic...e_Center_towers
As far as the speed, a consensus has yet to be reached as to the exact duration of the fall. The most widely used number is at 10 seconds. Objects thrown away from the building are photographically depicted falling only slightly faster than the actual building, suggesting the towers fell at free fall speeds.


Yes, free fall speeds. How? How can 110 storeys of concrete and massive steel collums come down at free fal without any resistance whatsoever?
Free fall includes resistance. There's no such thing as falling without resistance.

The pictures:

IPB Image
IPB Image

It knocks it off balance, in simple terms. If I start going on about Physics it'll be no use to anyone...

Either way - who cares? The towers fell, 2000 people died. If there was a controlled explosion, the towers fell, 2000 people died. If it was a plane hitting the towers fell, 2000 people died. If someone threw a can of coke at it then the building fell, and 2000 died. What's the difference?
Qdeathstar
I dont see that Any of the wacko conspiracy sources are better than one of OptimumPX sources.
CaldMagi
Whether it was the US government who is responsible for the attacks (or at least took part in it / let it happen) or it was Bin Laden who is responsible makes a HUGE difference. You wouldn't want a bunch of terrorists leading your country, would you?
Passionate Homo Sapiens Ingester
Too late >_>
OptimumPx
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 28 2005, 06:12 AM) [snapback]1010580[/snapback]

QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 28 2005, 12:07 AM) [snapback]1010087[/snapback]

And of course it got hotter, all of the flammable materials all collected together.

Flammable materials such as?

What do you think is in an office building anyway?

Paper, desks, chairs, lamps, potted plants, removable walls, paper towels, and people. All flammable and packed together.

And as for you other question, the US Government couldn't even pull it off even if it wanted to.
QUOTE
http://www.alternet.org/story/12536/
So let's start with a broad question: would U.S. officials be capable of such a foul deed? Capable -- as in able to pull it off and willing to do so. Simply put, the spies and special agents are not good enough, evil enough, or gutsy enough to mount this operation. That conclusion is based partly on, dare I say it, common sense, but also on years spent covering national security matters. (For a book I wrote on the CIA, I interviewed over 100 CIA officials and employees.)

Not good enough: Such a plot -- to execute the simultaneous destruction of the two towers, a piece of the Pentagon, and four airplanes and make it appear as if it all was done by another party -- is far beyond the skill level of U.S. intelligence. It would require dozens (or scores or hundreds) of individuals to attempt such a scheme. They would have to work together, and trust one another not to blow their part or reveal the conspiracy. They would hail from an assortment of agencies (CIA, FBI, INS, Customs, State, FAA, NTSB, DOD, etc.).

Yet anyone with the most basic understanding of how government functions (or does not function) realizes that the various bureaucracies of Washington -- particularly those of the national security "community" -- do not work well together. Even covering up advance knowledge would require an extensive plot. If there truly had been intelligence reports predicting the 9/11 attacks, these reports would have circulated through intelligence and policymaking circles before the folks at the top decided to smother them for geopolitical gain. That would make for a unwieldy conspiracy of silence. And in either scenario -- planning the attacks or permitting them to occur -- everyone who participated in the conspiracy would have to be freakin' sure that all the other plotters would stay quiet.
Qdeathstar
Yes, thats right, because it would mean that almost everyone leading our country was in on it.. ... I dont think most of our leaders are that evil.

Besides that, whats the benefit? Payoff? ect.
Baldman_Sonetti
Control of the Iraqi oilfields? I think its bullshit, but I suppose Sept 11 was used to justify invading Afghanistan, which put troops in place for invading Iraq...
OptimumPx
Then why go through the trouble of blaming Al Qaeda when you want Iraq? Just go ahead and say Iraq did it.
Qdeathstar
From what im seeing, the United States isnt getting the oil fields in Iraq... and besides that, you'd need bi-partison support for something this big...
Baldman_Sonetti
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 28 2005, 07:37 PM) [snapback]1010881[/snapback]

Then why go through the trouble of blaming Al Qaeda when you want Iraq? Just go ahead and say Iraq did it.



There were claims before the Iraqi invasion that Saddam funded al-Qaeda.


And true, I don't think the US will get the oil fields, but they wouldn't have known that at the time...
CaldMagi
So the spies and special agents are not good enough nor capable of pulling off the attacks, but Bin Laden and his militants, who supposedly orchestrated the entire attack from a cave could? I didn't know the U.S. intelligence was so rubbish.

Besides, there's still the question of whether or not the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the attacks. For example, why were government officials advised not to board any commercial airplanes the day of 9/11? Why did airplanes suddenly dissapeared on the radars, and how could the airplane that was heading towards the Pentagon (flight 77) be off course for more than 30-40 minutes, while already 2 planes crashed into the Twin Towers? You'd think they would smell something suspicious when a plane suddenly changes it's course.

IPB Image

But I guess there's nothing suspicious about it right? Or it was total chaos, who could've guessed this airplane was going to fly into something as well?

They lost radio communication, you'd think something like that wouldn't go unnoticed and would be slightly suspicious (especially on 9/11), but that's just my take.

QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 28 2005, 08:23 PM) [snapback]1010866[/snapback]

Paper, desks, chairs, lamps, potted plants, removable walls, paper towels, and people. All flammable and packed together.

Paper, desks, chairs and paper towels could keep a fire raging for weeks and weeks with degrees of 1300ºF? Even after days and days of spraying water?
OptimumPx
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 28 2005, 03:03 PM) [snapback]1010906[/snapback]

So the spies and special agents are not good enough nor capable of pulling off the attacks, but Bin Laden and his militants, who supposedly orchestrated the entire attack from a cave could? I didn't know the U.S. intelligence was so rubbish.

Besides, there's still the question of whether or not the U.S. government had foreknowledge of the attacks. For example, why were government officials advised not to board any commercial airplanes the day of 9/11? Why did airplanes suddenly dissapeared on the radars, and how could the airplane that was heading towards the Pentagon (flight 77) be off course for more than 30-40 minutes, while already 2 planes crashed into the Twin Towers? You'd think they would smell something suspicious when a plane suddenly changes it's course.

IPB Image

But I guess there's nothing suspicious about it right? Or it was total chaos, who could've guessed this airplane was going to fly into something as well?

They lost radio communication, you'd think something like that wouldn't go unnoticed and would be slightly suspicious (especially on 9/11), but that's just my take.

Read the quote.

It says that the US Government couldn't have done it because it's impossible. They couldn't keep everybody quiet about it, nor could they be certain that other people involved wouldn't rat them out. Al Qaeda on the other hand has no such problem, and was in fact happy to take responsibility.

And with the way that the FBI and CIA couldn't even get along trying to do anything after 9/11 what makes you think they could get together and plan something like that and keep it quiet before 9/11?

And now your saying it must have been a conspiracy because the government didnt respond to 9/11 perfectly with information getting to everyone on time? You must be living in a dream world if you think the US Government could have done anything perfectly in response to a crisis, just look at FEMA and Hurricane Katrina. dry.gif

On 9/11 it was pure chaos. The first tower was hit at 8:47 am by American Airlines Flight 11. Prior to 9/11 the standard procedure for hijacked flights was to do as the hijacker said and wait for them to land the plane and issue their demands. Therefore no fighter planes were sent off right away. The local Air Traffic Control most likely thought they were heading for the airport at this point.

By the time American Airlines Flight 77's transponder stoped working at 8:56 am the FAA must have been panicking. They have no training for this, they have no idea what to do. Hell, they don't even order all planes to land in the Northeast until 9:06 am and doesn't officially ground all planes nationwide until 9:40 am. The FAA doesn't even tell NORAD that Flight 77 had been hijacked until 9:24 am, 13 minutes before it hit.

Nobody had a fucking clue as to what they were doing. To pretend that they should have done everything like it was in a blockbuster movie is ludicrous and extremely unrealistic.
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 28 2005, 03:03 PM) [snapback]1010906[/snapback]
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 28 2005, 08:23 PM) [snapback]1010866[/snapback]

Paper, desks, chairs, lamps, potted plants, removable walls, paper towels, and people. All flammable and packed together.

Paper, desks, chairs and paper towels could keep a fire raging for weeks and weeks with degrees of 1300ºF? Even after days and days of spraying water?

Yes, 220 floors worth of paper, desks, chairs, people that was 4 stories deep into the ground could pull that off quite nicely.
Lord Steve0
I'd have to agree with you about it being chaos there.

I mean imagine this, one tower gets hit and everyone is going SHIT! Then you loose another plane and again you go SHIT! By this time there are two burnig towers in downtown NY and you have two more planes missing, plus several hundred planes that are very worried and confused as they probably guessed something was up by now. It would take ages to get all the planes down and you could easily loose a few more in that time. Remember they thought there were up to 10 planes missing at one point! Total chaos.

On the bomb theory: How much explosive would you need? I'd hazzard a guess and say a LOT of explosive.
They just demolised 5 tower blocks in Glasgow and needed 300kg of explosive to take out these ancient crumbling blocks. To take out super-storng 110 story buildings i'd imagine you'd need a lot more explosive in each one. And you gotta get it up to the 100th odd floor and plant it, arm it set fusses, and get it positioned perfectly so that it was hidden when the plane hit. In downtown NY i imagine that is rather hard to do.

Finally, who flew the planes? Could you persuade a guy to do this? I doubt it. And could you reallyrig 4 planes for remote control? I'd doubt that too, not without someone noticing it. Plus remote controlled jumbo jets don't fly too well from the look of videos i've seen.
Qdeathstar
you need more exploses so that you can have a controlled implostion.. and to ensure that thebuilding doesnt resist the explosiona (meaning weekend structural integrety, but still standing. Once you set the exploes, you want to make sure it fallls.
CaldMagi
Funny how you guys think you will need ALOT of explosives to bring down the towers, but think it is perfectly feasible for a single airplane (and some office fire) to bring down each tower. Not even mentioning WTC7.
OptimumPx
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 29 2005, 02:26 AM) [snapback]1011606[/snapback]

Funny how you guys think you will need ALOT of explosives to bring down the towers, but think it is perfectly feasible for a single airplane (and some office fire) to bring down each tower. Not even mentioning WTC7.
Explosives are used to kick the legs put from under the building, so to speak, and you would need to place them at all of the major support locations throughout the building to bring it down safely in only a few seconds and not sideways on top of the World Financial Center across the street or something.

But that 'single airplane,' which was full of fuel and was akin to hundreds of bombs, smashed into the building sending explosive jet fuel right into the structure (ya, that's only just 'some office fire') it gradually over an hour caused the building's steel supports to weaken and melt till they were so weak that they couldn’t support the higher floors anymore, sending those floors straight down onto the lower floors.

Ta Da! Bye, bye World Trade Center. dry.gif
CaldMagi
QUOTE(OptimumPx @ Nov 29 2005, 04:55 PM) [snapback]1011746[/snapback]

But that 'single airplane,' which was full of fuel and was akin to hundreds of bombs, smashed into the building sending explosive jet fuel right into the structure (ya, that's only just 'some office fire') it gradually over an hour caused the building's steel supports to weaken and melt till they were so weak that they couldn’t support the higher floors anymore, sending those floors straight down onto the lower floors.

You seem to forget most of the fuel exploded OUTSIDE of the towers.

Huge explosion outside the towers:
IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

IPB Image

Note that this was the SECOND tower hit, which burned for only an hour, and collapsed FIRST. Indicating that jet fuel wasn't the main reason the towers collapsed, because if it was... the North Tower would've collapsed first, as more jet fuel exploded INSIDE this tower, and it burned for a LONGER time.
OptimumPx
...and the explosion wasn’t all of the jet fuel. It was a lot, but not all.

And on the second tower (and I think Mello already covered this part) the plane took out one of the major supports of the tower, the corner. This dramatically weakened the building more then Tower 1 allowing it to fall before the other did.
Qdeathstar
besides that, if it was bombs, what made it stay up after than, there werent any explosions after the airplains crashed.


besides that, the jet fuei isnt the only thing that burned. the sheetrock, HUGE amount of paper, ect is what burned.

have you ever started a fire? when it first starts out it istn that hot, but evenutally, kendling begeins to form, which is superheated, the same thing happened inside the twin towers, the fire burned, the BOLTS holding it together (and some of the beems) melted. In addition, [b]you dont have to get to the MELTING point of steel for it to become structurally unsound[b], all you have to do is heat it up to a point where it can bend a little, then bend a litte more, until the bolts holding the beems together snap.

So, those 5-6 floors collapsed. The force excerted by the floors above (not with no support, crashed into the floors beneeth. The twin towers were ment to survive horizontal shock (Not fires kick started by jet fuel) not verticle shocks, so the floors collapsed on themsleves.
CaldMagi
Why did the WTCs collapse due to fire, where there are dozens of others similiar buildings who hate fires that raged for way more hours, spread over way more storeys, and didn't collapse? Was the WTC really that badly engineered?
Mekstizzle
What i cant beleive is the tapes taken out of the petrol station...i remember that from some other documentary and this one brings it up again. Seriously, why the hell wont they show the tapes? Until they show those tapes its most certainly a lie.
OptimumPx
QUOTE(Mechanicalizzle @ Nov 29 2005, 01:07 PM) [snapback]1011838[/snapback]

What i cant beleive is the tapes taken out of the petrol station...i remember that from some other documentary and this one brings it up again. Seriously, why the hell wont they show the tapes? Until they show those tapes its most certainly a lie.

What’s a lie? That a plane hit the Pentagon? Your telling me that the simple fact that they haven’t released the tapes proves that the story of a plane hitting the Pentagon is now a lie? Riiiggghhht. dry.gif
QUOTE
http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm
Claim: The damage to the Pentagon on September 11 was caused by something other than a hijacked Boeing 757's being crashed into its side.
Status: False.

...Recall that when the first airliner was flown into a World Trade Center tower on September 11 — before it was known that the "accident" was really part of a deliberate terrorist attack — newscasters were speculating that a small plane had accidentally flown into the side of the tower, because the visible exterior damage didn't seem as extensive as what people thought a large airliner would cause. Even though the two airplanes flown into the World Trade Center towers were travelling faster at the time of impact than the Pentagon plane was (400 MPH vs. 350 MPH), hit aluminum-and-glass buildings rather than reinforced concrete walls, and didn't dissipate much of their energy striking the ground first (as the Pentagon plane did), they still barely penetrated all the way through the WTC towers.
Read that page. You don’t need a security camera to prove it was a plane which hit the building.
Lord Steve0
Out of interest how many similar fires have there been in office blocks worldwide? I can olny recall the one in spain, but i seem to remember that tower was smaller and the fire was nearly at the top. I'd hazard a guess and say that you can't compare any other tower fires to these WTC fires. There are no other fire involving jet fuel, and there are no other towers where a jumbo jet has blown a huge hole in the outer wall (in the case of the WTC, the outer wall gave them most of their strength).
I seriously doubt anyone who claims that the fires were not to blame and compare this incident to any other tower fires. There has never been anything like this, and there's no way of realistically knowing how the towers were going to behave in such circumstances.
Using comparisons is never goingto prove anything, and models using physics equations are no better. How can you seriously expect to have a good idea of how a 100+ story building will react to a plane impact and fire in its upper floors? You have nothing to go on, and no way of really knowing how the structure reacted.
Mekstizzle
All i'm saying is that if they want people to shut up about the Pentagon. Show the tapes. Then i'll make a solid judgement.
Lord Steve0
Yeah i suppose you are right there. I've never seen a photo or video of an actual plane hit the Pentagon. So i can't be certain that's what happened.
But a lot of witnesses (as in anyone on the freeway, Rt 395 next to it!) saw a plane hit that building, so i guess that they can't all be lying can they?
GTA_PlAyA_728
Ok so what if they took the tapes and wont show it? They had a video of the plane hitting the pentagon from outside the pentagon. It showed like 10 frames of the plane hitting it.

Plus the fact that after they stoped the fire at the pentagon, they DID find evidence of the plane. They found the blackbox, some wheels, and scrap metal from the plane. They have tons of pictures to prove their was a plane in that building.

About the towers... Consider this.. When u take a plane going 500 Mph and hit it into a building, theirs a big chance that it will explode. The 2 planes that hit the towers werent even up in the air for more then an hour, they had plenty of fuel in them that could ignite.

When they create a building, i think they spray most of the building (inside the walls) with unflammable material so that fires would be harder to start. When the planes hit the towers, it blew out all that material which made it easier for everything to catch on fire quicker. Also, a hit like that couldeve caused the bolts from the skeleton of the building to break off from the vibration.


And heres something to think about.. WHY WOULD THE US LIE ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED?! What do they have to keep secret? They found the terrorists journals stateing their plans for that day. A whole procedure on what they were going to do. And even after it all happened, they admitted that it was them that did it.
Lord Steve0
You have a few good points there.
If it was the US government (which i seriously doubt) then why did Al Qaida not deny it was them? Would they really want the blame, knowing what the resulting "revenge" from the US would bring?

If it wasn't the terrorists we all think it was, then it would have to be some huge international organisation, one so secretive we don't know it exists, and one with huge wealth and resources. No government could pull this sort of thing off and hope to cover it up. To think otherwise is just madness.


On the subject of the Pentagon, can anyone explain how the Googlemap of the area is so inacurate? Look at the pic i've posted, Route 110 to the east of the Pentagon is mapped as going in a big curve. Yet it clearly doesn't follow that path in real life, you can see it clearly. There's several other roads marked on the map that don't actually seem to exist on the ground as well, the one cutting across the green rectangle east of the pentagon.
Seems a bit odd to have such errors on a new map program.
[attachmentid=4615]
OptimumPx
Online maps make all kinds of mistakes. For example Google seems to think that my house is about two blocked down the street, where no houses exist. sleep.gif
Qdeathstar
QUOTE(CaldMagi @ Nov 29 2005, 12:37 PM) [snapback]1011817[/snapback]

Why did the WTCs collapse due to fire, where there are dozens of others similiar buildings who hate fires that raged for way more hours, spread over way more storeys, and didn't collapse? Was the WTC really that badly engineered?



they werent started with jet fuel, which enabled the fire to quickly overwelm the 5 floors. In addition, their were 25 stories of building on TOP of where the plain crahsed, theirs a lot more weight and a lot more stress.

ANd which other 110 story buildings caught fire?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.