PDA

View Full Version : 9/11 Conspiracies - What do you think happened? - [Closes 13/05/07]



Pages : [1] 2

---MAD---
13-04-2007, 10:03 AM
What do you think happened on that horrific day and why? Debate your points and debate against other points people make.

Enjoy debating this hot topic :).

Yoshimitsui
13-04-2007, 10:08 AM
I think it was all down to the plane hijackers. And are connected to l the other bombings etc.. I simply don't belive theses theories that G bush was involved.

Camy
13-04-2007, 10:14 AM
I think G Bush is too stupid top have masterminded a conspiracie lol
Although some ppl make a gr8 argument

velocity
13-04-2007, 10:23 AM
two planes, two buildings, high speeds, explosives.

Yggdrasill
13-04-2007, 10:26 AM
two planes, they hit two buildings, they were going fast, people die.

theman0001
13-04-2007, 10:31 AM
it all started on a nice day when george bush was reading to some children, 2 planes hit the world trade centre, 1 plane hit the pentagon, 1 plane hit the ground, george bush decided to stay reading to children other than save lives, and stop panic.

Baving
13-04-2007, 10:35 AM
Just watch kk

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11

MrCorny
13-04-2007, 10:42 AM
Well is happend on birthday for start, and that it had somthing to do with the London bombings.

The Professor
13-04-2007, 10:45 AM
I dont see where the debate is. Planes hit buildings, they fell down. What is there to debate?

Seacat
13-04-2007, 10:47 AM
How could he have saved lives? Just because he's the president doesn't mean he could jump in a helicopter, land on the site where the twin towers were and start waving some kind of magic wand to save lives :s He couldn't do anything at that point, and probably didn't realise the seriousness of what was happening until he received more information.


it all started on a nice day when george bush was reading to some children, 2 planes hit the world trade centre, 1 plane hit the pentagon, 1 plane hit the ground, george bush decided to stay reading to children other than save lives, and stop panic.

I don't think it was a conspiracy - I think it genuinely happened. Every time a major event like this arises there are always conspiracy theories. For example Princess Diana's death and Dr. Kelly's suicide. If people want to they will examine every little detail and find something that looked out of place and make it in to some sort of a theory - when in effect it probably wasn't. E.g. you had all of these experts saying "If a plane had crashed in to a steel building this would have happened... not this" - but how many planes have crashed in to steel buildings for them to base this evidence on? :S It's not exactly the kind of thing you can test in a laboratory.

Humoured
13-04-2007, 10:52 AM
Well lets just say it was on my birthday and didnt make it s very nice day TBH.

Luckyrare
13-04-2007, 10:54 AM
I think some muslims was in a plane, hijacked it and then crashed them. America had slow reactions, bad resources (I think they only had 6 planes ready to go for all of USA) and bad communication (the pilots where not told where to go). They could of saved a lot of lives (aka shoot the plane out of the sky)

Ekalb
13-04-2007, 11:06 AM
I'm probably more inclined to beleive what the official story is. Hijackers, planes, death. There was a whole south park episode on this and I saw it. Although it was comedy it did present a few interesting facts.
- Jet fuel doesn't burn at a temperature high enough to melt the buildings scaffolding and send them down.
- The whole left in the pentagon doesn't resemble a plane and no remains were actually found (Not sure how much truth is in this)
- 1/4 of Americans beleive it was a conspiracy.

And in reference to that episode, the 9/11 conspiracy was made up as a conspiracy ;)

A few coincidence videos:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Odp1FO0Vmuw
http://youtube.com/watch?v=i7BSt9jhxPQ
http://youtube.com/watch?v=Pd8B-8Au-Wk
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1rQ8_Qy0zp8
http://youtube.com/watch?v=m3JmXQ-z8S4

Camy
13-04-2007, 11:12 AM
I'm really nt sure anymore those videos and stuff really are starting to turn me round, bt i think ill need concrete evidence b4 i believe it
Btw I went on a plane for the first time the day after the atacks :O
and we had a 12 hour delay so i was basically ******* myself lol

Yoshimitsui
13-04-2007, 11:13 AM
I dont see where the debate is. Planes hit buildings, they fell down. What is there to debate?

The debate is, that some people say it was hijackers on planes. And others have a theory that the world trade centre was planted with bombs which was supposedly the cause of them fallling to the ground when experts said it should have held!

The Professor
13-04-2007, 11:23 AM
The debate is, that some people say it was hijackers on planes. And others have a theory that the world trade centre was planted with bombs which was supposedly the cause of them fallling to the ground when experts said it should have held!

Nope, not heard about any of them. Ty +rep

When anything bad happens there are always people who want to stir things more by putting fiction into it. Thats probably how most legends came to exist. I don't see any reason to believe anything other than the plane knocked the building down.

Tiuhdur
13-04-2007, 11:33 AM
to be honest i dont know what happened and no one really does, i dov take into consideration the conpiracy theories and i beleive them more than the official story such as where the plane struck the pentagon there was 1 hole and no wing holes, and the grass under the hole wasant scorched or destroyes, and they found 1 engine which wasnt the size of the airplane that hits engines

e5..
13-04-2007, 11:41 AM
It was hijackers, um I DON'T think they're connected to the London bombing's

Noone could stop them once there metres away from the buliding, noone even knew they set flight I don't think.

Kaytti
13-04-2007, 11:44 AM
My mums seen a documentary and it's secret [shh], but it provides exidence that Bush was behind it all.

Hecktix.
13-04-2007, 11:46 AM
Farenheit 9/11 explains all :)

:Hazel
13-04-2007, 11:47 AM
I really don't know what to believe as i've seen so many different theories on this and what really happened. the truth is none of us will ever probably know...

Hecktix.
13-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Politics is pretty much impossible to fully understand if you are an outsider. There are so many secrets only the top top top ministers actually know everything about whats going on.

ebay
13-04-2007, 11:49 AM
Was the US govenment that planned it

There were explosions on the towers. A plane couldnt have done that so it had to be rigged

The plane that was over powered by the passengers crashed in a field, so where was the crash scene? there was none :P Thats a bit weird dont ya think ?

luke-p
13-04-2007, 11:53 AM
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+change

Watch that, It's based around science and obviousness, I was quite convinced after watching it.

I know its 1 hour and a half long, but its seriouly worth it.
Or just bookmark it and come to it later when your bored?
Eitherway you should really watch it to get an idea about what happend.

brandon
13-04-2007, 11:59 AM
My mums seen a documentary and it's secret [shh], but it provides exidence that Bush was behind it all.
I'd like to see it tbh

ebay
13-04-2007, 12:00 PM
did no 1 watch the conspiracy files on TV a few months ago
if not
Loose change is in the cinemas this summer :)

Djcafc.
13-04-2007, 12:03 PM
i think that a group of terrorists got together planned to hijack a plane and drive into the twin towers im tired of all of these conspiracies why cant people just take what happened.

DaveTaylor
13-04-2007, 12:11 PM
i watched a tv program on thisa bout 6 months ago and i just read in the thread that someone was saying that the mantience on the buildings werent done properly and the heat protection foam wasnt applied thats how the heat of the fuel melted the frame to the buildings

OMGitsaROSS
13-04-2007, 12:12 PM
I think two planes were hijacked and flown into the buildings.

luke-p
13-04-2007, 12:13 PM
i think that a group of terrorists got together planned to hijack a plane and drive into the twin towers im tired of all of these conspiracies why cant people just take what happened.

No body knows for sure who done it, weather it was bush and his homies... Or a group of terorists As i said to people watch the link i posted last, it is all based on science and the most obvious things which you don't realise unless someone explains.

Some points:

-The way the buildings fell Straight down?
• All 4 corners would of had to fail at the exact same time or it would of fell Forward backward right or left
• The miniture explosions as it fell down, similar to an implosion.

- The pentagon
• No obvious signs of a plane
• The whole was to small for a plane
• "It bounced of the lawn" - Why wasnt the lawn marked then

- Sciency stuff
• The fire shouldent of been hot enough to melt the steel frames
• Something to do with newtons law or something like that, a formula which tells how long it would take for an object to collapse or somethign similar.

Just watch the video, I can't remember all of it ^^^ There some of the things explained in it.

brodeo
13-04-2007, 12:23 PM
In my opinion i believe it's too early to even debate on things like this, the scars still run deep for some people.

DiscoPat
13-04-2007, 12:33 PM
The government is always involved, terorists dont just pop out out of no where.

brodeo
13-04-2007, 12:35 PM
The government is always involved, terorists dont just pop out out of no where.

Yes they do?

Radical Racial Cleansing > Extremists > Terrorists

Sharpsterz
13-04-2007, 12:37 PM
*REMOVED* off muslims [as said on south park]

Edited by Garion (Forum Super Moderator): Please do not avoid the filter by using alterations of filtered words, thanks :).

Nixt
13-04-2007, 12:43 PM
The government is always involved, terorists dont just pop out out of no where.

No, they don't. However, they are around because anti-American feeling in the eastern Muslim countries arose during the Cold War. Terrorism stemmed from this feeling, and the fact that the extremist Muslims believe that the West are too interfering and conceited.

I don't know what happened, there is no doubt in my mind that terrorists were involved however I think it's pretty obvious that we are not being told the full story.

Saurav
13-04-2007, 12:43 PM
Some of you should watch Loose Change.

They said the plane hit the ground, bounced and hit the Pentagon.
Why was the grass perfect? It looked as if nothing had touched it. There wasnt a single mark.
Secondly, why did the hole in the pentagon where the plane hit, look nothing like a hole made by a plane? There was only 1 hole, where there should have been 3.
2 for the engines and 1 for the main body of the plan.
Why do the FBI refuse to release any tapes which show the plane hitting the pentagon?
Why did the FBI get all the security tapes from all the CCTV/offices near the Pentagon just after the "plane" crashed into the pentagon?
Why did the FBI tell all the staff etc who saw the "plane" hit, not speak about what they saw?
Why were several explosions heard in the twin towers?
Why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed a few weeks before the twin tower collapsed?
How could people sneak bombs into the twin towers undetected? - Well they started doing several unusual fire drill/security drills etc. They could have planted the bombs then. The Bomb sniffing dogs were removed after the first unusual drill.
Why was the same hot liquid found at the bottom of the twin towers and bottom of world trade 7 (which collapsed too)? These were of extremely high temperatures and are only caused by bomb explosions.
In Loose Change, you can clearly see bombs going off in the twin towers.
Why did the fire fighters and public inside the twin towers report seeing and hearing bombs?
Why were no US Officials allowed to fly on 9/11? - Even before the planes were hi-jacked?

I still think it was all planned by the Goverment.
The US goverment used to fund the Talbans years ago - for some security thing. So its the US who have created the terrorists.

The people who US goverment identified as the hi-jackers werent even on the plane. They were in their home countries etc on 9/11.

The US Govement say Bin Laden is left handed. They released a blurry tape in December that same year. They said they filmed it secretly, and it showed Bin Laden claiming to be the mastermind of 9/11. In that tape, he was using his right hand to write and eat.

micky.blue.eyes
13-04-2007, 12:48 PM
I like this topic and I believe there is some kind of conspiracy, I don't know who did it and I don't think I want to know, but the people who did it are very clever. Maybe there were some insiders in the twin towers who could plant explosives, but there were explosives (as shown on most videos).

I agree with the people who said that every time something dramatic happens people will look for things to base a consperacy theory on, but there are just too many things here which aren't right.


i think that a group of terrorists got together planned to hijack a plane and drive into the twin towers im tired of all of these conspiracies why cant people just take what happened.

Because it didn't happen the way it's told.


No body knows for sure who done it, weather it was bush and his homies... Or a group of terorists As i said to people watch the link i posted last, it is all based on science and the most obvious things which you don't realise unless someone explains.

Some points:

-The way the buildings fell Straight down?
• All 4 corners would of had to fail at the exact same time or it would of fell Forward backward right or left
Also, in one of the videos it shows that one of the towers started to fall down straight, then it started to lean over but then it mysteriously changed back and continued to fall down straight.
• The miniture explosions as it fell down, similar to an implosion.

- The pentagon
• No obvious signs of a plane
• The whole was to small for a plane
• "It bounced of the lawn" - Why wasnt the lawn marked then
Securit camera images show something which is nowhere near the size of a large plane.

- Sciency stuff
• The fire shouldent of been hot enough to melt the steel frames
• Something to do with newtons law or something like that, a formula which tells how long it would take for an object to collapse or somethign similar.

Just watch the video, I can't remember all of it ^^^ There some of the things explained in it.
(Added some stuff in green. :))


Other points:
- A third tower collapsed but it wasn't struck by a plane or even burning.
- If the government has nothing to do with it (or other powerfull people), why won't the government release videos from security cameras they took from cameras aimed at the pentagon and other videos?
- The police in helicopters were ordered not to save people from the building and to get away from the building. (I think it was the police, the video will tell you this)
- The twin towers fell after about 10 minutes, other buildings burned for a much longer time and never fell down.
- The twin towers were build to survive these fires.

I can't be bothered to type more points, just watch the video.

Jazza
13-04-2007, 12:49 PM
As there were explosions at the base of the tower I think there were the planes plus some suicide bombers

beth
13-04-2007, 12:53 PM
Some of you should watch Loose Change.



They said the plane hit the ground, bounced and hit the Pentagon.
Why was the grass perfect? It looked as if nothing had touched it. There wasnt a single mark.
Secondly, why did the hole in the pentagon where the plane hit, look nothing like a hole made by a plane? There was only 1 hole, where there should have been 3.
2 for the engines and 1 for the main body of the plan.
Why do the FBI refuse to release any tapes which show the plane hitting the pentagon?
Why did the FBI get all the security tapes from all the CCTV/offices near the Pentagon just after the "plane" crashed into the pentagon?
Why did the FBI tell all the staff etc who saw the "plane" hit, not speak about what they saw?
Why were several explosions heard in the twin towers?
Why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed a few weeks before the twin tower collapsed?
How could people sneak bombs into the twin towers undetected? - Well they started doing several unusual fire drill/security drills etc. They could have planted the bombs then. The Bomb sniffing dogs were removed after the first unusual drill.
Why was the same hot liquid found at the bottom of the twin towers and bottom of world trade 7 (which collapsed too)? These were of extremely high temperatures and are only caused by bomb explosions.
In Loose Change, you can clearly see bombs going off in the twin towers.
Why did the fire fighters and public inside the twin towers report seeing and hearing bombs?
Why were no US Officials allowed to fly on 9/11? - Even before the planes were hi-jacked?

I still think it was all planned by the Goverment.
The US goverment used to fund the Talbans years ago - for some security thing. So its the US who have created the terrorists.

The people who US goverment identified as the hi-jackers werent even on the plane. They were in their home countries etc on 9/11.

The US Govement say Bin Laden is left handed. They released a blurry tape in December that same year. They said they filmed it secretly, and it showed Bin Laden claiming to be the mastermind of 9/11. In that tape, he was using his right hand to write and eat.
in response to this; i totally agree with maddox.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons#FURTHER_READING

Please note the link contains language of an inappropriate nature.

FlyingJesus
13-04-2007, 01:04 PM
Planes hit buildings and they fell over.

-Soph-
13-04-2007, 01:04 PM
I dont see where the debate is. Planes hit buildings, they fell down. What is there to debate?

the debate is all the conspiracy's people believe in, although I don't.

with the towers, i think the video shows it all really, nothing more to it.
I know people are saying "could more lives be saved", I don't think so, if anything a lot more could of been lost, because if the people on united 93 didn't fight back then I could guarantee that the death toll would be a lot higher.

Sharpsterz
13-04-2007, 01:08 PM
Just watch kk

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11


i say watch that video

Saurav
13-04-2007, 01:11 PM
in response to this; i totally agree with maddox.
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons#FURTHER_READING

Please note the link contains language of an inappropriate nature.

The website ...


His point number 2:

If they killed the makers of Loose Change, it would create them more problems. It would cause a lot of problems - "someone said america did it, and he was murdered the next day". Doesnt look good does it?

The guy who owns that site looks like some sad 2 year old kid, who thinks he is always right.
All the idiot talked about was $20 notes? WOW!!! >.>

He didn't answer any of the things or debunk anything on the pentagon?
That idiot knows he is wrong or doesn't have any answers.

Sad moron :]

Sharpsterz
13-04-2007, 01:16 PM
the windsor building in madrid burned for 22 hours yet did not collapse

yet the trade centres burned for 2 hours and collapsed


sceince cant prove any of it!!!!!!!!!!!

FlyingJesus
13-04-2007, 01:18 PM
The website ...


His point number 2:

If they killed the makers of Loose Change, it would create them more problems. It would cause a lot of problems - "someone said america did it, and he was murdered the next day". Doesnt look good does it?

The guy who owns that site looks like some sad 2 year old kid, who thinks he is always right.
All the idiot talked about was $20 notes? WOW!!! >.>

He didn't answer any of the things or debunk anything on the pentagon?
That idiot knows he is wrong or doesn't have any answers.

Sad moron :]

You are then, I take it, a conspiracy theorist..

Can anyone explain why the US government would want to do this?
Can someone tell me how it's possible to get an entire government, the various special forces of the US, the emergency services and many others to stay quiet about something like this?
Can I get an answer as to how if it really was the US government, why there were no messages from the Taliban and other suspects claiming innocence?

Tiuhdur
13-04-2007, 01:20 PM
I like this topic and I believe there is some kind of conspiracy, I don't know who did it and I don't think I want to know, but the people who did it are very clever. Maybe there were some insiders in the twin towers who could plant explosives, but there were explosives (as shown on most videos).

I agree with the people who said that every time something dramatic happens people will look for things to base a consperacy theory on, but there are just too many things here which aren't right.



Because it didn't happen the way it's told.


(Added some stuff in green. :))


Other points:
- A third tower collapsed but it wasn't struck by a plane or even burning.
- If the government has nothing to do with it (or other powerfull people), why won't the government release videos from security cameras they took from cameras aimed at the pentagon and other videos?
- The police in helicopters were ordered not to save people from the building and to get away from the building. (I think it was the police, the video will tell you this)
- The twin towers fell after about 10 minutes, other buildings burned for a much longer time and never fell down.
- The twin towers were build to survive these fires.

I can't be bothered to type more points, just watch the video.

on the security video released (only a few frames) it shows an explosion at the pentagon but no plane


edit:
Can anyone explain why the US government would want to do this? to make a time of terror for everyone giving

trust to the goverments to do something about it, to cause widespread panic leaving all blame on the people the us governent want dead,

Can someone tell me how it's possible to get an entire government, the various special forces of the US, the

emergency services and many others to stay quiet about something like this?
they simply didnt tell them

Can I get an answer as to how if it really was the US government, why there were no messages from the Taliban and other suspects claiming innocence?

the taliban after something like this happened would claim it was them, to make thereselves look like the most powerful terrorist forces

Seacat
13-04-2007, 01:22 PM
Exactly. I agree with all them points, especially the last one. It would have done more damage to the US Government if the Taliban hadn't claimed they'd done it, because then people really would be pointing the finger at the US.

It's basically impossible that the US could have done it and kept it secret. If the US had done it, it would have meant hundreds or thousands of people involved - and no way would all of them have kept quiet.


You are then, I take it, a conspiracy theorist..

Can anyone explain why the US government would want to do this?
Can someone tell me how it's possible to get an entire government, the various special forces of the US, the emergency services and many others to stay quiet about something like this?
Can I get an answer as to how if it really was the US government, why there were no messages from the Taliban and other suspects claiming innocence?

Tiuhdur
13-04-2007, 01:24 PM
they could easily keep it under wraps if only the top people knew

beth
13-04-2007, 01:24 PM
The website ...


His point number 2:

If they killed the makers of Loose Change, it would create them more problems. It would cause a lot of problems - "someone said america did it, and he was murdered the next day". Doesnt look good does it?

The guy who owns that site looks like some sad 2 year old kid, who thinks he is always right.
All the idiot talked about was $20 notes? WOW!!! >.>

He didn't answer any of the things or debunk anything on the pentagon?
That idiot knows he is wrong or doesn't have any answers.

Sad moron :]
maddox is never wrong.
just because parrells exist it doesn't mean that they automatically lead to the governments involvement with 9/11. people are just clutching at loose strings to try & get answers. but i think it needs to stop; fair enough people did die, but isn't it better to let the dead rest than keep going over 'theories' that in the end prove nothing.

Saurav
13-04-2007, 01:29 PM
maddox is never wrong.
just because parrells exist it doesn't mean that they automatically lead to the governments involvement with 9/11. people are just clutching at loose strings to try & get answers. but i think it needs to stop; fair enough people did die, but isn't it better to let the dead rest than keep going over 'theories' that in the end prove nothing.

Luckily, not everyone thinks like you.

Well, lets go around murdering people, and say "STHU M8. LET THEM REST IN PEACE. THEY PROBS DIED OF NATURAL CAUSES. STHU WIV UR THEORIES THAT THEY WERE MURDERED".


You are then, I take it, a conspiracy theorist..

Can anyone explain why the US government would want to do this?

Gold under the twin towers.
They could blame it on Muslims and therefore attack Afganistan. Then slowly move to Iraq (who did nothing what so ever to them) and blow them up and get oil. Bush's dad always wanted to blow up Iraq, so maybe Bush was finishing off his dad's job? Iraq was under control and probably a better place with Saddam (but I would never know as I don't live there). Atleast people didn't walk out of their houses, thinking they might not return.

Can someone tell me how it's possible to get an entire government, the various special forces of the US, the emergency services and many others to stay quiet about something like this?

Who says the emergency services knew? They were probably acting as they would to anormal threat. Only the top ranking officials of the goverment knew.

Can I get an answer as to how if it really was the US government, why there were no messages from the Taliban and other suspects claiming innocence?

They did claim innocence. Bin Laden released a tape straight after 9/11 claiming it wasnt him.

^^^ My reply in red.

Sharpsterz
13-04-2007, 01:31 PM
i think we can all agree that someone planted explosives around different parts of the buildings


and if bush's son hadn't removed the bobm sniffin dogs they would have saved thousands of lives

Jordy
13-04-2007, 01:46 PM
They could of saved a lot of lives (aka shoot the plane out of the sky)

Funny you should say that. I personally believe they did. The one that hit the pentagon was shot out the sky. In minutes of it happening, the CIA raided all local business's and robbed their CCTV of it. The other plane that landed in a field, I'm fairly positive that was shot down too.


Some of you should watch Loose Change.

They said the plane hit the ground, bounced and hit the Pentagon.
Why was the grass perfect? It looked as if nothing had touched it. There wasnt a single mark.
Secondly, why did the hole in the pentagon where the plane hit, look nothing like a hole made by a plane? There was only 1 hole, where there should have been 3.
2 for the engines and 1 for the main body of the plan.
Why do the FBI refuse to release any tapes which show the plane hitting the pentagon?
Why did the FBI get all the security tapes from all the CCTV/offices near the Pentagon just after the "plane" crashed into the pentagon?
Why did the FBI tell all the staff etc who saw the "plane" hit, not speak about what they saw?
Why were several explosions heard in the twin towers?
Why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed a few weeks before the twin tower collapsed?
How could people sneak bombs into the twin towers undetected? - Well they started doing several unusual fire drill/security drills etc. They could have planted the bombs then. The Bomb sniffing dogs were removed after the first unusual drill.
Why was the same hot liquid found at the bottom of the twin towers and bottom of world trade 7 (which collapsed too)? These were of extremely high temperatures and are only caused by bomb explosions.
In Loose Change, you can clearly see bombs going off in the twin towers.
Why did the fire fighters and public inside the twin towers report seeing and hearing bombs?
Why were no US Officials allowed to fly on 9/11? - Even before the planes were hi-jacked?

I still think it was all planned by the Goverment.
The US goverment used to fund the Talbans years ago - for some security thing. So its the US who have created the terrorists.

The people who US goverment identified as the hi-jackers werent even on the plane. They were in their home countries etc on 9/11.

The US Govement say Bin Laden is left handed. They released a blurry tape in December that same year. They said they filmed it secretly, and it showed Bin Laden claiming to be the mastermind of 9/11. In that tape, he was using his right hand to write and eat.

Edit: Yeah that's exackly what I'm on about. 100% agree

Simmzay
13-04-2007, 01:49 PM
I believe every single theory can be debunked, and most have.

Example: http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html

Coldplay
13-04-2007, 01:50 PM
TBH, Loose Change Pretty Much Answers This Question;

On That Day The Following Things SUPPOSEDLY Happened;

4 Planes Were Hijacked, Two Flew Into The Twin Towers, One Into The Pentagon And ONE Crashed 30 Miles From The Whitehouse, Yet THESE Questions Remain Unasked;

1. WHY Did The Twin Towers Fall STRAIGHT Down Like A Controlled Demolition? Why Also Did WTC9 Fall Down Like A Demoltion When It Wasnt Even Hit?

2. Why Did Security Officials [ FBI & CIA ] Confiscate CCTV Footage From A Petrol Station Accros The Road From The Pentagon, This Camera Would've Seen EXACTLY What Happened To The Pentagon And Various EX-STAFF Say That They Watched That CCTV Footage And It Wasnt A Plane That Hit That Building

3. Why Did An EX-Marine Who Was Walking Past The Pentagon At The Time Say That The Explosion Sounded & Felt Like A Small Missile?

4. Why Did It Take 46 Minuites For Military Jets To Scramble AFTER Knowing Planes Had Been Hijacked. Why Were They Not Quicker Having Been FULLY Trained Against Terrorist Attacks.

5. Why Was The Blame Pinned On Osama Bin Laden And Yet He Still Hasnt Been Captured 6 Years Later?

6. Why Did The Owner Of The WTC Take Out A MAJORLY Big Insurance Polocy When He Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier [ 3.4 BILLION ]

7. Why Were Explosions Seen When The WTC' Collapsed?

8. Why Did Survivers Hear Constant Banging As If Explosions Above Their Heads? Mainly Talking Staircase 2B

9. How Can A Boeing 747 Make A 330 Degree Turn At 500 MPH?

10. Why Wasnt The Hole In The Pentagon Big Enough To Fit A Boeing 747 In The Hole?

11. WATCH THE FIRST 10 MIUNITES OF THE VIDEO BELOW! YOU HAVE TOO!


Loose Change;
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change

Make Your Own Opinions But I STRONGLY Urge You To Watch That Video If You Have An Hour And A Half Spare

-Soph-
13-04-2007, 01:54 PM
Funny you should say that. I personally believe they did. The one that hit the pentagon was shot out the sky. In minutes of it happening, the CIA raided all local business's and robbed their CCTV of it. The other plane that landed in a field, I'm fairly positive that was shot down too.



Edit: Yeah that's exackly what I'm on about. 100% agree

I'm pretty sure united 93 wasn't shot down, they we're going to, but didn't, the people fought back to prevent it from reaching its target.

and above, at number 9, they're went any boeing 747's involved were there?

Mario
13-04-2007, 02:02 PM
and above, at number 9, they're went any boeing 747's involved were there?
i think he means 767's

-JT-
13-04-2007, 02:02 PM
I think G Bush is too stupid top have masterminded a conspiracie lol
Although some ppl make a gr8 argument

George W Bush is also too stupid to run America - he clearly makes very little decition towards Americas affairs.

It is irrelivant who was responsible for the attacks, it could have been Jesus for all the ultimate result was. Many people, from all over the world were killed that day and conspiricy theorys simply dont matter - people DIED.

Sharpsterz
13-04-2007, 02:03 PM
TBH, Loose Change Pretty Much Answers This Question;

On That Day The Following Things SUPPOSEDLY Happened;

4 Planes Were Hijacked, Two Flew Into The Twin Towers, One Into The Pentagon And ONE Crashed 30 Miles From The Whitehouse, Yet THESE Questions Remain Unasked;

1. WHY Did The Twin Towers Fall STRAIGHT Down Like A Controlled Demolition? Why Also Did WTC9 Fall Down Like A Demoltion When It Wasnt Even Hit?

2. Why Did Security Officials [ FBI & CIA ] Confiscate CCTV Footage From A Petrol Station Accros The Road From The Pentagon, This Camera Would've Seen EXACTLY What Happened To The Pentagon And Various EX-STAFF Say That They Watched That CCTV Footage And It Wasnt A Plane That Hit That Building

3. Why Did An EX-Marine Who Was Walking Past The Pentagon At The Time Say That The Explosion Sounded & Felt Like A Small Missile?

4. Why Did It Take 46 Minuites For Military Jets To Scramble AFTER Knowing Planes Had Been Hijacked. Why Were They Not Quicker Having Been FULLY Trained Against Terrorist Attacks.

5. Why Was The Blame Pinned On Osama Bin Laden And Yet He Still Hasnt Been Captured 6 Years Later?

6. Why Did The Owner Of The WTC Take Out A MAJORLY Big Insurance Polocy When He Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier [ 3.4 BILLION ]

7. Why Were Explosions Seen When The WTC' Collapsed?

8. Why Did Survivers Hear Constant Banging As If Explosions Above Their Heads? Mainly Talking Staircase 2B

9. How Can A Boeing 747 Make A 330 Degree Turn At 500 MPH?

10. Why Wasnt The Hole In The Pentagon Big Enough To Fit A Boeing 747 In The Hole?

11. WATCH THE FIRST 10 MIUNITES OF THE VIDEO BELOW! YOU HAVE TOO!


Loose Change;
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change

Make Your Own Opinions But I STRONGLY Urge You To Watch That Video If You Have An Hour And A Half Spare

yep that video is just 100% proof of everything

-Soph-
13-04-2007, 02:03 PM
i think he means 767's

i've heard storys of them doing 360 turns when they're crashing.

they did when one crashed into an apartment in amsterdam.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/263813.stm
thats the story anyway, i've not read it yet, not sure if it says anything about the turns.

Coldplay
13-04-2007, 02:23 PM
i think he means 767's

I Mean 757's Sorry =] YOU MUST WATCH THAT VIDEO PLX

ScottDiamond
13-04-2007, 02:27 PM
I'm really nt sure anymore those videos and stuff really are starting to turn me round, bt i think ill need concrete evidence b4 i believe it
Btw I went on a plane for the first time the day after the atacks :O
and we had a 12 hour delay so i was basically ******* myself lol

No you never, all flights everywhere were grounded. No matter where, they were still grounded. Even Iran.

Coldplay
13-04-2007, 02:42 PM
No you never, all flights everywhere were grounded. No matter where, they were still grounded. Even Iran.

+ Rep For Owning Him <3

-:Undertaker:-
13-04-2007, 02:53 PM
The Loose change and things like Fahrenheit 9/11 make good strong points, the government were up to something I think.

The hole in the pentagon was small and the Towers collapsed like a controlled demolition.

The chances that two towers would collapse in the same way after being hit by two massive jet's is strange, in reality the fire on the side which the plane hit would be hotter than the other side meaning the top half of the building would collapse one way rather than ontop of itself.

503nomis
13-04-2007, 02:55 PM
THEJEWSDIDIT(PAUSEWAITFORAWE):D


Edited by Catzsy (Forum Super Moderator): As this is a debate you should back up your statement with a reasoned arguement as to why you think they did otherwise it does look somewhat racist.
Thx:)

beth
13-04-2007, 03:00 PM
THEJEWSDIDIT(PAUSEWAITFORAWE):D
omg they blatently did.

i find it amazing everybody is clutching onto this loose change thing, when most of it has been proved to be crap.

cocaine
13-04-2007, 03:24 PM
whats to debate :S

two planes hit two buildings = people die.

Camy
13-04-2007, 03:30 PM
No you never, all flights everywhere were grounded. No matter where, they were still grounded. Even Iran.

lol, i think i wud know if i was on a plane or nt
They werent grounded at glasgow :/

Johno
13-04-2007, 04:21 PM
Its a very controversial topic to start a debate on but I agree with Undertaker.

I watched "The Conspiracy Files" on BBC 2 a while back and their evidence was really overwhelming but when you think about it, and think about it logically. Why would America want to many of its own people to die, and if you remember watching when it happened on the news and looking at the papers after it you will remember about all the suffering and how people actually jumped out of the windows.

So, I think that it was down to terrorism but there is a lot of evidence to suggest other wise. I dont think we will ever know the full truth about what happened on that day.

Coldplay
13-04-2007, 04:25 PM
Its a very controversial topic to start a debate on but I agree with Undertaker.

I watched "The Conspiracy Files" on BBC 2 a while back and their evidence was really overwhelming but when you think about it, and think about it logically. Why would America want to many of its own people to die, and if you remember watching when it happened on the news and looking at the papers after it you will remember about all the suffering and how people actually jumped out of the windows.

So, I think that it was down to terrorism but there is a lot of evidence to suggest other wise. I dont think we will ever know the full truth about what happened on that day.

Money. =]

Watch The Start Of Loose Change

Yoshimitsui
13-04-2007, 04:44 PM
whats to debate :S

two planes hit two buildings = people die.


The debate is, that some people say it was hijackers on planes. And others have a theory that the world trade centre was planted with bombs which was supposedly the cause of them fallling to the ground when experts said it should have held!

madmike666
13-04-2007, 04:46 PM
A plane flew into a building. same happend with other building.

3d
13-04-2007, 05:16 PM
Ok i will attempt to answer them

1. Maybe because there was bombs inside the aircraft and/or there was gas/oil in the building and when the planes crashed it would obv start a fire which would set off the gas. I have no idea maybe it was unseen ? link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0Qu6eyyr4c

2. I have no idea about that but maybe so it wasnt obtained by anyone else (in my opinon it was a missile no a plane that hit pentagon but thats just my opinon)

3. read no. 2

4. i couldnt say you never know why i suppose could of been faults you never know

5. Isnt it obvious? Hes obvious in amazing hiding...to my awareness no one is actually looking for him in afghanistan

6. No idea i didnt even know so im not going to bother researching

7. like i said in no.1

8. no idea

9. i dont know nothing about planes so check if someone has said anything to that

10. This is why i stated in my eyes it was a missile




TBH, Loose Change Pretty Much Answers This Question;

On That Day The Following Things SUPPOSEDLY Happened;

4 Planes Were Hijacked, Two Flew Into The Twin Towers, One Into The Pentagon And ONE Crashed 30 Miles From The Whitehouse, Yet THESE Questions Remain Unasked;

1. WHY Did The Twin Towers Fall STRAIGHT Down Like A Controlled Demolition? Why Also Did WTC9 Fall Down Like A Demoltion When It Wasnt Even Hit?

2. Why Did Security Officials [ FBI & CIA ] Confiscate CCTV Footage From A Petrol Station Accros The Road From The Pentagon, This Camera Would've Seen EXACTLY What Happened To The Pentagon And Various EX-STAFF Say That They Watched That CCTV Footage And It Wasnt A Plane That Hit That Building

3. Why Did An EX-Marine Who Was Walking Past The Pentagon At The Time Say That The Explosion Sounded & Felt Like A Small Missile?

4. Why Did It Take 46 Minuites For Military Jets To Scramble AFTER Knowing Planes Had Been Hijacked. Why Were They Not Quicker Having Been FULLY Trained Against Terrorist Attacks.

5. Why Was The Blame Pinned On Osama Bin Laden And Yet He Still Hasnt Been Captured 6 Years Later?

6. Why Did The Owner Of The WTC Take Out A MAJORLY Big Insurance Polocy When He Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier [ 3.4 BILLION ]

7. Why Were Explosions Seen When The WTC' Collapsed?

8. Why Did Survivers Hear Constant Banging As If Explosions Above Their Heads? Mainly Talking Staircase 2B

9. How Can A Boeing 747 Make A 330 Degree Turn At 500 MPH?

10. Why Wasnt The Hole In The Pentagon Big Enough To Fit A Boeing 747 In The Hole?

11. WATCH THE FIRST 10 MIUNITES OF THE VIDEO BELOW! YOU HAVE TOO!


Loose Change;
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change

Make Your Own Opinions But I STRONGLY Urge You To Watch That Video If You Have An Hour And A Half Spare

Now before you start criticising my answers i dont sit here reading/watching conspiracies so its just general knowledge i suppose from what my answers where

Ashhizzle
13-04-2007, 05:47 PM
I dont see where the debate is. Planes hit buildings, they fell down. What is there to debate?
Theres some people who beleive it was set up, Don't you think its a bit suspicous that the Owner of the buildings took out insurance two days before the 'accident'

Lost-Shark
13-04-2007, 06:02 PM
Tbh, Bush sucks u know wot,
So does al queda and this was all down to Us + Americans with the Jews In Jerusalum. I dnt rli care bwt all this and people feel free to have a good arguement cos im out of this one!

Mentor
13-04-2007, 06:21 PM
[COLOR=Black][B]TBH, Loose Change Pretty Much Answers This Question;

On That Day The Following Things SUPPOSEDLY Happened;

4 Planes Were Hijacked, Two Flew Into The Twin Towers, One Into The Pentagon And ONE Crashed 30 Miles From The Whitehouse, Yet THESE Questions Remain Unasked;
Loose change is mostly a load of crap, like alot of the moon landing conspircys it holds no real wieght.


1. WHY Did The Twin Towers Fall STRAIGHT Down Like A Controlled Demolition?
The trade centers were actually designed with the idea something like this could actually happen, if you match the size of the planes up with the towers the plane's are almost the same size, its incredible they stayed up at all, but the design, kept it standing, if it was going to topple sideways dont you think a plane flying straight in to it would have pushed the building over?[/quote]


Why Also Did WTC9 Fall Down Like A Demoltion When It Wasnt Even Hit? World Trade center 9? i thought there was only two of em.


2. Why Did Security Officials [ FBI & CIA ] Confiscate CCTV Footage From A Petrol Station Accros The Road From The Pentagon, This Camera Would've Seen EXACTLY What Happened To The Pentagon And Various EX-STAFF Say That They Watched That CCTV Footage And It Wasnt A Plane That Hit That Building

I wonder, an international act of terrorism, an issue of national securty? and your surprised the FBI/CIA wanted footage of the event ?
Plus how would you tell, CCTV camra's have very slow frame rates, planes fly very fast.


3. Why Did An EX-Marine Who Was Walking Past The Pentagon At The Time Say That The Explosion Sounded & Felt Like A Small Missile?
Probably becuse that what a plane sounds like when it wacks in to somthing at high speed, the only difference is in the payload, aircraft fule isnt quite as explosive.


4. Why Did It Take 46 Minuites For Military Jets To Scramble AFTER Knowing Planes Had Been Hijacked. Why Were They Not Quicker Having Been FULLY Trained Against Terrorist Attacks.
Incompidence sounds more likely than a planned act, think how many people would have to be in with the conspircy to carry that off.


5. Why Was The Blame Pinned On Osama Bin Laden And Yet He Still Hasnt Been Captured 6 Years Later?
because hes good at hideing o.0 better question is why did american exert most its military effort invading a country with nothing to do with the incident.


6. Why Did The Owner Of The WTC Take Out A MAJORLY Big Insurance Polocy When He Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier [ 3.4 BILLION ]
When you own a massively important building worth a massive amount it would be stupid not to buy a big insurance. its odd it wasn't done immidetly.


7. Why Were Explosions Seen When The WTC' Collapsed?
becuse a plane with most its tank full of fule were embed in the side of the building.


8. Why Did Survivers Hear Constant Banging As If Explosions Above Their Heads? Mainly Talking Staircase 2B
Thats called supports buckling.


9. How Can A Boeing 747 Make A 330 Degree Turn At 500 MPH? Quite easly if your not limiting the size of the ark it makes doing it.


10. Why Wasnt The Hole In The Pentagon Big Enough To Fit A Boeing 747 In The Hole?
The hold in the pentagon was between 16 to 20 foot right?
A 757's body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high...

Adds up to me o.0 wings, nose, extra's aint gona make it threw a reinforced concrete wall, so the rest doesnt really count.


11. WATCH THE FIRST 10 MIUNITES OF THE VIDEO BELOW! YOU HAVE TOO!
Seen it.

3d
13-04-2007, 06:59 PM
Tbh, Bush sucks u know wot,
So does al queda and this was all down to Us + Americans with the Jews In Jerusalum. I dnt rli care bwt all this and people feel free to have a good arguement cos im out of this one!

sorry but what in the world do jews have to do with this pmsl

RedStratocas
13-04-2007, 07:06 PM
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+change

Watch that, It's based around science and obviousness, I was quite convinced after watching it.

I know its 1 hour and a half long, but its seriouly worth it.
Or just bookmark it and come to it later when your bored?
Eitherway you should really watch it to get an idea about what happend.

Loose Change is full of lies and stupidity. I found 2 mistakes on my own the first time watching it, so that makes me think the rest of what they say is wrong as well. Not to mention some of the evidence they manipulated to make you agree with them. Like the whole "twin towers in crosshairs on the terrorist reports" thing: The WTC was bombed in '91, so it was seen as a symbol of terrorism. So either the guys who made it are stupid and didnt know about those attacks, or they did know and are manipulating what the facts really are and are liars. Either way, it disproves the rest. Why would the government give out stupid hints on report covers that they murdered almost 3 thousand people? It makes no sense.

Okay, maybe jet fuel cant get hot enough to MELT steal at 825 degrees C, but steel looses half it's strength at 648 degrees C. Not only that, but if you saw the video footage, there was a huge 747 plane that crashed into the side of the building. They didnt take that into account when they were calculating how long it take steel to melt did they? If jet fuel was poured onto a floor and set on fire, you'd have an arguement that it shouldn't have fallen. But there was a gigantic hole in the side of the building that Im sure helped with the falling process.

awelsh
13-04-2007, 07:32 PM
Well there are two answers:

1. Hi-Jackers caused all of the destruction and terrorist etc...

2. It was a set up, anyone notic how the buildings fell down directly not al slopes etc... That cant be right, Some documentarys have said there are bombs set at the base of floors that were triggered, how else could they have fallen straight down??

I myself find 2. more plausable myself. But thats just me

Mentor
13-04-2007, 07:39 PM
Well there are two answers:

1. Hi-Jackers caused all of the destruction and terrorist etc...

2. It was a set up, anyone notic how the buildings fell down directly not al slopes etc... That cant be right, Some documentarys have said there are bombs set at the base of floors that were triggered, how else could they have fallen straight down??

I myself find 2. more plausable myself. But thats just me

only if you forget the fact that the twin towers were designed with the idea a terroist attack on them could happen, and that a direct collapse was just part of the design for such a tall building. if a 500 mile per hour 747 slamming in to the side takeing out half the buildings supports, didn't knock it over or even make in bend slightly do you really think its just randomly going to pivert sideways?

3d
13-04-2007, 07:45 PM
only if you forget the fact that the twin towers were designed with the idea a terroist attack on them could happen, and that a direct collapse was just part of the design for such a tall building. if a 500 mile per hour 747 slamming in to the side takeing out half the buildings supports, didn't knock it over or even make in bend slightly do you really think its just randomly going to pivert sideways?
:'( what i was going to say

they were built so that they were protected from natural accidents eg hurricanes earthquakes etc thats why they would topple over so many people dont understand that bit

FlyingJesus
13-04-2007, 07:46 PM
:'( what i was going to say

they were built so that they were protected from natural accidents eg hurricanes earthquakes etc thats why they would topple over so many people dont understand that bit

*wouldn't

3d
13-04-2007, 07:52 PM
oh yeh crap my bad

Saurav
13-04-2007, 08:29 PM
My reply in red.


Loose change is mostly a load of crap, like alot of the moon landing conspircys it holds no real wieght.


The trade centers were actually designed with the idea something like this could actually happen, if you match the size of the planes up with the towers the plane's are almost the same size, its incredible they stayed up at all, but the design, kept it standing, if it was going to topple sideways dont you think a plane flying straight in to it would have pushed the building over?

The plane were the same size as the twin towers? Are you blind or just a stupid little kid??

World Trade center 9? i thought there was only two of em.

I think the person meant World Trade 7, which collasped on the same day. Wow, you are arguing about something you dont have a clue on.


I wonder, an international act of terrorism, an issue of national securty? and your surprised the FBI/CIA wanted footage of the event ?
Plus how would you tell, CCTV camra's have very slow frame rates, planes fly very fast.

Why didn't they release the tape then? What did they have to hide? How the hell do you know the video quality would be crap? Scientists could have evn checked it. Even if it has a slow frame rate, it would have still captured a massive plane, which you think was the size of the twin towers rofl. Planes fly really fast? OMG REALLY?

Probably becuse that what a plane sounds like when it wacks in to somthing at high speed, the only difference is in the payload, aircraft fule isnt quite as explosive.


Incompidence sounds more likely than a planned act, think how many people would have to be in with the conspircy to carry that off.

Well, they only need the top people from top companies and a few people willing to blow up planes. The people involved speak = murder :]

because hes good at hideing o.0 better question is why did american exert most its military effort invading a country with nothing to do with the incident.

The above sentence doesn't make sense.

When you own a massively important building worth a massive amount it would be stupid not to buy a big insurance. its odd it wasn't done immidetly.

Just a few months before it blew up? Its a old tower, why not buy it before? Why insure it especially against plan crashes?

becuse a plane with most its tank full of fule were embed in the side of the building.

Doesn't mean the building will fall.

Thats called supports buckling.

No, thats called bombs going off. The plane hit near the top. The bombs went off everywhere where they had the main support.

Quite easly if your not limiting the size of the ark it makes doing it.


The hold in the pentagon was between 16 to 20 foot right?
A 757's body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high...

Adds up to me o.0 wings, nose, extra's aint gona make it threw a reinforced concrete wall, so the rest doesnt really count.

Were was the hole made by the 2 engines? The pane can't have fully burnt.


Seen it.



Loose Change is full of lies and stupidity. I found 2 mistakes on my own the first time watching it,

And those mistakes were ... ?

RedStratocas
13-04-2007, 09:35 PM
The plane were the same size as the twin towers? Are you blind or just a stupid little kid??

Is insulting people the only way you know how to argue? That does nothing for your arguement. And he didnt mean the same size as in its height, he meant as in across, which is almost accurate. Congradulations on skewing his words, you'll make a great journalist.


I think the person meant World Trade 7, which
collasped on the same day. Wow, you are arguing about something you dont have a clue on.

Again with the insults? Youre wonderful really. He said the wrong name of the building, obviously THAT person doesnt know what he's talking about.


Why didn't they release the tape then? What did they have to hide? How the hell do you know the video quality would be crap? Scientists could have evn checked it. Even if it has a slow frame rate, it would have still captured a massive plane, which you think was the size of the twin towers rofl. Planes fly really fast? OMG REALLY?

They released a tape straight from the pentagon of the attack actually.


Well, they only need the top people from top companies and a few people willing to blow up planes. The people involved speak = murder :]

Then how come they cant murder the people coming out with these conspiracies then?


The above sentence doesn't make sense.

Actually it made perfect sense. We invaded Iraq, not Afghanistan, where Osama is hiding. Thats why we havent found him, because we havent really been looking.


Just a few months before it blew up? Its a old tower, why not buy it before? Why insure it especially against plan crashes?

Because insurance gets renewed. Insurance only lasts a certain amount of time, then you have to buy it again, it just happened to run out a few months before. And it wasent insured against specifically plane crashes, it was insured for terrorism. For obvious reasons, seeing as it was attacked before.


Doesn't mean the building will fall.

Doesnt mean it wont either. Mind giving us some proof that it shouldnt have fallen?


No, thats called bombs going off. The plane hit near the top. The bombs went off everywhere where they had the main support.

Who says they're bombs? When I saw the video of the supposed "bombs" before the tower fell, they were tiny little lights that could have been anything.



The hold in the pentagon was between 16 to 20 foot right?
A 757's body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high...

It dug into the ground a tad.

Were was the hole made by the 2 engines? The pane can't have fully burnt.

Says who?


And those mistakes were ... ?

Read the rest of my post?

24
13-04-2007, 10:22 PM
Regarding the Pentagon:

The supposed plane that hit the pentagon would have contained 2 x 9 foot diameter engines which mysteriously disappeared. The government said that the fire was so hot it melted the engines to nothing, yet they claim they found DNA of the passengers. Erm how is that even possible? Also if you take alook at the photo below it clearly shows building materials/rubble which were caused by the impact.....But if the fire was so hot it vapourized steel and cobalt engine parts (which have very high melting points) all of the materials in this opening would have been reduced to ash. This could only mean one thing it wasnt a 757 that hit the pentagon it was something else. (Some theories suggest it was an A3 Skywarrior but i wont go into that.)

http://img454.imageshack.us/img454/8807/d3332wnry1.jpg

brodeo
13-04-2007, 10:23 PM
ksoz is poorly fighting this debate, it is no place for insults, its a place for discussion and mature arguement.

Ed.
13-04-2007, 10:24 PM
Personally I think the Al Quada - boarded the planes with like a knife or something

They threatened to kill the crew if they couldn't go into the cockpit.

Or they told the pilot to fly it into it or he would die

But I think that they flew it into the Twin Towers.

R.I.P All those who died that day

Mentor
13-04-2007, 10:32 PM
The plane were the same size as the twin towers? Are you blind or just a stupid little kid??
No, i can just do math. Match up a 124 ft 10 in wingspan over the top of a 208 foot building suppored by a central core thats only 88 feet wide. Then reask the question how you espect that to hold up a building when a plains ripped half of it out. (im talking widths not hieght obviously)


World Trade center 9? i thought there was only two of em.

I think the person meant World Trade 7, which collasped on the same day. Wow, you are arguing about something you dont have a clue on.
WTC 7 is not WTC 9, and WTC7 was hit by shratanal from the orignal blast, although reportedly collapsed due to the diesel fuel reservoirs for backup power generators explodeing o.0

Also what does that have to do with the 2 towers collapsing, and what use would there be performing a controled demolition on an undamaged building that was poseing no risk from collapsing sideways anyway o.0


I wonder, an international act of terrorism, an issue of national securty? and your surprised the FBI/CIA wanted footage of the event ?
Plus how would you tell, CCTV camra's have very slow frame rates, planes fly very fast.

Why didn't they release the tape then? What did they have to hide? How the hell do you know the video quality would be crap? Scientists could have evn checked it. Even if it has a slow frame rate, it would have still captured a massive plane, which you think was the size of the twin towers rofl. Planes fly really fast? OMG REALLY?
It would be impounded as evedence if there was any invstigation o.0 Plus its CCTV? have you ever watched a CCTV camra or seen CCTV footage? its generaly pretty crap.
Plus 500mph is pretty fast for somthing thats only 47 meters long, plus width and height are slighly differnt things o.0


Probably becuse that what a plane sounds like when it wacks in to somthing at high speed, the only difference is in the payload, aircraft fule isnt quite as explosive.

Incompidence sounds more likely than a planned act, think how many people would have to be in with the conspircy to carry that off.

Well, they only need the top people from top companies and a few people willing to blow up planes. The people involved speak = murder :]

Company's dont get the insurance money, the plane industry is worth alot more than the insurance on the twin towers was, scareing people of flying, massivly reduceing there profits is a pretty stupid business practice.


because hes good at hideing o.0 better question is why did american exert most its military effort invading a country with nothing to do with the incident.

The above sentence doesn't make sense.
Well it did, Asarma = hideing
instead of looking, America go invade iraq.
You see problem


When you own a massively important building worth a massive amount it would be stupid not to buy a big insurance. its odd it wasn't done immidetly.

Just a few months before it blew up? Its a old tower, why not buy it before? Why insure it especially against plan crashes?

the question imasking to stated it was brought when they "Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier", you cant insure a building you dont own to my knowlage.


becuse a plane with most its tank full of fule were embed in the side of the building.

Doesn't mean the building will fall.
Buildings stay up better without half the support structure being blown apart by explodeing fule, and without the greater part of a plain haveing wacked threw em.


Thats called supports buckling.

No, thats called bombs going off. The plane hit near the top. The bombs went off everywhere where they had the main support.
Did the army teliport in to put bombs on all the floors? controled demolitions are pretty distinctive.


The hold in the pentagon was between 16 to 20 foot right?
A 757's body is 12 ft 4in wide and 13 ft 6in high...

Adds up to me o.0 wings, nose, extra's aint gona make it threw a reinforced concrete wall, so the rest doesnt really count.

Were was the hole made by the 2 engines? The pane can't have fully burnt.
there werent any, they didnt get threw, reinforced concrete is pretty tough stuff, where it smashed in to a pillar and the bits of it splayed over the floor were pretty obvious though.

http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
Heres part of one.

-Soph-
13-04-2007, 10:36 PM
Personally I think the Al Quada - boarded the planes with like a knife or something

They threatened to kill the crew if they couldn't go into the cockpit.

Or they told the pilot to fly it into it or he would die

But I think that they flew it into the Twin Towers.

R.I.P All those who died that day

I highly doubt they'd tell the pilot to fly into it or else he would die..
he would die anyway if he flew the plane into the towers, along with thousands or others.

Coldplay
14-04-2007, 12:43 AM
No, i can just do math. Match up a 124 ft 10 in wingspan over the top of a 208 foot building suppored by a central core thats only 88 feet wide. Then reask the question how you espect that to hold up a building when a plains ripped half of it out. (im talking widths not hieght obviously)

1. Most Of The JetFuel Exploded OUTSIDE Of The Tower
2. 1/18'th Of The Structural Integrity Was Damaged
3. A Plane Flew Into The Empire State Building In 1977, Is That Building Still Intact? YES.

Also;

Supported
Re-ask
Expect
I'm
Height


WTC 7 is not WTC 9, and WTC7 was hit by shratanal from the orignal blast, although reportedly collapsed due to the diesel fuel reservoirs for backup power generators explodeing o.0

Also what does that have to do with the 2 towers collapsing, and what use would there be performing a controled demolition on an undamaged building that was poseing no risk from collapsing sideways anyway o.0Thats Rubbish, Why Would They Not Tell Anybody About Demolition, Also;

Shrapnel
Original
Exploding
Controlled
Posing


It would be impounded as evedence if there was any invstigation o.0 Plus its CCTV? have you ever watched a CCTV camra or seen CCTV footage? its generaly pretty crap.
Plus 500mph is pretty fast for somthing thats only 47 meters long, plus width and height are slighly differnt things o.0

CCTV Still Shows Us What Happened, In History I Belive It Is Called Visual Evidence

Also;

Evidence
Investigation
Generally
Something
Slightly
Different


Company's dont get the insurance money, the plane industry is worth alot more than the insurance on the twin towers was, scareing people of flying, massivly reduceing there profits is a pretty stupid business practice.American Airlines Stocks Were Sold 11 Fold BEFORE The Crash, Thats A Lot, Also American Airlines Is Worth Less Than 3.4Bn $

No Spelling Mistakes :o


Well it did, Asarma = hideing
instead of looking, America go invade iraq.
You see problemOsama Was Visited In Hospital By CIA Agents 2 Days Before

Also;

Osama
Hiding
Iraq


the question imasking to stated it was brought when they "Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier", you cant insure a building you dont own to my knowlage.He Purchased A Lease And Then Took Out Insurance 2 Days Before The Crash

Also;

I'm Asking
Don't
Knowledge


Buildings stay up better without half the support structure being blown apart by explodeing fule, and without the greater part of a plain haveing wacked threw em.The Fuel Exploded Outside Of The Building

Also;

Exploding
Fuel
Having
Whacked


Did the army teliport in to put bombs on all the floors? controled demolitions are pretty distinctive.And It Looked VERY Much Like One, And No They Didn't Teleport, They Put Them In When Fire Drills Started Too Take Place.

Also;

Teleport
Controlled


there werent any, they didnt get threw, reinforced concrete is pretty tough stuff, where it smashed in to a pillar and the bits of it splayed over the floor were pretty obvious though.

http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
Heres part of one.That Is NOT A Part Of Aircraft Fuselage It Is From SOMETHING ELSE! A 5 Ton Engine Can Break Concrete, I Assure You.

Also;

Weren't
Didn't
Through

Please Learn To Spell?

P.S. Yes I <3 The Shift Key.

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 01:14 AM
1. Most Of The JetFuel Exploded OUTSIDE Of The Tower
2. 1/18'th Of The Structural Integrity Was Damaged
3. A Plane Flew Into The Empire State Building In 1977, Is That Building Still Intact? YES.

It was still burning on the inside? And 1/18th? Show some reliable source that says that. Ive seen the video... its a pretty big hole. And the Empire State Building was built when the strength of steel was still questioned, so it was built very layered and sturdy, an excessive amount. In a sense, construction has gone backwards since then. And the plane was much much smaller. You cant even compare a 747 with the plane that crashed into the Empire State Building.


American Airlines Stocks Were Sold 11 Fold BEFORE The Crash, Thats A Lot, Also American Airlines Is Worth Less Than 3.4Bn $

Wasent part of the conspiracy theory that only a select few people knew about it? Most airlines have public stock, so that would mean the PUBLIC would have to know about the attacks beforehand and sell their stocks. So youre contradicting yourself. Stocks, especially Airline stocks which can be unpredictable, go up and down all the time.


Osama Was Visited In Hospital By CIA Agents 2 Days Before

Ive only seen one artical that says this, and it seems pretty bogus to me. It had no sources. Find me somthing reliable.


Osama
Hiding
Iraq

When was he hiding in Iraq? He was in Afghanistan. Maybe you dont make spelling mistakes [congrats by the way, we're all impressed. Youre really making entor look like a moron who doesnt know what he's talking about because you learned your ABC's, great job] but your facts arent very good.


He Purchased A Lease And Then Took Out Insurance 2 Days Before The Crash

Well, that could be a point. Except for the fact that he could have made far, far more money keeping the WTC in business than what he got in insurance.



The Fuel Exploded Outside Of The Building

Why is everyone caught up on jet fuel? Other things can knock buildings down, like giant tubes of steel going hundreds of miles an hour.


And It Looked VERY Much Like One

Not really...


That Is NOT A Part Of Aircraft Fuselage It Is From SOMETHING ELSE! A 5 Ton Engine Can Break Concrete, I Assure You.


You tell me whats it from then?


Please Learn To Spell?

P.S. Yes I <3 The Shift Key.

Youre really so great for telling him to learn to spell. Because that makes his point so much less valid, doesnt it? You really know how to argue, taking cheap shots.

Mentor
14-04-2007, 01:26 AM
1. Most Of The JetFuel Exploded OUTSIDE Of The Tower
2. 1/18'th Of The Structural Integrity Was Damaged
3. A Plane Flew Into The Empire State Building In 1977, Is That Building Still Intact? YES.

And i take it, you went inside the building after it was hit, and were able to test the structual integrity of the building? or is that just comeing out your ****?
Plus yes, a plane that was less than half the size, flew at less than half the speed and impacted at relativly near the top of what, to be frank was probably a somewhat better designed building. (notice a 400 year old house is fine, where a 10 year old house is falling to bits in many instances)


Thats Rubbish, Why Would They Not Tell Anybody About Demolition,
Becuse there wasnt one? my entire point was it would have been kinda pointless to have one if they did o.0


CCTV Still Shows Us What Happened, In History I Belive It Is Called Visual Evidence
Just like a blurry sploge proves the lockness mosnter.. a blurry sploge wouldnt have proved anything ether way.


American Airlines Stocks Were Sold 11 Fold BEFORE The Crash, Thats A Lot, Also American Airlines Is Worth Less Than 3.4Bn $
Most airlines are owned by international companys, which work on a more global scale, plus ill just quote some ariline news


Also on the merger front: Delta executives, who are resisting the US Airways takeover, told their top creditors that the airline would be worth more than the takeover bid if it's allowed to exit bankruptcy in 2007 as a stand-alone carrier. Delta management estimates the carrier's worth then would be as much as $12 billion, vs. the pending offer of about $8.5 billion.
The airline busness as a whole in the US obviously isnt worth even 3 billion..


Osama Was Visited In Hospital By CIA Agents 2 Days Before
Osama was trained by the CIA and a close friend of bush also before 9/11, the taliban was created by the US to fend of communism from the aria in the cold war. whats your point?


He Purchased A Lease And Then Took Out Insurance 2 Days Before The Crash
6 weeks changed to 2 days? maybe i should go look this up as the stats from your side seem to be changeing o.0


The Fuel Exploded Outside Of The Building
Which pushes a large clump of plane in which direction?


And It Looked VERY Much Like One, And No They Didn't Teleport, They Put Them In When Fire Drills Started Too Take Place.
Before the building was hit? and im sure no one noticed the explosives strapped to all the support structures o.0


That Is NOT A Part Of Aircraft Fuselage It Is From SOMETHING ELSE!
Yes it is... its part of the engine like i said it was..


A 5 Ton Engine Can Break Concrete, I Assure You.
And a rhinos horn is actualy hair? whats you point, reinforced concreate (belive it or not) isnt just a fancy name.


Please Learn To Spell?
Ill go right in to that as soon as you solve your OCD about posting lists of words under the immpression it actualy effects the debate topic :)

CrazyCali
14-04-2007, 02:59 AM
Around 8-8:30 in the morning, 1 airplane came rushing into the first world trade center. We did not have much facts during that first hit untill the 2nd one hit the other trade center. We found out that 4 planes we hi-jacked by some suicide bombers from Iraq. But we were waiting for the other 2 but then the 3rd one was heading towards the white house but a brave Passanger fought his way to guide the plane towards a different direction which lead to the pentagon. The last was teh most bravest one of all. All its passaners fought there way against the suicide bombers and crashed in a field. New york lost over 100,000 people. In my town where I was at when it happen, sent out the national gaurd to get everyone to head to their houses. We got out of school at first period, and everyone who was working was forced to go home. It was a very tradgic day for everyone in the USA.

Not much of a debate but the summary of the story of what happened

Sammeth.
14-04-2007, 03:02 AM
I was a big fan, beleiver and follower of Loose Change. I thought its theories were amazing, and its observations were unbeleivable. Then I did some more research into it. After I did do research, I realised what ******** the theories in Loose Change were. Now I do not beleive it was a conspiracy - and that it was done by terrorists - but I think the government had prior knowledge of what was going to happen. I dont know why I think this, its just...instinct I guess. I have nothing to back that up, so dont ask me why. Its just instinct.

However one thing I do find wierd is that no steel structure building had collapsed due to fire ever before. However on 11/9/2001, 3 did. It seems a bit farfetch'd. But I guess there has to be a first for everything :P

Mentor
14-04-2007, 05:23 AM
I was a big fan, beleiver and follower of Loose Change. I thought its theories were amazing, and its observations were unbeleivable. Then I did some more research into it. After I did do research, I realised what ******** the theories in Loose Change were. Now I do not beleive it was a conspiracy - and that it was done by terrorists - but I think the government had prior knowledge of what was going to happen. I dont know why I think this, its just...instinct I guess. I have nothing to back that up, so dont ask me why. Its just instinct.

However one thing I do find wierd is that no steel structure building had collapsed due to fire ever before. However on 11/9/2001, 3 did. It seems a bit farfetch'd. But I guess there has to be a first for everything :P

how many buildings that tall ever had 757 stuck in the side of them, its not particularly normal circumstances or an every day occurrence. so it doesnt really seem that unlikely.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 10:00 AM
My reply in blue. And Dark Red, please quote properly. I quoted something mentor said, and you made it look like I said it.



Is insulting people the only way you know how to argue? That does nothing for your arguement. And he didnt mean the same size as in its height, he meant as in across, which is almost accurate. Congradulations on skewing his words, you'll make a great journalist.

You can read minds now?


Again with the insults? Youre wonderful really. He said the wrong name of the building, obviously THAT person doesnt know what he's talking about.

Pretty obvious he meant WT7

They released a tape straight from the pentagon of the attack actually.

I am on about showing us the tape which showed the plane hitting the pentagon.

Then how come they cant murder the people coming out with these conspiracies then?

It would be more obvious. You speak against the goverment, and you die? Gosh, people on this forum are well clever >.>


Actually it made perfect sense. We invaded Iraq, not Afghanistan, where Osama is hiding. Thats why we havent found him, because we havent really been looking.

Rofl!!! America did invade Afganistan, and yes, they are looking.

Because insurance gets renewed. Insurance only lasts a certain amount of time, then you have to buy it again, it just happened to run out a few months before. And it wasent insured against specifically plane crashes, it was insured for terrorism. For obvious reasons, seeing as it was attacked before.

And how would you know it ran out a few months before 9/11?

Doesnt mean it wont either. Mind giving us some proof that it shouldnt have fallen?

A builiding burnt for 24 hours and that DIDNT collapse.

Who says they're bombs? When I saw the video of the supposed "bombs" before the tower fell, they were tiny little lights that could have been anything.

Yes, massive blast comming out of the building are just at iny flash of light. O, its probably just someone throwing a torch out of the window.


It dug into the ground a tad.

I didnt say it, mentor did. Quote properl please.

Were was the hole made by the 2 engines? The pane can't have fully burnt.

Says who?

A plane goes right into the pentagon, so that means the engines did aswell. Do you have a brain?

Read the rest of my post?


ksoz is poorly fighting this debate, it is no place for insults, its a place for discussion and mature arguement.

And, its not your job to tell me that I am breaking the rules, its the moderators. You post is pointless and according to the rules, you should be infractioned. Well done on pointless posting.


No, i can just do math. Match up a 124 ft 10 in wingspan over the top of a 208 foot building suppored by a central core thats only 88 feet wide. Then reask the question how you espect that to hold up a building when a plains ripped half of it out. (im talking widths not hieght obviously)

Make that clear in your post then. "if you match the size of the planes up with the towers the plane's are almost the same size," We cant read minds you know.

WTC 7 is not WTC 9, and WTC7 was hit by shratanal from the orignal blast, although reportedly collapsed due to the diesel fuel reservoirs for backup power generators explodeing o.0

Also what does that have to do with the 2 towers collapsing, and what use would there be performing a controled demolition on an undamaged building that was poseing no risk from collapsing sideways anyway o.0


It would be impounded as evedence if there was any invstigation o.0 Plus its CCTV? have you ever watched a CCTV camra or seen CCTV footage? its generaly pretty crap.
Plus 500mph is pretty fast for somthing thats only 47 meters long, plus width and height are slighly differnt things o.0

My dad's work has around 15 CCTV's. I have seen them all. It depends how much money you are willing to spend on them. You can get really good quality ones. Not all of them are crap black and white ones.

Company's dont get the insurance money, the plane industry is worth alot more than the insurance on the twin towers was, scareing people of flying, massivly reduceing there profits is a pretty stupid business practice.

Gold under the twin towers.

Well it did, Asarma = hideing
instead of looking, America go invade iraq.
You see problem

You ever read the news? Or do you have a social life? If you did, you would know that America attacked Afganistan.

the question imasking to stated it was brought when they "Bought The Lease 6 Weeks Earlier", you cant insure a building you dont own to my knowlage.


Buildings stay up better without half the support structure being blown apart by explodeing fule, and without the greater part of a plain haveing wacked threw em.


Did the army teliport in to put bombs on all the floors? controled demolitions are pretty distinctive.

If you watched Loose Change like you said you did, and you read my first post in this debate, you would realise they did a lot of drills.

there werent any, they didnt get threw, reinforced concrete is pretty tough stuff, where it smashed in to a pillar and the bits of it splayed over the floor were pretty obvious though.

http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
Heres part of one.




Osama was trained by the CIA and a close friend of bush also before 9/11, the taliban was created by the US to fend of communism from the aria in the cold war. whats your point?

Close friend of Bush? Just when I thought you couldnt get stupider. Oasma's brother is a good friend with Bush, NOT Osama.



Before the building was hit? and im sure no one noticed the explosives strapped to all the support structures o.0

It was a big building, easy to hide things.





After the first plane was hit, the goverment didnt let anyone out of the second building.

Pretty stupid really.

FlyingJesus
14-04-2007, 01:10 PM
You should really change your sig, it makes you not only look stupid, but also shows that you have no debate skills other than OMG UR WEL FICK.

Also, the one reason that really shows to me that this wasn't a government incident is that no-one from the government has claimed that it was. You can go on about how there were "minimal numbers" who knew what was happening (by the way, if only a handful know, how do you know that?) and how they wouldn't speak up for fear of death, but that's not right at all. People throughout history have spoken out "for the good of the people" knowing full well that they'd be killed for it, politicians as well as civilians. There's simply no logic to any of the conspiracy argument.

Gold under the towers? I'm sure the wars and costs of losing the towers and offices in them meant that it would be pointless trying to pull this off to get at a bit of shiny metal. Also take note of the effort involved, I repeat that there is no logic to it.

Your CCTV argument is flawed also. It was stated earlier that the CCTV footage was nicked from a petrol garage or something? They aren't likely to have top quality cameras at such a place, so forget any theories about those tapes showing the exact events.

A building may well have burned for 24 hours without collapsing, but that doesn't mean all buildings can do it. That's like saying Mike Tyson can take a brick to the face without getting knocked out, therefore Steven Hawking could do the same.

The insurance on WTC did run out (or was going to) around the time of 9/11, I'm sure there are plenty of documents around to show it as you do need a lot of paperwork in insurance.

Blasts coming out of a building with a flash of light... hmm, yeah it must be bombs, because y'know, FIRE doesn't do that does it?

On a side note, why do you keep talking about mind reading? It's quite obvious that a plane won't be the same HEIGHT as the WTC, therefore you could use logic (if you had any, which I've already proved you don't) to realise that he meant WIDTH.

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 01:27 PM
You can read minds now?

Yes actually. I know that you know that you're losing this argument, because when people start to lose arguments, they start to pull out cheap shots like "do you have a brain?" to make themselves seem smarter to make up for the fact that their argument is flawed

Pretty obvious he meant WT7

I know how eye-catching you are with misspellings, why cant you be with missed facts?

It would be more obvious. You speak against the goverment, and you die? Gosh, people on this forum are well clever >.>

How would murdering people who were involved be any less obvious? The government could have killed the makers of Loose Change and all those guys a day within the time they put it up on the internet, and taken it down within minutes. Before it got out of hand, and no one would have known.

Rofl!!! America did invade Afganistan, and yes, they are looking.

You should get your words right. We never INVADED Afghanistan. We have people stationed there, but not nearly as many as we should, and we dont really know where to look. We INVADED Iraq, a country that had nothing to do with it. Which brings another point; if the government was behind all this because they wanted to invade Iraq, why wouldnt they just say all the terrorists were from Iraq instead of Saudi Arabia and Afghanistan?

And how would you know it ran out a few months before 9/11?

You said he renewed it right? Thats a pretty good sign that it was about to run out

Doesnt mean it wont either. Mind giving us some proof that it shouldnt have fallen?

Did it have a hole where a 747 crashed into it and jet fuel?

Yes, massive blast coming out of the building are just at iny flash of light. O, its probably just someone throwing a torch out of the window.

When the towers were falling, those little "explosions" were just pressure from the building down below. They were only a few floors away from the rest of the building falling. And also, there were 2 videos of "explosions", 1 before the tower fell which were these tiny little lights that could have been anything, and the one when they were falling. Why werent the explosions when they were falling fire? Bomb explosions make dark smoke, these ones did pretty much nothing. They were just pressure.

A plane goes right into the pentagon, so that means the engines did aswell. Do you have a brain?

What does that have to do with them burning?

Browney
14-04-2007, 01:29 PM
Just when I thought you couldnt get stupider.

Shot yourself in the foot there really.

Well, personally I do think it was terrorism. Even though the towers seemed an odd target to his when there are iconic buildings and structures in New York that wouldv'e surely been a huge propaganda bonus. "Empire state bulding in rubble" or "Statue of Liberty demolished!" Although it might not have killed as many people.

FlyingJesus
14-04-2007, 01:34 PM
Shot yourself in the foot there really.

Well, personally I do think it was terrorism. Even though the towers seemed an odd target to his when there are iconic buildings and structures in New York that wouldv'e surely been a huge propaganda bonus. "Empire state bulding in rubble" or "Statue of Liberty demolished!" Although it might not have killed as many people.

A good point about "iconic" structures, but I think WTC was targeted for the economic destruction. Going for the Statue of Liberty would certainly get a lot of people upset though :8

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 01:34 PM
A building may well have burned for 24 hours without collapsing, but that doesn't mean all buildings can do it. That's like saying Mike Tyson can take a brick to the face without getting knocked out, therefore Steven Hawking could do the same.

I lol'd at that one.


Well, personally I do think it was terrorism. Even though the towers seemed an odd target to his when there are iconic buildings and structures in New York that wouldv'e surely been a huge propaganda bonus. "Empire state bulding in rubble" or "Statue of Liberty demolished!" Although it might not have killed as many people.

I think the amount of lives lost is a greater use of propaganda than a building. Plus, the buildings are pretty famous, they were one of the tallest in the world at the time, and the tallest in New York City.

And ksoz, I could stoop to your level and add some really stupid thing about you in huge letters to my sig, but I wont because I know thats not how arguement works. That's childish really.

Arneuh
14-04-2007, 01:38 PM
You see,in each Tower therte was a "Core"(elevators) the planes was being used as a fuel bomb planes crashed into tower exploded,collapsed of weight of the airplane,and done.
only 20 survivors.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 01:46 PM
Gosh, half the people in this debate are thick.

I said the engines should have made a hole, and they didnt - and someone goes to me "what does that have to do with burning"?

People say the plane was the same size as the tower? And then after I flame you, you go you were on about the width? Gosh, make it clear in your first damn post then. Knowing some people on this forum, they actually thought the plane was bigger >.>

I never said the CCTV was from a petrol station? Read my posts proerly. Even if it was from a petrol station, they could have been of high quality, unless you worked there and you know better?

Yes, the people in the goverment are really gonna tell everyone "hey, it was us who blew up the twin towers. We wanna loose our jobs and spend the rest of our life in jail."

America did attack/invade Afganistan. They had no proof what so ever it was Bin Laden, and the people who they thought were the hi-jackers werent even on the bloody plane. Great FBI/CIA/Secret service?

The firefighters said they saw and heard the bombs.

Why was it that no goverment officials were allowed to fly that day? If they knew of a threat like this, why didnt they try and prevent it?

They attacked Iraq as they wanted the oil. Iraq is far worse now. It used to be one of the richest country in the world. Saddam wasnt a great leader - so Bush had a perfect chance to attack. Also his dad was trying to attack them when he was in power.

---MAD---
14-04-2007, 01:49 PM
You should really change your sig, it makes you not only look stupid, but also shows that you have no debate skills other than OMG UR WEL FICK.

Also, the one reason that really shows to me that this wasn't a government incident is that no-one from the government has claimed that it was. You can go on about how there were "minimal numbers" who knew what was happening (by the way, if only a handful know, how do you know that?) and how they wouldn't speak up for fear of death, but that's not right at all. People throughout history have spoken out "for the good of the people" knowing full well that they'd be killed for it, politicians as well as civilians. There's simply no logic to any of the conspiracy argument.

Gold under the towers? I'm sure the wars and costs of losing the towers and offices in them meant that it would be pointless trying to pull this off to get at a bit of shiny metal. Also take note of the effort involved, I repeat that there is no logic to it.

Your CCTV argument is flawed also. It was stated earlier that the CCTV footage was nicked from a petrol garage or something? They aren't likely to have top quality cameras at such a place, so forget any theories about those tapes showing the exact events.

A building may well have burned for 24 hours without collapsing, but that doesn't mean all buildings can do it. That's like saying Mike Tyson can take a brick to the face without getting knocked out, therefore Steven Hawking could do the same.

The insurance on WTC did run out (or was going to) around the time of 9/11, I'm sure there are plenty of documents around to show it as you do need a lot of paperwork in insurance.

Blasts coming out of a building with a flash of light... hmm, yeah it must be bombs, because y'know, FIRE doesn't do that does it?

On a side note, why do you keep talking about mind reading? It's quite obvious that a plane won't be the same HEIGHT as the WTC, therefore you could use logic (if you had any, which I've already proved you don't) to realise that he meant WIDTH.
Very good points there. I agree with all of them as well. I honestly doubt the government would want to do that to the buildings that made New York stand out.

Also, Ksoz, you don't need to insult people or make silly comment to get a message across. This is a debate not an arguement.

Thanks.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 01:51 PM
Also, Ksoz, you don't need to insult people or make silly comment to get a message across. This is a debate not an arguement.

Thanks.

ok fine.

FlyingJesus
14-04-2007, 01:53 PM
Gosh, half the people in this debate are thick.

Yeah and the other half don't think it was a government conspiracy.


I said the engines should have made a hole, and they didnt - and someone goes to me "what does that have to do with burning"?

Things tend to break when they crash, the engines could have gone anywhere. Also the engines wouldn't be as likely to make a hole as the plane itself, it might not have happened for structural reasons. I won't go too much into this as I haven't bothered to look into the physics of it all, I just look at what's reasonable and what's not.


People say the plane was the same size as the tower? And then after I flame you, you go you were on about the width? Gosh, make it clear in your first damn post then. Knowing some people on this forum, they actually thought the plane was bigger >.>

As I said earlier, try logic. It tends to help in debates.


I never said the CCTV was from a petrol station? Read my posts proerly. Even if it was from a petrol station, they could have been of high quality, unless you worked there and you know better?

"Could have" isn't much of an argument mate.


Yes, the people in the goverment are really gonna tell everyone "hey, it was us who blew up the twin towers. We wanna loose our jobs and spend the rest of our life in jail."

As I also said earlier, people do sometimes sacrifice themselves in this way. It's called a conscience.

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 01:58 PM
Im kinda sick of all the name calling, so I decided to read ksoz's post only until he made his first cheap-shot insult. It was the first sentence.

Youre an awful, awful debater.

Browney
14-04-2007, 02:00 PM
I think the amount of lives lost is a greater use of propaganda than a building. Plus, the buildings are pretty famous, they were one of the tallest in the world at the time, and the tallest in New York City.

Good point although I have to say I never heard of the twin towers until 9/11 but maybe that's just me and my sheltered life.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:01 PM
Yeah and the other half don't think it was a government conspiracy.



Things tend to break when they crash, the engines could have gone anywhere. Also the engines wouldn't be as likely to make a hole as the plane itself, it might not have happened for structural reasons. I won't go too much into this as I haven't bothered to look into the physics of it all, I just look at what's reasonable and what's not.

I am sure no one noticed or found 2 massive engines which fell out of the sky?


As I said earlier, try logic. It tends to help in debates.

And some people should explain their points properly

"Could have" isn't much of an argument mate.

And making up stuff like "you said it was from a garage or whatever" doesnt make a good argument either.

As I also said earlier, people do sometimes sacrifice themselves in this way. It's called a conscience.

People do, but when they are so high up, they usually don't want to sacrifice everything they have worked for. They would have to face upto so much embarssment. And they are usualy murdered before they can reveal it.
I am gonna get a lot of people saying WHY DIDNT THEY KILL THE MAKERS OF LOOSE CHANGE?

Well, if they start killing everyone who speaks against them, it would be come a bit obvious.

Blowing up the buildings gave them a chance to make a new one :]
+ why did WT7 fall down? Why was th same hot liquid found under WT7 and the both WTC

A President who can say "Terrorists like to hurt and destroy America, so do I", is stupid enough to do anything.

FlyingJesus
14-04-2007, 02:08 PM
2. Why Did Security Officials [ FBI & CIA ] Confiscate CCTV Footage From A Petrol Station Accros The Road From The Pentagon, This Camera Would've Seen EXACTLY What Happened To The Pentagon And Various EX-STAFF Say That They Watched That CCTV Footage And It Wasnt A Plane That Hit That Building

That's where I got the petrol station part from, sorry I thought you'd actually read this thread.

I never said the engines fell off when the plane was flying, so don't know where you got that from. Think about it though (rather than just believing any old anti-government rubbish), if something is going very fast, is very heavy and hits something that is very hard (ie: the ground) bits break.

Don't tell me to explain my points properly when 1) I have and 2) none of your points are explained, it follows the lines of UR STUPID DA GOVERMT DID IT 4 DA GOLD! DER R HOLES!

Your point about how people don't "usually" want to sacrifice themselves doesn't really counter my point about how they quite easily could, and something that's had this much effect would certainly weigh heavily on someone's conscience.

As for hot liquid, I don't really know what that's about but surely the buildings were made of similar materials, so the melted bits would be the same..

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:13 PM
That's where I got the petrol station part from, sorry I thought you'd actually read this thread.

You said I said the petrol station thing

I never said the engines fell off when the plane was flying, so don't know where you got that from. Think about it though (rather than just believing any old anti-government rubbish), if something is going very fast, is very heavy and hits something that is very hard (ie: the ground) bits break.

And the grass it lands on remains perfect? They would have found the engines and parts, they didnt find anything.

Don't tell me to explain my points properly when 1) I have and 2) none of your points are explained, it follows the lines of UR STUPID DA GOVERMT DID IT 4 DA GOLD! DER R HOLES!

I never said OMGZ THERE R HOLES M8.

Your point about how people don't "usually" want to sacrifice themselves doesn't really counter my point about how they quite easily could, and something that's had this much effect would certainly weigh heavily on someone's conscience.

As for hot liquid, I don't really know what that's about but surely the buildings were made of similar materials, so the melted bits would be the same..

Worlds tallest building, and a normal small building made of the same materials? Then you should find the hot liquid under every building, but you dont.

Tell me, why were there loads of security drills before 9/11? Why were bomb sniffing dogs removed? Why do the goverment refuse to release any tape which showed the planes hitting the pentagon - (and before people go OMGZ THEY WERE REALLY CRAP QUALITY. I KNOW COS MY DAD WORKSZ IN DA FBI - and before people go OMG NO ONE SAID THAT U NUB, I never said anyone did :)) even if it was a really crap tape with a crap frame rate?

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 02:23 PM
I thought that they did release a tape of the plane hitting the pentagon (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+plane)? Or maybe Im misreading your post?

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:29 PM
I thought that they did release a tape of the plane hitting the pentagon (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+plane)? Or maybe Im misreading your post?

Pretty crap video. You can barely see the plane. Could have easily been edited as you only see the plane for a short time.

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 02:30 PM
Pretty crap video. You can barely see the plane. Could have easily been edited as you only see the plane for a short time.

Well you did say any tape, even if it was a crap tape with a crap frame rate?

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:33 PM
Well you did say any tape, even if it was a crap tape with a crap frame rate?

True.
Ah well, there were more CCTV's, they must have captured it. You can barely see it in that. Why did the grass look perfect? Why didnt 2 massive engines make a hole?

If someone can find me a sensible answer for those questions, then I will stop believing it was the goverment.

Sammeth.
14-04-2007, 02:36 PM
Moving back to the twin towers here, someone earlier posted that explosives were detonated inside the towers that made them collapse. In the following video, you can see that infact the cameraman zooms in on the column corner, which shows the column twisting INWARDS after being weakened by the fire. It twists inwards into the building, meaning explosives couldnt have been in there to detonate it. Here is the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPUME7lvsLU

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 02:40 PM
True.
Ah well, there were more CCTV's, they must have captured it. You can barely see it in that. Why did the grass look perfect? Why didnt 2 massive engines make a hole?

If someone can find me a sensible answer for those questions, then I will stop believing it was the goverment.

Ill give you that the Pentagon plane crash is a little sketchy (the WTC conspiracy theories hold no water to me though) but there's apparently an entire book on explanations (http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_2/102-9207797-1103303?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1176561438&sr=8-2) to it all the conspiracy theories. I havent read it [I dont really need to] but it sounds pretty reliable to me.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:41 PM
Moving back to the twin towers here, someone earlier posted that explosives were detonated inside the towers that made them collapse. In the following video, you can see that infact the cameraman zooms in on the column corner, which shows the column twisting INWARDS after being weakened by the fire. It twists inwards into the building, meaning explosives couldnt have been in there to detonate it. Here is the video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DPUME7lvsLU

If the bomb went off inside, you cant see it on the outside :s :s
He just zooms in where there was fire. The bomb could have broken the support, making the building fall.

WTC - Why were there so many drills and why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed?

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 02:48 PM
WTC - Why were there so many drills and why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed?

Cant say this as a fact, but I wouldnt be surprised if it had to do with the recently renewed insurance. It probably reminded them of the bombing back in '91, and they might have overreacted to an unrelated threat. I dont know enough about it though, there isnt enough information about it.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:50 PM
Cant say this as a fact, but I wouldnt be surprised if it had to do with the recently renewed insurance. It probably reminded them of the bombing back in '91, and they might have overreacted to an unrelated threat. I dont know enough about it though, there isnt enough information about it.

I dont understand. How would insurance and bombing of 1991 get them to remove bomb sniffing dogs .. or do you mean the drills?

Nixt
14-04-2007, 02:51 PM
I still don't fully understand why the government would want to destroy part of the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and kill thousands in the process :s. Someone explain please xD.

Sammeth.
14-04-2007, 02:51 PM
If the bomb went off inside, you cant see it on the outside :s :s
He just zooms in where there was fire. The bomb could have broken the support, making the building fall.

WTC - Why were there so many drills and why were the bomb sniffing dogs removed?

Im saying that if a bomb went off the column would have crumbled. The column is steel, and weakened, and you can see that it twisted, rather than broke. If you read the description of the video, it explains it better than I am trying to.

Saurav
14-04-2007, 02:54 PM
I still don't fully understand why the government would want to destroy part of the Pentagon, the World Trade Center and kill thousands in the process :s. Someone explain please xD.

Read all my posts :]
But blowing up the WTC gave them access to gold worth billions. A new building aswell :p.
Not sure about the Pentagon. Maybe to make it look more like a terrorist attack? I still don't believe a plane hit the pentagon.

Those planes werent even scheduled to fly that day :s :s :s
I mean, the people America claimed as the hi-jackers werent even on the damn plane. Shows how unreliable their info is.

FlyingJesus
14-04-2007, 02:56 PM
If you want to get a load of gold under a building and rebuild it afterwards can you not just organise a simple implosion team to do it legally?

Saurav
14-04-2007, 03:00 PM
If you want to get a load of gold under a building and rebuild it afterwards can you not just organise a simple implosion team to do it legally?

Blow up the twin towers legally? Would take years. + You saw the smoke it caused. They would have to evacute a lot of the areas. And the banks would move the gold before the building gets demolished.

Nixt
14-04-2007, 03:02 PM
Blow up the twin towers legally? Would take years. + You saw the smoke it caused. They would have to evacute a lot of the areas. And the banks would move the gold before the building gets demolished.

I don't see how the American government, however stupid, would ever actively be part of an attack that killed so many, however desperate they were for a new building or gold.
I am not denying that they probably made mistakes on the day, and we are not being told the full details but it is the government; we are never told the full details.

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 03:04 PM
I dont understand. How would insurance and bombing of 1991 get them to remove bomb sniffing dogs .. or do you mean the drills?

I dont know why they put bomb sniffing dogs in there in the first place was what I kinda was trying to say, but I think it was an overreaction to a minor threat. They probably take many precautions since the '91 bombings. But whatever that reason, they pulled them out probably because they found nothing

Sammeth.
14-04-2007, 03:09 PM
1993 were the truck bombings of WTC, not 91. I wasnt sure whether that was a slip of the keys, so I thought I might just say.

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 03:19 PM
1993 were the truck bombings of WTC, not 91. I wasnt sure whether that was a slip of the keys, so I thought I might just say.

Ah thats right. I dont know why I always think its '91, because I know Clinton was in power when it happened.

HabboIsKrouts
14-04-2007, 03:20 PM
i believe its all bullcrap, but the american goverment says a plan crashed into the pentagon, how ever, on video footage just after the ''crash'' there were no signs of any plane at all, also if a small commercial plane flew so low to crash into the pentagon, then surely all the lamposts/street lights would have been messed around and disloged, how ever NONE of them were messed up, And also if it was a small plane, then surely MORE of the pentagon must have been destoryed. Most conspiracy stories say that a rocket hit the pentagon, Wich i do believe, if this is the case why did the goverment hide it? It Baffles me. :)

RedStratocas
14-04-2007, 03:23 PM
i believe its all bullcrap, but the american goverment says a plan crashed into the pentagon, how ever, on video footage just after the ''crash'' there were no signs of any plane at all, also if a small commercial plane flew so low to crash into the pentagon, then surely all the lamposts/street lights would have been messed around and disloged, how ever NONE of them were messed up, And also if it was a small plane, then surely MORE of the pentagon must have been destoryed. Most conspiracy stories say that a rocket hit the pentagon, Wich i do believe, if this is the case why did the goverment hide it? It Baffles me. :)

It did knock down street lights. And the conspiracy is that the government did it, so thats probably why they'd hide it.

HabboIsKrouts
14-04-2007, 03:29 PM
Variouse video footage has shown tht the path of the ''plane'' was coming from one angle wich was swarmed with traffic lights, NONE were disloged.

Nixt
14-04-2007, 03:39 PM
Variouse video footage has shown tht the path of the ''plane'' was coming from one angle wich was swarmed with traffic lights, NONE were disloged.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/92/Pentagon_video_security1.jpg

If you look just above the far right block, you can make out the Plane. Seconds later, there was this:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5b/Pentagon_video_security4.jpg

Yes the pictures are grainy (:

In addition, two people on United Airlines Flight 77 used phones to contact others - saying that their plane had been hijacked. I assume that this hijacked plane disappeared of the face of the earth? No, it flew into the Pentagon ;).
There are also many witnesses who saw the plane come out of the sky: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Airlines_Flight_77#Witnesses. Oh wait, don't tell me, the Government paid them or something yeah?

Sammeth.
14-04-2007, 03:43 PM
Variouse video footage has shown tht the path of the ''plane'' was coming from one angle wich was swarmed with traffic lights, NONE were disloged.

None were dislodged, no. But they were all snapped and bent severely. They were damaged.

24
14-04-2007, 04:21 PM
One point which i cant get my head around.
In that video (the one which attempts to disprove the chance that there were any explosions in the tower). If it collapsed because of the fire (aruged that the steel twists inwards because of the fire), then why did the tower fall as it did straight down – like a controlled demolition. Surely the corner column would have caused the above floors to fall towards the damaged area off to the side FIRST which then could of later caused the rest of the building to collapse. Or am i wrong there?

Mr.OSH
14-04-2007, 04:39 PM
Very simple really, I think that terrorists hijacked several planes and attempted to crash them into the Twin Tower and succeed and the building's support frames heated up and the building collapsed. I don't think the government did anything.

Sammeth.
14-04-2007, 06:08 PM
One point which i cant get my head around.
In that video (the one which attempts to disprove the chance that there were any explosions in the tower). If it collapsed because of the fire (aruged that the steel twists inwards because of the fire), then why did the tower fall as it did straight down – like a controlled demolition. Surely the corner column would have caused the above floors to fall towards the damaged area off to the side FIRST which then could of later caused the rest of the building to collapse. Or am i wrong there?

The video you are talking about is of the South Tower collapsing. On all videos you see of the South Tower collapsing, you will notice it didnt fall straight down. The top of it, tilted over and toppled slightly, caused by the inward column.

Another thing I dont understand is the famous picture of the woman standing in the hole of WTC1, after the plane struck. How she survived beats me, and the fact she can stand where fire was burning with ease surprises me, as that fire was supposed to be weakening steal structures.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/170105woman.jpg

theman0001
14-04-2007, 09:44 PM
TBH, Loose Change Pretty Much Answers This Question;


Loose Change;
http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=7866929448192753501&q=Loose+Change

Make Your Own Opinions But I STRONGLY Urge You To Watch That Video If You Have An Hour And A Half Spare

tbh all that video did was prove how noobish you all are, it asks why windows next to the impact weren't smashed, then later it says that there were 2 inch thick blast proof windows..., also this the windows still would have been smashed if a tomohawk had hit them.

also (nothing to do with loose change) i think that the plane weackend structures by smashing into them not melting them
loose change says something should have happend, then later on explains a perfect theory why that thing would not have happend

Mentor
15-04-2007, 07:40 AM
Make that clear in your post then. "if you match the size of the planes up with the towers the plane's are almost the same size," We cant read minds you know.
Well i didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to assume a plain is as tall as one of the world trade centers.


My dad's work has around 15 CCTV's. I have seen them all. It depends how much money you are willing to spend on them. You can get really good quality ones. Not all of them are crap black and white ones.
Does your dad work in a CITGO Petrol station? which all use the same mass brought cctv camras in there petrol stations. which happen to be crap.


Company's dont get the insurance money, the plane industry is worth alot more than the insurance on the twin towers was, scareing people of flying, massivly reduceing there profits is a pretty stupid business practice.

Gold under the twin towers.
Which was recovered and none of which went to any airline companys. Or did the goverment do it, i mean seeing as the $160 billion doesnt come close to covering even a fraction of what the iraq war is costing, which was sparked by 9/11's terroist hot bed dislusions.


You ever read the news? Or do you have a social life? If you did, you would know that America attacked Afganistan.
We invaded Afghanistan? no i never knew that, all this time i thought we were working with afganistian's authority's...


If you watched Loose Change like you said you did, and you read my first post in this debate, you would realise they did a lot of drills.
Doing drills makes bombs strapped to supports invisible now does it?


Close friend of Bush? Just when I thought you couldnt get stupider. Oasma's brother is a good friend with Bush, NOT Osama.
that was bush senior?


It was a big building, easy to hide things.
The bigger the building the more bombs and wireting needed, so that wouldnt really help.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 08:06 AM
Well i didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to assume a plain is as tall as one of the world trade centers.

Knowing you, you probably are stupid enough to think they are the same size.

Does your dad work in a CITGO Petrol station? which all use the same mass brought cctv camras in there petrol stations. which happen to be crap.

That petrol station could have had high quality CCTV.

Which was recovered and none of which went to any airline companys. Or did the goverment do it, i mean seeing as the $160 billion doesnt come close to covering even a fraction of what the iraq war is costing, which was sparked by 9/11's terroist hot bed dislusions.


We invaded Afghanistan? no i never knew that, all this time i thought we were working with afganistian's authority's...

Wth did you say America never attacked Afganistan then. Stop contradicting yourself.

Doing drills makes bombs strapped to supports invisible now does it?

So you are saying, if I hide something in the worlds tallest building, you can easily find it?
Who says they were strapped to the supports? The bombs could have been near them - and the rooms could be locked.

that was bush senior?

What was Bush Senior? Bush Senior was mates with Bin Laden?

The bigger the building the more bombs and wireting needed, so that wouldnt really help.

Your spealling is awesome for an 18 year old :]. Its easy to hide bombs in such a large building. The bombs could have been detonated remotely or something.[/QUOTE]

Mentor
15-04-2007, 08:23 AM
Well i didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to assume a plain is as tall as one of the world trade centers.

Knowing you, you probably are stupid enough to think they are the same size.
i see, seeing as you already kinda actualy did do that, insulting you further seems unnecessary "/



Does your dad work in a CITGO Petrol station? which all use the same mass brought cctv camras in there petrol stations. which happen to be crap.

That petrol station could have had high quality CCTV.
And Pigs could have the ability to fly. The fact remains they dont.


We invaded Afghanistan? no i never knew that, all this time i thought we were working with afganistian's authority's...

Wth did you say America never attacked Afganistan then. Stop contradicting yourself.
They attacked afganistan but that was way back when, lately they have been working with the Afghan Northern Alliance, to get rid of the taliban.
o.0 at what point did i contradict myself? The Taliban and Afganistan aint the same thing you know?


Doing drills makes bombs strapped to supports invisible now does it?

So you are saying, if I hide something in the worlds tallest building, you can easily find it?
Who says they were strapped to the supports? The bombs could have been near them - and the rooms could be locked.
It depends, what your saying here is could i hide a pin in a hey stack and you be able to find it.
What putting enough explosives in the twin tower to perform a controled demolision is saying is "if i hid 3 eliphants in a barn could you easly find them"

Secondly, if the eplosives arnt directly aimed at the supports there kinda usless short of useing ones powerful enough to level the surrounding city "/


that was bush senior?

What was Bush Senior? Bush Senior was mates with Bin Laden?
No he was friends with bin lardens brother....
like i just said?


Your spealling is awesome for an 18 year old :]. Its easy to hide bombs in such a large building. The bombs could have been detonated remotely or something.
Its easy to hid a pin in a hey stack, its hard to hide a whale. You need alot of bombs you know....
Plus why thank you, although can u just check what spealling actually is?

Kardan
15-04-2007, 08:41 AM
The video you are talking about is of the South Tower collapsing. On all videos you see of the South Tower collapsing, you will notice it didnt fall straight down. The top of it, tilted over and toppled slightly, caused by the inward column.

Another thing I dont understand is the famous picture of the woman standing in the hole of WTC1, after the plane struck. How she survived beats me, and the fact she can stand where fire was burning with ease surprises me, as that fire was supposed to be weakening steal structures.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/170105woman.jpg

The picture's supposedly a fake.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 08:52 AM
i see, seeing as you already kinda actualy did do that, insulting you further seems unnecessary "/

Idiots on this forum >.>

And Pigs could have the ability to fly. The fact remains they dont.

If you havent seen it then you dont know.

They attacked afganistan but that was way back when, lately they have been working with the Afghan Northern Alliance, to get rid of the taliban.
o.0 at what point did i contradict myself? The Taliban and Afganistan aint the same thing you know?

In your earlier post you said American NEVER attacked Afganistan.

It depends, what your saying here is could i hide a pin in a hey stack and you be able to find it.
What putting enough explosives in the twin tower to perform a controled demolision is saying is "if i hid 3 eliphants in a barn could you easly find them"

They dont need to be attached to the supports - depends on how poerfull the bomb is.

Secondly, if the eplosives arnt directly aimed at the supports there kinda usless short of useing ones powerful enough to level the surrounding city "/


No he was friends with bin lardens brother....
like i just said?

You said Bin Laden was their mate at first >.>
Why don't you just accept you made a mistake instead of trying to cover it up?

Its easy to hid a pin in a hey stack, its hard to hide a whale. You need alot of bombs you know....
Plus why thank you, although can u just check what spealling actually is?

Wow, I made 1 mistake, you make like 100.[/QUOTE]

Mentor
15-04-2007, 09:27 AM
i see, seeing as you already kinda actualy did do that, insulting you further seems unnecessary "/

Idiots on this forum >.>
Remove the s and thats exactly what where all thinking.


And Pigs could have the ability to fly. The fact remains they dont.

If you havent seen it then you dont know.
o.0 are you actually trying to argue pigs can fly?


They attacked afganistan but that was way back when, lately they have been working with the Afghan Northern Alliance, to get rid of the taliban.
o.0 at what point did i contradict myself? The Taliban and Afganistan aint the same thing you know?

In your earlier post you said American NEVER attacked Afganistan.
Not post 9/11 no.


It depends, what your saying here is could i hide a pin in a hey stack and you be able to find it.
What putting enough explosives in the twin tower to perform a controled demolision is saying is "if i hid 3 eliphants in a barn could you easly find them"

They dont need to be attached to the supports - depends on how poerfull the bomb is.
A tactical nuke would defeat the point of a controlled demolition, and the large mushroom cloud would probably give away the fact it didn't fall down by itself.... if anyone close enough hadn't already been killed...


No he was friends with bin lardens brother....
like i just said?

You said Bin Laden was their mate at first >.>
Why don't you just accept you made a mistake instead of trying to cover it up?
Thats true, bin larden was "there mate". Osarma bin laden and Salem bin Laden are still two different people though. Osarma was a friend of bush junior, salem was a friend of bush senior?
is it really that hard to understand?


Wow, I made 1 mistake, you make like 100.
Really? you mean somewhere in that misinformation you actually said something true? i must have missed reading that bit.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 12:09 PM
Remove the s and thats exactly what where all thinking.

Ye about a dumb idiot like u.

o.0 are you actually trying to argue pigs can fly?

When i proove you wrong, why do you try and twist things? moron.

Not post 9/11 no.

Once again, I proove you wrong, and you twist things. Its like saying "Bush isnt the president of the america. *gets prooved wrong* ERM I MEAN HE WASNT THE PRESIDENT BEFORE LIKE 2000." Idiot, admit you were prooved wrong.

A tactical nuke would defeat the point of a controlled demolition, and the large mushroom cloud would probably give away the fact it didn't fall down by itself.... if anyone close enough hadn't already been killed...

Again, you get prooved wrong. Where the hell did nukes come from :s A powerfull bomb isnt always a nuke.

Thats true, bin larden was "there mate". Osarma bin laden and Salem bin Laden are still two different people though. Osarma was a friend of bush junior, salem was a friend of bush senior?
is it really that hard to understand?

You said Bin Laden was a mate of Bush in your first post. Then I prooved you wrong, and now you are twisting things again.

Really? you mean somewhere in that misinformation you actually said something true? i must have missed reading that bit.

That desnt even make sense.

FlyingJesus
15-04-2007, 12:32 PM
Knowing you, you probably are stupid enough to think they are the same size.

Knowing him, one of the most intelligent members of them forum?


Does your dad work in a CITGO Petrol station? which all use the same mass brought cctv camras in there petrol stations. which happen to be crap.

That petrol station could have had high quality CCTV.

And Pigs could have the ability to fly. The fact remains they dont.

If you havent seen it then you dont know.

But as he mentioned, they didn't. That particular garage use the same CCTV for every outlet.


What was Bush Senior? Bush Senior was mates with Bin Laden?

The Bush family have been friends with the Bin Ladens for decades, yes.


Idiots on this forum >.>

Wait.. he's an idiot because you failed to make a good insult?


You said Bin Laden was their mate at first >.>
Why don't you just accept you made a mistake instead of trying to cover it up?

As above, the Bin Ladens were friends of the Bush family. They still are actually, all apart from Osama who was the "rebel" of the family.


Ye about a dumb idiot like u.

Oh my god... I can't believe you tried using "dumb idiot" as an insult.


Once again, I proove you wrong, and you twist things. Its like saying "Bush isnt the president of the america. *gets prooved wrong* ERM I MEAN HE WASNT THE PRESIDENT BEFORE LIKE 2000." Idiot, admit you were prooved wrong.

This thread is about 9/11, so he's perfectly justified in saying that America didn't invade Afghanistan and mean it as post-9/11. Otherwise it's like someone coming into the thread and trying to make a point about how WWII is linked to 9/11.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 12:52 PM
Knowing him, one of the most intelligent members of them forum?



But as he mentioned, they didn't. That particular garage use the same CCTV for every outlet.

[COLOR=navy]

The Bush family have been friends with the Bin Ladens for decades, yes.



Wait.. he's an idiot because you failed to make a good insult?



As above, the Bin Ladens were friends of the Bush family. They still are actually, all apart from Osama who was the "rebel" of the family.



Oh my god... I can't believe you tried using "dumb idiot" as an insult.



This thread is about 9/11, so he's perfectly justified in saying that America didn't invade Afghanistan and mean it as post-9/11. Otherwise it's like someone coming into the thread and trying to make a point about how WWII is linked to 9/11.


And you just prooved you are stupider than he is.
Most of the management find him annoying.

He said American NEVER atatcked Afganistan. That doesnt mean BEFORE 9-11.

And there wasnt just garage/petrol stations near the pentagon, there were offices too.

FlyingJesus
15-04-2007, 01:02 PM
So answering questions makes you stupid now? Just because management find someone annoying, that doesn't make them unintelligent. I find a lot of intelligent people annoying, but I don't go around saying they're stupid just because I don't like them. That's what 12 year olds do.

You're turning this from a good debate (with potential to teach people something) into a petty argument, picking at every little thing about the people debating rather than the actual facts put across.

I never claimed there weren't offices, neither has anyone in this thread. All we've said is that the petrol station videos (which are the ones most talked about) would have been poor quality.

The Afghanistan point (as I said before.. I shouldn't have to repeat myself) is that this is a 9/11 thread. America attacked Afghanistan before 9/11, so therefore the attack has nothing to do with 9/11 and is of no relevance in this thread, so doesn't need to be taken into account.

This whole thread has moved away from any actual debate now, it's just you pathetically trying to defame a skilled debater by talking about his spelling and bringing up events that aren't relevant to the time we are talking about.

Grow up.

Mentor
15-04-2007, 01:37 PM
Remove the s and thats exactly what where all thinking.

Ye about a dumb idiot like u.
Good one, how about calling me a "Smelly poo poo face" as well, since that will also help make you look intellgent.


o.0 are you actually trying to argue pigs can fly?

When i proove you wrong, why do you try and twist things? moron.
Im just quoteing what your saying.


Not post 9/11 no.

Once again, I proove you wrong, and you twist things. Its like saying "Bush isnt the president of the america. *gets prooved wrong* ERM I MEAN HE WASNT THE PRESIDENT BEFORE LIKE 2000." Idiot, admit you were prooved wrong.
He was president before 2000? You dont seem to understand more than one person can share the same sirname. George W. Bush (junior) and George H W Bush (senior - his father) are differnt people, like Osama bin laden and Salem bin Laden are differnt people "bush" and "laden" are sirnames...


A tactical nuke would defeat the point of a controlled demolition, and the large mushroom cloud would probably give away the fact it didn't fall down by itself.... if anyone close enough hadn't already been killed...

Again, you get prooved wrong. Where the hell did nukes come from :s A powerfull bomb isnt always a nuke.
Your talking that scale to blow a building down in the style you seem to want? or should we use 100 or so tones of gunpowder as thats much easyer to hide...


Thats true, bin larden was "there mate". Osarma bin laden and Salem bin Laden are still two different people though. Osarma was a friend of bush junior, salem was a friend of bush senior?
is it really that hard to understand?

You said Bin Laden was a mate of Bush in your first post. Then I prooved you wrong, and now you are twisting things again.

How the hell did you prove me wrong, Bin Laden WAS A FRIEND of Bush.
Bin laden refers to both osarma and his brother, and Bush refers to present G W bush, the present one, and his father, former present G H W Bush.


Really? you mean somewhere in that misinformation you actually said something true? i must have missed reading that bit.

That desnt even make sense.[/quote]
So far that comment sums up your aurgument pretty well.


And you just prooved you are stupider than he is.
Most of the management find him annoying.
Management of what? Mc Donald's? well sorry i didnt think it was so difficult to understand the request not to have all the crap pasted on top of a burger.


He said American NEVER atatcked Afganistan. That doesnt mean BEFORE 9-11.
America and an american are differnt things, so what you just said there is probably true.


And there wasnt just garage/petrol stations near the pentagon, there were offices too.
Really? You mean it wasnt just a desolate wasteland, wow we never knew that. I take it officers all point there cctv camras at the pentigon, as watching there own property? well what would be the point in that.

RedStratocas
15-04-2007, 01:49 PM
Wow, I made 1 mistake, you make like 100.

Two.


Well i didnt think anyone would be stupid enough to assume a plain is as tall as one of the world trade centers.

Plain: clear or distinct to the eye or ear: a plain trail to the river; to stand in plain view.

Plane: Aeronautics: a. an airplane or a hydroplane: to take a plane to Dallas.

Too be honest, I dont care if people make spelling mistakes, and you shouldnt either, because thats not what this debate is about. Youre just taking cheap shots to make up for how bad your points are. Stop being a hypocrite.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 02:48 PM
Good one, how about calling me a "Smelly poo poo face" as well, since that will also help make you look intellgent.


Im just quoteing what your saying.

In a wrong way.

He was president before 2000? You dont seem to understand more than one person can share the same sirname. George W. Bush (junior) and George H W Bush (senior - his father) are differnt people, like Osama bin laden and Salem bin Laden are differnt people "bush" and "laden" are sirnames...


Your talking that scale to blow a building down in the style you seem to want? or should we use 100 or so tones of gunpowder as thats much easyer to hide...

You dont need a nuke to blow it up >.>

How the hell did you prove me wrong, Bin Laden WAS A FRIEND of Bush.
Bin laden refers to both osarma and his brother, and Bush refers to present G W bush, the present one, and his father, former present G H W Bush.


So far that comment sums up your aurgument pretty well.


Management of what? Mc Donald's? well sorry i didnt think it was so difficult to understand the request not to have all the crap pasted on top of a burger.

You told me I was stupid for not realising you meant width of the WTC? Now you are stupid for not realising mgmt of hxf

America and an american are differnt things, so what you just said there is probably true.

America then. Why dont you try and answer my main point, insteading of twisting things again?

Really? You mean it wasnt just a desolate wasteland, wow we never knew that. I take it officers all point there cctv camras at the pentigon, as watching there own property? well what would be the point in that.

Again, a stupid argument you have made. Some CCTV end up capturing the pentagon as well as the offices. A CCTV doesnt only capture just 1 building you know.

And to FlyingJesus or whatever, this was a good argument untill you and mentor started making stupid points, and ignoring or twisting the points where you were prooved wrong.

FlyingJesus
15-04-2007, 03:18 PM
Actually our points answer the questions put forward and counter the conspiracy ideas.. they're hardly stupid. If you'd like to point out something that's actually to do with the debate question where either one of us has been proved wrong, go ahead. You have ignored many points made, and also "twist" things by using simple insults rather than proper arguments.

This thread is so far now from the actual debate topic that it's almost pointless, it's just you trying to argue that not only petrol garages have CCTV.

Ekalb
15-04-2007, 03:31 PM
This is getting beyond stupid.
Stop criticising each others' spelling and grammar and debate on the topic.
You're acting like two year olds. YOU STOLE MY TOY. NO I DIDN'T CAUSE YOUR FAT LOL.

There are facts supporting each argument so I'm going from it all being terrorists, gradually to it being a bit of a conspiracy.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 04:43 PM
Actually our points answer the questions put forward and counter the conspiracy ideas.. they're hardly stupid. If you'd like to point out something that's actually to do with the debate question where either one of us has been proved wrong, go ahead.

Read my posts properly and you will realise you have been proove wrong.

You have ignored many points made, and also "twist" things by using simple insults rather than proper arguments.

Ignored points such as?

This thread is so far now from the actual debate topic that it's almost pointless, it's just you trying to argue that not only petrol garages have CCTV.


----



Anyway I cannot be bothered arguing anymore. I am sorry for calling you stupid.

I still think the goverment did it all. Why do the goverments data say Bin Laden is left handed, but in the video, which America "secretly" film, show him eating and writing with his right hand?

I still wonder why they stopped the American officials from flying that day? If they knew about the threat, why didn't they ground all the flights?

Why didn't the engines from the plane make a hole in the pentagon?

Why was the same hot liquid found under WTC and WT7?

Where did the gold from under the twin towers go?

Why were they so stupid as to not evacute the second WTC when the first one was hit?

How come no traces of a plane were found in the pentagon?

---MAD---
15-04-2007, 04:55 PM
Actually our points answer the questions put forward and counter the conspiracy ideas.. they're hardly stupid. If you'd like to point out something that's actually to do with the debate question where either one of us has been proved wrong, go ahead.

Read my posts properly and you will realise you have been proove wrong.

You have ignored many points made, and also "twist" things by using simple insults rather than proper arguments.

Ignored points such as?

This thread is so far now from the actual debate topic that it's almost pointless, it's just you trying to argue that not only petrol garages have CCTV.


----



Anyway I cannot be bothered arguing anymore. I am sorry for calling you stupid.

I still think the goverment did it all. Why do the goverments data say Bin Laden is left handed, but in the video, which America "secretly" film, show him eating and writing with his right hand?

I still wonder why they stopped the American officials from flying that day? If they knew about the threat, why didn't they ground all the flights?

Why didn't the engines from the plane make a hole in the pentagon?

Why was the same hot liquid found under WTC and WT7?

Where did the gold from under the twin towers go?

Why were they so stupid as to not evacute the second WTC when the first one was hit?

How come no traces of a plane were found in the pentagon?
First off, let me make clear that this shouldn't be an arguement. Its a debate. You debate each other's points explaining why they are invalid or incorrect with your beliefs and ideas.

Heres my side of the debate answering your questions:

I still think the goverment did it all. Why do the goverments data say Bin Laden is left handed, but in the video, which America "secretly" film, show him eating and writing with his right hand?
In the Muslim religion you have to (if your very extreme) eat with your right hand.
I still wonder why they stopped the American officials from flying that day? If they knew about the threat, why didn't they ground all the flights?
They didn't know.
Why didn't the engines from the plane make a hole in the pentagon?
It did.
Why was the same hot liquid found under WTC and WT7?
because the steel melted I guess? I don't even know where you got that idea from.
Where did the gold from under the twin towers go?
Gold? I don't believe there was any gold..and if there was it probably got burried. Surely if it was all about money, they would bomb a bank.
Why were they so stupid as to not evacute the second WTC when the first one was hit?
Do you know how many people are in each tower? Do you know how complex it is to plan an attack of this scale and think it will happen to not 1 but both towers?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to tell everyone to evacute a building of that size within a few minutes?
How come no traces of a plane were found in the pentagon?
They were, but they were removed because after all its the pentagon.

BL!NKEY
15-04-2007, 05:08 PM
Ok if George Bush or the government was behind this why would they want it to happen?

Why would they want to have an excuse to go to war in Iraq?

No one wants to go into war just for fun.

If the government is behind this, which I dont think they are, there is probably a lot of other information that they know and we dont.

I just wonder if in the future we will know for sure. Like when the officials retire and maybe one of them leaks.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 05:10 PM
Bin Laden wouldnt really let himself be filmed talking to his people saying YES I DID IT ALL. I mean, he released a tape straight after 9/11 saying he DIDNT do it. Why would he admit to it, to his people in december. Wouldnt they already know? I find it a bit weird that near every election, they release a tape of Bin Laden, followed by a speech from Bush. Maybe its a tactic to boost votes?

In the Muslim religion you have to (if your very extreme) eat with your right hand.

Hmm ok.

They didn't know.

Why stop the officials from flying then?

The engines did make a hole in the pentagon.

No it didnt. There was only 1 hole in the pentagon, not 3.

because the steel melted I guess? I don't even know where you got that idea from.

That specific hot liquid is used in bombs. I cant remember the name of the liquid. I got the idea from Loose Change.

Where did the gold from under the twin towers go?

Gold? I don't believe there was any gold..and if there was it probably got burried. Surely if it was all about money, they would bomb a bank.

The banks stored the gold under the WTC. So er, they did kind of rob a bank :)

Do you know how many people are in each tower? Do you know how complex it is to plan an attack of this scale and think it will happen to not 1 but both towers?
Do you have any idea how hard it is to tell everyone to evacute a building of that size within a few minutes?

They have evacuation procedures, which they should have followed. They didnt let anyone out of the building.


They were, but they were removed because after all its the pentagon.

Actually, no traces of the plane were found. They said it fully burnt, yet they were able to take sample DNA's which prooved the plane crashed?

Mentor
15-04-2007, 06:08 PM
I started responding but got board, so instead im just going to disprove your argument again.

Why do the goverments data say Bin Laden is left handed, but in the video, which America "secretly" film, show him eating and writing with his right hand?
Islamic law.

I still wonder why they stopped the American officials from flying that day? If they knew about the threat, why didn't they ground all the flights?
Thats a lie, or at least a mis-representation of facts, this utterly stupid claim is based on the evidence that Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines two months before Sept. 11 and started taking chartered government planes instead.
Ashcroft is one man not the entire government, and this happened 2 months prior, not on the day.

Where did the gold from under the twin towers go?
It didnt go anyware, it was recovered a few weeks later under federal supervision.

Why was the same hot liquid found under WTC and WT7?
If your refering to the "White hot liquid aluminum" that was seen, then i think that one answers itself. Remeber that fire? guess what it effect it had.

Why didn't the engines from the plane make a hole in the pentagon?
because they just smooshed striaght in to it, planes are built to be light, which means there not especially strong. A turbine with a thin aluminum coating wont get very far trying to travel through a massive reinforced concrete block, its like throwing a glass at a wall and expecting it to get through.

How come no traces of a plane were found in the pentagon?
They were, i even showed you a picture of part of one of the engines in fact?


Also? no traces of the plane were found huh?
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/landinggear002.jpg
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/aedrive5.jpg
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
Was it done blind folded by any chance?

mat64
15-04-2007, 07:01 PM
Just watch kk

http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-6708190071483512003&q=9%2F11

Belive it or not, I just sat and watched the whole 1 hour and 27 minutes of that. That for me sums it all up, the visible "Squibs". The unknown construction work on floor 34 that even William Rodriguez, Who was honored a hero for saving many people lives said he was "scared" when he heard the noises on the 34th floor, As it was empty. No one should have been there on that floor, He said that even the elevator didn't stop on floor 34, No one should have been there, He was scared to go onto floor 34 to see what was happening, The man that went against the orders not to return to the towers for his own safety but still went back, Was scared to look on the 34th floor.

Like it says, Secrets can't be kept forever. One day we will know the truth of that day.


Why didn't the engines from the plane make a hole in the pentagon?
It did.
Why was the same hot liquid found under WTC and WT7?
because the steel melted I guess? I don't even know where you got that idea from.

Steels melting point is believed to be ~1510ēC, Looking at the towers you can see the fire were oxygen starved (Dark smoke), Hence the large amounts of smoke. The fires in the towers were well below 800ēC.

If you just have sometime to watch that video, Even the first 30 minutes says most of it.

Camy
15-04-2007, 07:46 PM
Why would they want to have an excuse to go to war in Iraq?


For the huge ammounts of oil iraq has or had im not sure, im not saying i believe the government did it, but isnt a coincidence, wen oil supplies were starting to get low... ;l

Mentor
15-04-2007, 08:15 PM
Belive it or not, I just sat and watched the whole 1 hour and 27 minutes of that. That for me sums it all up, the visible "Squibs". The unknown construction work on floor 34 that even William Rodriguez, Who was honored a hero for saving many people lives said he was "scared" when he heard the noises on the 34th floor, As it was empty. No one should have been there on that floor, He said that even the elevator didn't stop on floor 34, No one should have been there, He was scared to go onto floor 34 to see what was happening, The man that went against the orders not to return to the towers for his own safety but still went back, Was scared to look on the 34th floor.

Like it says, Secrets can't be kept forever. One day we will know the truth of that day.
Floor 34 of the south tower was just one of Oppenheimer Funds Inc. Nothing strange about that,

Although ive got to say ive googled your 34'th floor story and cant find any traces of its existence? conspiracy sites or other o.0


Steels melting point is believed to be ~[SIZE=2]1510ēC, Looking at the towers you can see the fire were oxygen starved (Dark smoke), Hence the large amounts of smoke. The fires in the towers were well below 800ēC.

If you just have sometime to watch that video, Even the first 30 minutes says most of it.

The liquid was melted aluminum, not steel, aluminum melts at 660.37C which is below 800.
Im not really sure what that proves ether way.

mat64
15-04-2007, 08:18 PM
Floor 34 of the south tower was just one of Oppenheimer Funds Inc. Nothing strange about that,

Although ive got to say ive googled your 34'th floor story and cant find any traces of its existence? conspiracy sites or other o.o

It's in the video, As supposedly the interviews in it where kept from the media or something.

Sammeth.
15-04-2007, 08:32 PM
Another thing I dont understand is the famous picture of the woman standing in the hole of WTC1, after the plane struck. How she survived beats me, and the fact she can stand where fire was burning with ease surprises me, as that fire was supposed to be weakening steal structures.

http://www.prisonplanet.com/images/january2005/170105woman.jpg

I want answers tbh. If you think the picture is edited in anyway, there are also videos where you can see her waving to the Media Helicopters that were filming above. She died when the tower collapsed.

Mentor
15-04-2007, 08:37 PM
It's in the video, As supposedly the interviews in it where kept from the media or something.
Loose change is the media, or at least an aspect of it. If it was available to them it was available to anyone else who cared, plus the interviews are available to the whole internet just from watching the video, none of the other conspiracy theorists seem to think it was worth mentioning "/

What confuses me more is what differences it makes, weather it was just an empty floor or dr evils layer, makes very little difference to the events "/

mat64
15-04-2007, 09:13 PM
Loose change is the media, or at least an aspect of it. If it was available to them it was available to anyone else who cared, plus the interviews are available to the whole internet just from watching the video, none of the other conspiracy theorists seem to think it was worth mentioning "/

What confuses me more is what differences it makes, weather it was just an empty floor or dr evils layer, makes very little difference to the events "/

Explosives planted on the vacant floors would account for that, There was also reports of the 91st floor (can't remember exactly), Sounding like it was having major work done big drills and such causing the floor below to shake, This was on the week leading up to 9/11. One of the people who worked on the floor below said every morning he'd come in and there would be dust everywhere on the windows, This had only begun once the work upstairs had. I also found an account from google of the 34th floor, Here (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-can-you-keep-secret-i-hope-not.html).


"As I stood there on the 33rd floor, I heard very strange noises on the 34th floor. now, the 34th floor was an empty floor - a floor that did not have any kind of walls, it was a construction floor. It was totally hollowed out there was nothing there . . . not even the elevators stopped there. You had to have a special access key to open the door on the 34th floor"

Sammeth.
15-04-2007, 09:36 PM
Explosives planted on the vacant floors would account for that, There was also reports of the 91st floor (can't remember exactly), Sounding like it was having major work done big drills and such causing the floor below to shake, This was on the week leading up to 9/11. One of the people who worked on the floor below said every morning he'd come in and there would be dust everywhere on the windows, This had only begun once the work upstairs had. I also found an account from google of the 34th floor, Here (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-can-you-keep-secret-i-hope-not.html).
34th Floor was a mechanical floor I thought. :S Still the exact same description as above, but mechanical floors contained all the air conditiong units and elecricity stuffs and all that. They had 6 floors in different areas of the building dedicated to mechanical stuffs. No floor was ever just empty. Those sounds could have easily been the machines on those mechanical floors <3

:Liam
15-04-2007, 09:38 PM
have you seen that thing where you fold a dollar bill to show the twin towers burning, the pentagon burning and the whitehouse burning. The planes missed the pentagon and the whitehouse but they where aiming for it, maybe they were both connected?

BL!NKEY
15-04-2007, 09:41 PM
For the huge ammounts of oil iraq has or had im not sure, im not saying i believe the government did it, but isnt a coincidence, wen oil supplies were starting to get low... ;l

But oil prices have gone up.

It is not like the government is making more money by paying for a war to make up for the oil.

There was no reason for them to be behind this.

Sammeth.
15-04-2007, 09:43 PM
have you seen that thing where you fold a dollar bill to show the twin towers burning, the pentagon burning and the whitehouse burning. The planes missed the pentagon and the whitehouse but they where aiming for it, maybe they were both connected?
A plane did hit the Pentagon on September 11th. As one person once remarked...

"The folding is just a coincedence. #1 - If the American Government had a conspiracy, why would they flaunt it on the most used everyday item? #2 - I can fold an american $20 bill to say "****s of America". It means nothing."

Agreed.

mat64
15-04-2007, 09:59 PM
34th Floor was a mechanical floor I thought. :S Still the exact same description as above, but mechanical floors contained all the air conditiong units and elecricity stuffs and all that. They had 6 floors in different areas of the building dedicated to mechanical stuffs. No floor was ever just empty. Those sounds could have easily been the machines on those mechanical floors <3

The guy who I quoted was William Rodriguez, He was a high ranking janitor at the word trade centers for 20 years, He knew very well what was on that floor. It was empty, Nothing was supposed to be on it at all.

FlyingJesus
15-04-2007, 10:06 PM
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg


Sorry but [email protected] parking sign right where the plane went into it.

Mitch-tyler
15-04-2007, 10:30 PM
Well, like most people think, I think it was caused by Al Qaeda. Led by Osama Bin Laden, they wanted to get revenge on the USA, and start a war. So they crashed planes into the World Trade Center, the Pentagon, and an attempted one of the White House.

Sammeth.
15-04-2007, 10:42 PM
The guy who I quoted was William Rodriguez, He was a high ranking janitor at the word trade centers for 20 years, He knew very well what was on that floor. It was empty, Nothing was supposed to be on it at all.

There was not a single floor of the World Trade Center that was empty. If they weren't used for office space, they were mechanical floors which were used for electronic equipment. No floor was ever just empty, never being used. Either he has been misquoted, or you have misinterpreted what the quote is saying. They would never have just an empty floor that was inaccessible with only a key card, when it could be used for office space... :S

Edit: It wasnt a mechanical floor, but it definitely wasn't empty...


Of the 110 stories, eight were set aside for technical services (mechanical floors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_floor)) Level B6/B5, Floors 7/8, 41/42, 75/76 and 108/109, in four two-floor areas evenly spread up the building. All the remaining floors were free for open-plan offices.

Edit #2: I have just read the article link you provided, and that isnt really an entirely a reliable source. Its just someone who has set up a website with some quotes on. I would be more intrigued if he was quoted in say a newspaper, or the quote was on the CNN website or something. But its not. I find it very farfetch'd.

Saurav
15-04-2007, 11:38 PM
I still wonder why they stopped the American officials from flying that day? If they knew about the threat, why didn't they ground all the flights?
Thats a lie, or at least a mis-representation of facts, this utterly stupid claim is based on the evidence that Ashcroft stopped flying on commercial airlines two months before Sept. 11 and started taking chartered government planes instead.

Ashcroft is one man not the entire government, and this happened 2 months prior, not on the day.

NONE of the officials were allowed to fly that day.

Where did the gold from under the twin towers go?
It didnt go anyware, it was recovered a few weeks later under federal supervision.

Nope, only some of it was recovered.

Why was the same hot liquid found under WTC and WT7?
If your refering to the "White hot liquid aluminum" that was seen, then i think that one answers itself. Remeber that fire? guess what it effect it had.

Like I said in my earlier post, it was a liquid created by bombs.

Why didn't the engines from the plane make a hole in the pentagon?
because they just smooshed striaght in to it, planes are built to be light, which means there not especially strong. A turbine with a thin aluminum coating wont get very far trying to travel through a massive reinforced concrete block, its like throwing a glass at a wall and expecting it to get through.

LOLOL, the turbines are very strong. Aluminium - Light but strong. Suppose for a second, it was weak (which it isnt) and it didnt go through, where the hell did it go?

How come no traces of a plane were found in the pentagon?
They were, i even showed you a picture of part of one of the engines in fact?

Apart from the last picture, and maybe the first, they all look like rubble to me?

Also? no traces of the plane were found huh?
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/landinggear002.jpg
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/your-own-evidence.jpg
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/aedrive5.jpg
http://images.abovetopsecret.com/ats/pentagon757/Damage9.jpg
Was it done blind folded by any chance?


But oil prices have gone up.

It is not like the government is making more money by paying for a war to make up for the oil.

There was no reason for them to be behind this.

Politics. Saddam could have refused to sell oil to America unless he got whatever he wanted. Then America would have been doomed. Now they don't have to worry about that.

BL!NKEY
15-04-2007, 11:58 PM
Politics. Saddam could have refused to sell oil to America unless he got whatever he wanted. Then America would have been doomed. Now they don't have to worry about that.

So the whole reason the government was behind 9/11 was to get America to go to war against Iraq and get rid of Saddam?

We got rid of him a few years ago. Why would they still be in war then?

I still dont see the reason the governement would have to want to fake 9/11.

Iraq is not the only place that we get oil from.


Who ever said that the terrorists were not the people on the empty floor planting explosives before the attacks?

If they can hijack two planes then they might have done more to prepare for this attack.

Mentor
16-04-2007, 05:18 AM
Explosives planted on the vacant floors would account for that, There was also reports of the 91st floor (can't remember exactly), Sounding like it was having major work done big drills and such causing the floor below to shake, This was on the week leading up to 9/11. One of the people who worked on the floor below said every morning he'd come in and there would be dust everywhere on the windows, This had only begun once the work upstairs had. I also found an account from google of the 34th floor, Here (http://wakeupfromyourslumber.blogspot.com/2006/09/911-can-you-keep-secret-i-hope-not.html).
o.0 what good would explosives planeted on the 34th floor do, for a controled demolision explosives would be needed on every floor? it would have no better chance going down from a 34th floor explosion than from the jet liner already embded in the side o.0


NONE of the officials were allowed to fly that day.
Again, thats a lie. They were.



Nope, only some of it was recovered.
You were there to count it?


Like I said in my earlier post, it was a liquid created by bombs.
Why would a bomb create liquid? bombs expload, not melt.



LOLOL, the turbines are very strong. Aluminium - Light but strong. Suppose for a second, it was weak (which it isnt) and it didnt go through, where the hell did it go?
Its not on the same scale as reinforced concerate, and aircrafts only have a very thin layer, there built to be light not strong.
Part of its even in the pictures below.



Apart from the last picture, and maybe the first, they all look like rubble to me?
Yes... crunched up alimunum rubble from a plain that wacked in to the side of the pentigon.


Politics. Saddam could have refused to sell oil to America unless he got whatever he wanted. Then America would have been doomed. Now they don't have to worry about that.
He did worse, he threatened to start trading in Euros instead of dollars.

Mit
16-04-2007, 08:59 AM
I doubt they would have organised 9/11. Why would people like Osama Bin Laden claim it was him, knowing America would probably attack Afganistan.

Saurav
16-04-2007, 03:19 PM
I doubt they would have organised 9/11. Why would people like Osama Bin Laden claim it was him, knowing America would probably attack Afganistan.

Bin Laden claimed it WASNT him.

Please merge my bottom post with this one.
I accidently double posted.

Saurav
16-04-2007, 03:25 PM
So the whole reason the government was behind 9/11 was to get America to go to war against Iraq and get rid of Saddam?

9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war. The Iraq war was to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq a safer place. Its worse now.

We got rid of him a few years ago. Why would they still be in war then?

They can't just leave Iraq now, not in the condition it is in now.

I still dont see the reason the governement would have to want to fake 9/11.

Iraq is not the only place that we get oil from.

Its one of the main place where they get it from. They have a lot of oil now to last them a long time.

Who ever said that the terrorists were not the people on the empty floor planting explosives before the attacks?

If they can hijack two planes then they might have done more to prepare for this attack.

o.0 what good would explosives planeted on the 34th floor do, for a controled demolision explosives would be needed on every floor? it would have no better chance going down from a 34th floor explosion than from the jet liner already embded in the side o.0

You only need a few bombs where the main supports are.

Again, thats a lie. They were.

No they werent ... read the news from that day.

You were there to count it?

You said I was being stupid? Look who is being stupid now. The media, banks, officials said it themselves that most of the gold was missing.

Why would a bomb create liquid? bombs expload, not melt.

Special powerfull bombs, they let off some liquid.

Its not on the same scale as reinforced concerate, and aircrafts only have a very thin layer, there built to be light not strong.
Part of its even in the pictures below.

To me, it just looks like a load of rubbish in the photos? And ROFL, the engines/turbines are very strong. Where did they go then >.>

Yes... crunched up alimunum rubble from a plain that wacked in to the side of the pentigon.


He did worse, he threatened to start trading in Euros instead of dollars.

You said I was being stupid earlier and not making a good argument etc? You said I kept making stupid comments on these points ... look who is doing it now.

Kardan
16-04-2007, 03:36 PM
Personally I don't think the US Government would do something as horrible as this to be honest.
We saw it with our own eyes - planes into building, buildings collapse because of damaged supports.
Same thing with the pentagon.
Fourth plane bought down by hijackers after people storm the cockpit.

Sammeth.
16-04-2007, 04:45 PM
ooooh, another interesting bit of info...


February 13, 1975 fire

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire which spread over nearly half of the 11th floor. The fire spread to other floors through openings in the floor slabs which were used to carry phone wires. The fires on other floors were extinguished almost immediately, and the main fire was put out in a few hours. Fireproofing protected the steel from melting and there was no structural damage to the tower. This event led to the instalation of a sprinkler system in both towers. Firefighters claim that had the sprinklers been installed when the tower was built, the fire probably would not had spread as much as it did. Other than the damage caused by the fire, a few floors below suffered water damage from the extinguishing of the fires above.

But I guess jet fuel does burn at a much higher temperature than a normal fire...I just thought people might like to know :P

Sammeth.
16-04-2007, 05:56 PM
Sorry for double posting but I cant edit;

First off, at the person who was talking about Floor 34 being completly empty - I found the tennants lists and...


]Fl. 34 Royal Thai Embassy Office (UB), Port Commerce Department, Port Authority, Thailand Tourism Authority


]Fl. 34 Oppenheimer Funds Investment

The above information is correct at the time of the attacks.

Ekalb
17-04-2007, 01:36 AM
ooooh, another interesting bit of info...



But I guess jet fuel does burn at a much higher temperature than a normal fire...I just thought people might like to know :P

But still jet fuel doesn't burn with enough heart to melt the material that made the supports.

It's strange that although it's 6 years after 9/11 I never once saw anything about the WT7 building on tv. They were more focussed on the others I guess.

RedStratocas
17-04-2007, 01:58 AM
But still jet fuel doesn't burn with enough heart to melt the material that made the supports.

It's strange that although it's 6 years after 9/11 I never once saw anything about the WT7 building on tv. They were more focussed on the others I guess.

Who says it has to melt? Melt means literally turned into a liquid, which ill admit, jet fuel isnt hot enough for, but steel starts to weaken at half that temperature.

The WTC7 was an odd situation. They knew it was falling and got everyone out safe, it wasent really a big deal compared to the rest.

BL!NKEY
17-04-2007, 02:16 AM
9/11 had nothing to do with the Iraq war. The Iraq war was to get rid of Saddam and make Iraq a safer place. Its worse now.

In the case we are talking about now 9/11 had everything to do with the Iraq war. It was this attack which got most of the American people to support the going into Iraq. Not saying that they are connected in reality but 9/11 led to the invasion of Iraq politacally.



They can't just leave Iraq now, not in the condition it is in now.

It wasnt as bad right after getting Saddam. If the government faked 9/11 to get oil then they would have left back then because they would have got what they came for.


Its one of the main place where they get it from. They have a lot of oil now to last them a long time.

It would not be worth it to spend that much money on a war just to gain control of a contrys oil. We are not going to steal the oil now that we took Saddam out. We will still pay money to the Iraq government that we set up.

micky.blue.eyes
17-04-2007, 06:23 PM
I didn't read all posts because I don't have time to read them all but here are some other bits of information (taken from those videos).

The fire could've made the WTC collapes but only if the metal was heated for several hours, both towers collapes within an hour.
Most of the jet fuel burned outside the towers when the jets hit the building (just watch some videos and you'll see big fire balls.)
Some firemen went up to try to put the fire out and help people in that building, if the fire was hot and big enough to melt the metals those firemen would've never tried to put it out.
When they started to remove what was left of the towers they found molten steel, now you think "I told you so", well you're wrong. They found the molten steel in the basement, which supports the fact that people heard several explosions, some of them were under them.

The FBI (or the secret service or somebody else, can't remember) said they couldn't find the black boxes. There were 4 black boxes and they said the couldn't find any of them and that they were destroyed. But they did find the passport of the pilot. Something made out of paper survived but black boxes didn't? Yeah right!

That's all for now, will probably post more another time.

Wig44.
17-04-2007, 06:42 PM
I didn't read all posts because I don't have time to read them all but here are some other bits of information (taken from those videos).

The fire could've made the WTC collapes but only if the metal was heated for several hours, both towers collapes within an hour.
Most of the jet fuel burned outside the towers when the jets hit the building (just watch some videos and you'll see big fire balls.)
Some firemen went up to try to put the fire out and help people in that building, if the fire was hot and big enough to melt the metals those firemen would've never tried to put it out.
When they started to remove what was left of the towers they found molten steel, now you think "I told you so", well you're wrong. They found the molten steel in the basement, which supports the fact that people heard several explosions, some of them were under them.

The FBI (or the secret service or somebody else, can't remember) said they couldn't find the black boxes. There were 4 black boxes and they said the couldn't find any of them and that they were destroyed. But they did find the passport of the pilot. Something made out of paper survived but black boxes didn't? Yeah right!

That's all for now, will probably post more another time.

Thats the best post this thread. There were explosions. There waas something about the government in USA said the jet fuel melted the towers and caused the collapse. Not true. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

Camy
17-04-2007, 07:23 PM
Im still not sure about the black boxes, they're supposed to be indestructible, how did they not find them, unless when the explosion occured they were blown several miles away :l

Sammeth.
17-04-2007, 07:58 PM
Thats the best post this thread. There were explosions. There waas something about the government in USA said the jet fuel melted the towers and caused the collapse. Not true. Jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough.

No they didn't. They said jet fuel weakened the steel structures, and yes, Jet Fuel does burn hot enough to do that. You can see in the videos, the south tower collapsed after one of the steel supports buckled, and twisted. It didn't melt. It was weakened.


I didn't read all posts because I don't have time to read them all but here are some other bits of information (taken from those videos).

The fire could've made the WTC collapes but only if the metal was heated for several hours, both towers collapes within an hour.
Most of the jet fuel burned outside the towers when the jets hit the building (just watch some videos and you'll see big fire balls.)
Some firemen went up to try to put the fire out and help people in that building, if the fire was hot and big enough to melt the metals those firemen would've never tried to put it out.
When they started to remove what was left of the towers they found molten steel, now you think "I told you so", well you're wrong. They found the molten steel in the basement, which supports the fact that people heard several explosions, some of them were under them.

The FBI (or the secret service or somebody else, can't remember) said they couldn't find the black boxes. There were 4 black boxes and they said the couldn't find any of them and that they were destroyed. But they did find the passport of the pilot. Something made out of paper survived but black boxes didn't? Yeah right!

That's all for now, will probably post more another time.

The official 9/11 commission stated they recovered 3 of the 4 black boxes. I believe anyway, I'll double check that if I have time. And thats from the 9/11 commission.


The WTC7 was an odd situation. They knew it was falling and got everyone out safe, it wasent really a big deal compared to the rest.

Yeah. It was damaged severely by the falling debris of 1WTC and 2WTC, but not from the impact of the falling towers. There were major fires in the top floors, and the bottom 10 floors were completely damaged. Everyone was evacuated well before it collapsed. I think Larry A. Silverstein also said in an interview that he suggested they pull it anyway.

GommeInc
17-04-2007, 08:02 PM
I don't agree with this idea that bombs were planted at the bottom to make it fall down. Looking at the videos, the part of the WTC above where the plane went in noticably falls before the bottom, which makes me doubt bombs were at the bottom.

Also, as far as I am aware, no one actually saw explosions at the bottom, only heard them. The explosions could of been from some demented mind which thought the explosions possibly happening inside the building were coming from the bottom, where the explosions echoed down from other buildings. It is, afterall, possible.

This black box idea is confusing. It is possible they were destroyed in the explosions and flames or the radio and sonar which some have (apprently) got damaged which led to it being unable to find. Looking at Wikipedia (because I don't know what they're made of and their specifications), it doesn't state what the material is made out of and whether or not it will survive an enclosed explosion as opposed to an outdoor explosion

Leprachaun--X
17-04-2007, 08:05 PM
This explains my beleifs :D

1 hour long though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5651675924179685534

RedStratocas
17-04-2007, 09:31 PM
This explains my beleifs :D

1 hour long though.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5651675924179685534

Loose Change is just so wrong. Even the creator said "I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100% backed up by the facts." They are so completely bias, they only point out facts that support them rather than give both sides. Like with the whole "guy who heard the missle thing". Well Im sure dozens of people actually seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon are more reliable than one guy far away who thinks he heard a missle. But of course they refused to mention that in the movie.

Mentor
17-04-2007, 10:04 PM
Loose Change is just so wrong. Even the creator said "I would be the first to admit that our film definitely contained errors, it still does contain some dubious claims, and it does come to some conclusions that are not 100&#37; backed up by the facts." They are so completely bias, they only point out facts that support them rather than give both sides. Like with the whole "guy who heard the missle thing". Well Im sure dozens of people actually seeing the plane crash into the Pentagon are more reliable than one guy far away who thinks he heard a missle. But of course they refused to mention that in the movie.

and there are quite a few of them

"Aydan Kizildrgli, an English language student who is a native of Turkey, saw the jetliner bank slightly then strike a western wall of the
huge five-sided building that is the headquarters of the nation's military. 'There was a big boom,' he said. 'Everybody was in shock. I turned
around to the car behind me and yelled "Did you see that?" Nobody could believe it.'"
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2001/09/11/attack%2Dusat.htm


"Frank Probst, an information management specialist for the Pentagon Renovation Program, left his office trailer near the Pentagon's south
parking lot at 9:36 a.m. Sept. 11. Walking north beside Route 27, he suddenly saw a commercial airliner crest the hilltop Navy Annex. American
Airlines Flight 77 reached him so fast and flew so low that Probst dropped to the ground, fearing he'd lose his head to its right engine."
http://www.troa.org/Magazine/January2002/feature3.asp


"Omar Campo, a Salvadorean, was cutting the grass on the other side of the road when the plane flew over his head. 'It was a passenger plane.
I think an American Airways plane,' Mr Campo said. 'I was cutting the grass and it came in screaming over my head. I felt the impact. The whole
ground shook and the whole area was full of fire. I could never imagine I would see anything like that here.'"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html


"Afework Hagos, a computer programmer, was on his way to work but stuck in a traffic jam near the Pentagon when the plane flew over. 'There
was a huge screaming noise and I got out of the car as the plane came over. Everybody was running away in different directions. It was tilting its
wings up and down like it was trying to balance. It hit some lampposts on the way in.'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/wtccrash/story/0%2C1300%2C550486%2C00.html


"Henry Ticknor, intern minister at the Unitarian Universalist Church of Arlington, Virginia, was driving to church that Tuesday morning when
American Airlines Flight 77 came in fast and low over his car and struck the Pentagon. 'There was a puff of white smoke and then a huge billowing
black cloud,' he said."
http://www.uua.org/world/2002/01/feature3a.html


"We were the only people, we think, who saw it live," Dan Creed said. He and two colleagues from Oracle software were stopped in a car near
the Naval Annex, next to the Pentagon, when they saw the plane dive down and level off. "It was no more than 30 feet off the ground, and it was
screaming. It was just screaming. It was nothing more than a guided missile at that point," Creed said. "I can still see the plane. I can still see
it right now. It's just the most frightening thing in the world, going full speed, going full throttle, its wheels up,"
http://www.ahwatukee.com/afn/community/articles/020906a.html


Gary Bauer former Presidential candidate, "I looked at the woman sitting in the car next to me. She had this startled look on her face. We
were all thinking the same thing. We looked out the front of our windows to try to see the plane, and it wasn�t until a few seconds later that we
realized the jet was coming up behind us on that major highway. And it veered to the right into the Pentagon. The blast literally rocked all of our
cars. It was an incredible moment."
http://www.massnews.com/past_issues/2001/dec%202001/1201bauer.htm


Sean Boger, Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief - "I just looked up and I saw the big nose and the wings of the aircraft coming
right at us and I just watched it hit the building," Air Traffic Controller and Pentagon tower chief Sean Boger said. "It exploded. I fell to the
ground and covered my head. I could actually hear the metal going through the building."
http://www.dcmilitary.com/army/pentagram/6_46/local_news/12049-1.html
Credit for gathering quotes: CatHerder ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 )

RedStratocas
17-04-2007, 10:13 PM
and there are quite a few of them

Credit for gathering quotes: CatHerder ( http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread79655/pg1 )

Nice list.

And Loose Change used some of the earliest articles, like the day after etc, when the least information was known. They said that none of the bodies from the Pennsylvania crash were identified, but that was because they were using an article from the day after. In the weeks later they identified dozens. They were using bad information.

Mentor
17-04-2007, 10:33 PM
Nice list.

And Loose Change used some of the earliest articles, like the day after etc, when the least information was known. They said that none of the bodies from the Pennsylvania crash were identified, but that was because they were using an article from the day after. In the weeks later they identified dozens. They were using bad information.

Im guessing its the same with the claims about the gold, since alot of its followers seem to still believe it disappeared, while in reality it was recovered a few months/weeks later after they dug down to the volts through the collapsed building "/

Also im pretty sure all the black box's were recovered, those things are pretty tough. And whered the melted steal come from? to my knowledge no steal melted, the only thing that melted was aluminum of the plane's the building feel because a plane wacked in to the side of it damaging the supports, which was then heated by the fire, which weakens them considerably to the point they couldn't hold the weight and collapsed, after that gravity just did its thing.


You only need a few bombs where the main supports are.
What? That wouldn't be a controlled demolition if they did that. blowing up a support, is not all that different from waking a plane in to the side in bringing the tower down, it wouldn't help it fall down straight.
Go watch a controlled demolition and notice the perfectly timed blow outs on each indervidual floor needed to maintain a vertical collapse in a normal building.

Dan2nd
18-04-2007, 04:07 PM
is the date connected ? 9/11 whats the american emergency number ? 911 ..

Saurav
18-04-2007, 04:28 PM
is the date connected ? 9/11 whats the american emergency number ? 911 ..

Lol, I never thought of that.

Sammeth.
18-04-2007, 05:25 PM
All those lovers, and even haters, may be pleased to know a new and final cut of Loose Change is coming [Loose Change 3rd Edition] which says will be up to date, and leave out all the incorrect stuffs they previously got wrong. They are trying to make this one the fairest of them all.


Loose Change Final Cut is the third and final release of the documentary, drawing upon our experience and research since the release of Loose Change 2nd Edition.

The Final Cut will be substantially different in content and presentation, but will remain true to the spirit that has put Loose Change where it is today.

We have already interviewed dozens of professionals that both agree and disagree with the official version of events, and we are trying to accomplish the fairest documentary possible.

If all goes according to plan, the film should be complete and released by Spring 2007.

RedStratocas
18-04-2007, 05:36 PM
is the date connected ? 9/11 whats the american emergency number ? 911 ..

Just a coincidence. You could find some connection with any date. If it was on 7/11, you could say "a bunch of 7 Elevens are in America, and they're owned by people from India! Who are in the same region as the terrorists! :O"


All those lovers, and even haters, may be pleased to know a new and final cut of Loose Change is coming [Loose Change 3rd Edition] which says will be up to date, and leave out all the incorrect stuffs they previously got wrong. They are trying to make this one the fairest of them all.

If they leave out all the incorrect and unfair and twisted stuff, itll be 5 minutes long

Saurav
18-04-2007, 05:41 PM
Just a coincidence. You could find some connection with any date. If it was on 7/11, you could say "a bunch of 7 Elevens are in America, and they're owned by people from India! Who are in the same region as the terrorists! :O"



If they leave out all the incorrect and unfair and twisted stuff, itll be 5 minutes long

I hope you aren't calling Indians terrorists ...

RedStratocas
18-04-2007, 05:45 PM
I hope you aren't calling Indians terrorists ...

Haha, no, but they're in the same region as countries where the terrorists came from. My only point was that you can connect any 2 numbers to anything and say OMGZ conspiracy! I hate that bulletin that goes around myspace about all the 9+11 stuff. Its all stretched coincidences.

Mentor
18-04-2007, 05:46 PM
I hope you aren't calling Indians terrorists ...

I hope you just misread what he said arnt are as unbelievably utterly incomprehensibly stupid as what you just said indicates...

Sammeth.
18-04-2007, 06:14 PM
Haha, no, but they're in the same region as countries where the terrorists came from. My only point was that you can connect any 2 numbers to anything and say OMGZ conspiracy! I hate that bulletin that goes around myspace about all the 9+11 stuff. Its all stretched coincidences.

I agree. What you are saying is a bit like the film "Number 23". The number 23 is associated with all these things, yet, it would just have the same effect if the number was 57. That was a good film =[

RedStratocas
18-04-2007, 06:58 PM
I agree. What you are saying is a bit like the film "Number 23". The number 23 is associated with all these things, yet, it would just have the same effect if the number was 57. That was a good film =[

Haha, I had a problem with The Number 23. They said "2/3 = .666, the number of the devil" and I was like "No, actually it's .666666666 repeating, so if youre going to cut off the ones after the 3rd 6, you'd have to round it and make it .667."

Numbers are all connected, you can do anything with them.

Mentor
18-04-2007, 09:21 PM
Since being in a video makes somthing true i found a real time debunk of the loose change movies http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561 , basicaly it adds a number of interesting facts as subtitles the whole way through, which in real time really point out the idiocy of alot of it, im only 10 minutes in, but its an interesting watch. i advice it :)

lAdmire
19-04-2007, 12:49 AM
Okay. There isn't much to debate but... some terrorists decided to get together && crash a plane into the World Trade Centre because of their religious beliefs. They also crashed into the Pentagon && some other buildings.

-Soph-
19-04-2007, 05:13 AM
Okay. There isn't much to debate but... some terrorists decided to get together && crash a plane into the World Trade Centre because of their religious beliefs. They also crashed into the Pentagon && some other buildings.

there is a LOT to debate about really, about the conspiracy's mainly, I don't believe in them myself.

and also, they didn't crash into any other buildings?

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 01:28 PM
there is a LOT to debate about really, about the conspiracy's mainly, I don't believe in them myself.

and also, they didn't crash into any other buildings?

Well there was Flight 93 which remains a mystery. No one will ever truley know where it was going. Most people say the White House but Im not sure.

-Soph-
19-04-2007, 02:18 PM
Yeah I agree with the white house myself, but I guess it will never be definate.

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 02:48 PM
White House seems like the most reasonable one. Sears Tower was too far away for the plane to fly I think. It would have been evacuated before the plane reached.

micky.blue.eyes
19-04-2007, 04:00 PM
Im still not sure about the black boxes, they're supposed to be indestructible, how did they not find them, unless when the explosion occured they were blown several miles away :l
They did finf them later on, but they first said that they couldn't find them and that they were probably destroyed, but that they did find the passport of the pilot.

Another thing about the black boxes they did find, they didn't release all the conversations on them. The information of one of the black boxes was only released to the family once, but they were told never to talk about what they heard. The information of another black box was released, but the last 5 minutes "dissapeared."
The information of the third black box wasn't released I think.


No they didn't. They said jet fuel weakened the steel structures, and yes, Jet Fuel does burn hot enough to do that. You can see in the videos, the south tower collapsed after one of the steel supports buckled, and twisted. It didn't melt. It was weakened.

That is impossible because the tower didn't burn long enough to weaken the steel structure enough.

The official 9/11 commission stated they recovered 3 of the 4 black boxes. I believe anyway, I'll double check that if I have time. And thats from the 9/11 commission.

(Points made above.)

Yeah. It was damaged severely by the falling debris of 1WTC and 2WTC, but not from the impact of the falling towers. There were major fires in the top floors, and the bottom 10 floors were completely damaged. Everyone was evacuated well before it collapsed. I think Larry A. Silverstein also said in an interview that he suggested they pull it anyway.


I don't agree with this idea that bombs were planted at the bottom to make it fall down. Looking at the videos, the part of the WTC above where the plane went in noticably falls before the bottom, which makes me doubt bombs were at the bottom.

There were bombs in the whole building (not on every floor), just watch one of the videos, they point out the explosions.

Also, as far as I am aware, no one actually saw explosions at the bottom, only heard them. The explosions could of been from some demented mind which thought the explosions possibly happening inside the building were coming from the bottom, where the explosions echoed down from other buildings. It is, afterall, possible.

I don't think all those firement were demented. It could've been an echo if the explosions were heard with just a small time between them, but that wasn't the case.

This black box idea is confusing. It is possible they were destroyed in the explosions and flames or the radio and sonar which some have (apprently) got damaged which led to it being unable to find. Looking at Wikipedia (because I don't know what they're made of and their specifications), it doesn't state what the material is made out of and whether or not it will survive an enclosed explosion as opposed to an outdoor explosion

They eventually found 3 oif the boxes (points made above.) Black boxes are pretty much undestructable.


Im guessing its the same with the claims about the gold, since alot of its followers seem to still believe it disappeared, while in reality it was recovered a few months/weeks later after they dug down to the volts through the collapsed building "/

I don't know a lot about the gold but not everything was recovered.

Also im pretty sure all the black box's were recovered, those things are pretty tough. And whered the melted steal come from? to my knowledge no steal melted, the only thing that melted was aluminum of the plane's the building feel because a plane wacked in to the side of it damaging the supports, which was then heated by the fire, which weakens them considerably to the point they couldn't hold the weight and collapsed, after that gravity just did its thing.

3 boxes were. (Points made above) (Points about the supports are made above aswell.)

What? That wouldn't be a controlled demolition if they did that. blowing up a support, is not all that different from waking a plane in to the side in bringing the tower down, it wouldn't help it fall down straight.
Go watch a controlled demolition and notice the perfectly timed blow outs on each indervidual floor needed to maintain a vertical collapse in a normal building.

It was (probably) controlled demoltion. Just look at the way the tower fell, the explosions and the tower ended as a nice pile.


is the date connected ? 9/11 whats the american emergency number ? 911 ..

I once found a site with more of those connections but those are just coincidences.


Okay. There isn't much to debate but... some terrorists decided to get together && crash a plane into the World Trade Centre because of their religious beliefs. They also crashed into the Pentagon && some other buildings.

That's exactly how it didn't happen. Your post shows you have little knowledge on this topic (no offence), but who ever did it didn't do it because their of religious beliefs, terrorists never act because of their religious beliefs, they just want to cause chaos and fear, they may use their religious beliefs as an excuse, but the fact that most people dissagree with how the terrorists act and their books never said about anything about suicide bombing or that terrorism is good.
They only crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, no other buildings were hit by a plane. They say another plane crashed into a field which is impossible if you look at the crash scene. There are no plane parts and no bodies, the crash scene is also way too small.

I got dinner now. :)

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 05:15 PM
One thing that has always bugged me was that they found one of the hijacker's passports on a street nearby the World Trade Center. Not only did it survive that huge flaming fireball, someone FOUND it! Thats crazy.

Azul
19-04-2007, 05:18 PM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 05:23 PM
http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=911_morons

Maddox is my hero

Have you seen his Loose Change spoof (http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=af07)? Its hilarious, I love the video

Azul
19-04-2007, 05:26 PM
Aha, yeah. I have seen just about all his stuff, bloody brilliant read. Shame about the lack of updates just lately due to his successful comic.

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 05:31 PM
Aha, yeah. I have seen just about all his stuff, bloody brilliant read. Shame about the lack of updates just lately due to his successful comic.

Apparently he and a few other people are getting a radio show on XM

Mentor
19-04-2007, 06:35 PM
They did finf them later on, but they first said that they couldn't find them and that they were probably destroyed, but that they did find the passport of the pilot.
Which is quite likely, paper is likely to have blow away when the towers collapsed, black box's although sterdy still arnt going to survive a 100 story building collapsing on top of em.


Another thing about the black boxes they did find, they didn't release all the conversations on them. The information of one of the black boxes was only released to the family once, but they were told never to talk about what they heard. The information of another black box was released, but the last 5 minutes "dissapeared."
Actually they claim its 3 minutes, and thats just down to the fact the internal timer was slightly wrong, none of it dissappeard.


That's exactly how it didn't happen. Your post shows you have little knowledge on this topic (no offence), but who ever did it didn't do it because their of religious beliefs, terrorists never act because of their religious beliefs, they just want to cause chaos and fear, they may use their religious beliefs as an excuse, but the fact that most people dissagree with how the terrorists act and their books never said about anything about suicide bombing or that terrorism is good.
Actualy in all fairness both the bible and koran do include passages which contain exactly that o.0 and religion was the motivator of the bombers, although your claim likly holds true to osarma himself, since its him and his network whom brainwashed those who did parttake in the events.


They only crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, no other buildings were hit by a plane. They say another plane crashed into a field which is impossible if you look at the crash scene. There are no plane parts and no bodies, the crash scene is also way too small.
Thats if you forget the half a plain wall, sections of wing, and even the greater part of one of the engines.
The fact that posativly identifed all of the bodys also says somthing as well "/

Also id like to again advise people to watch: http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561

It debunks pretty much every frame and claim of loose change, with fully sourced objective evedence. its an incredible pease of work.

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 07:22 PM
They only crashed into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon, no other buildings were hit by a plane. They say another plane crashed into a field which is impossible if you look at the crash scene. There are no plane parts and no bodies, the crash scene is also way too small.

Actually they did identify bodies. Just not within a day after. The article Loose Change used said there were no identified bodies, but thats because they used an article from the very next day. In the weeks to follow, they identified dozens. And the plane was INTENTIONALLY crashed, so obviously the damage would be much worse. It wasent too small. The angles Loose Change uses just makes it look small

RedStratocas
19-04-2007, 07:25 PM
That's exactly how it didn't happen. Your post shows you have little knowledge on this topic (no offence), but who ever did it didn't do it because their of religious beliefs, terrorists never act because of their religious beliefs, they just want to cause chaos and fear, they may use their religious beliefs as an excuse, but the fact that most people dissagree with how the terrorists act and their books never said about anything about suicide bombing or that terrorism is good.

It did have a little to do with religion, yes. They did it because American troops were stationed in Saudi Arabia, which is against their religion.

-Soph-
20-04-2007, 02:35 AM
I thought quite a lot of it was to do with religion :s

Aces
20-04-2007, 03:48 PM
I think the attacks where a distraction. Many people believe that large cuontaties of money where transfered secretly while the attacks had been done, people ran to safety, perfect time to do this. I believe that the americans & arabs where the cause of the attacks.
It's my theory:

Americans where transfering over 100billion dollars to Bank of Dubai, ( this has been proven by video footage taken secretly by a american man ).
Also, i dont think the attacks where done by arabs, i believe it was americans themselfs.
Also, the Al-Qaeda movie of them saying they attacked the towers is blury, and looks very fake.
Final Words: Arabs & Americans are both guilty in my eyes, something very illegal was done on this day.

Please note: This is my theory and my statement is not offensive against either arabs nor americans viewing it.
I wish my opinion to be respected.
Thank you,

RedStratocas
20-04-2007, 05:26 PM
Also, the Al-Qaeda movie of them saying they attacked the towers is blury, and looks very fake.
Final Words: Arabs & Americans are both guilty in my eyes, something very illegal was done on this day.


I wont bother with the first half cause I dont know what youre talking about.

But the Al-Qaeda video is blurry because they did it with a home camera, and probably an old one at that. Whats so fake about it? And obviously something illegal happened. Killing people is illegal in every country.

Mentor
20-04-2007, 06:00 PM
I think the attacks where a distraction. Many people believe that large cuontaties of money where transfered secretly while the attacks had been done, people ran to safety, perfect time to do this. I believe that the americans & arabs where the cause of the attacks.
It's my theory:

Americans where transfering over 100billion dollars to Bank of Dubai, ( this has been proven by video footage taken secretly by a american man ).
Im confused? they were moveing a 100billion dollars

by the end of 1990 there were $246 billion dollars in existence, $541 million in cash is printed every day, 95% of that goes to replaceing notes already in circulation, thats around 27 million new every day.

Then total money stat is 17 years old, so 17*365(days in a year) can be timed by the money printed a day to estimate roughly how much money exists.

6205 * 27 million = 167 535 million (rounded up 167 billion)
167 billion + 246 billion = 413 billion

So your telling me they moved a quater of ALL the money in existence in the US and no one noticed any missing? a quater of all printed notes and no ones seems to be missing anything?

How does that even start to make sence?

If they wernt transporting the money in notes, what was it being transported in? did they clear out the federal reserve from fort nox or somthing?

...

Secondly, why blow up the twin towers, if you had that much money you could by out the entire goverment, never lown a few customs officers. plus if you had the resorces to hijack plains and crash them in to buildings? yet you could just get private planes to fly the money out? WTH?


Also, the Al-Qaeda movie of them saying they attacked the towers is blury, and looks very fake.
In what way does it look fake? alot of the videos releaced by terrorist organisations are very blury?


I wish my opinion to be respected.
Thank you,
Wish what you like, it holds less water than a sive...

YouFail
20-04-2007, 06:06 PM
The only theory I believe in is the theory of the cruise missile hitting the pentagon. Was there any actual video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? But somehow there was of the Twin Towers? Reckage was discovered miles from the pentagon, a plane wreckage. I believe the US government were embarrased by shooting down an 'innocent' plane and fired the cruise missile to cover their *****. Think about it, the government would be in turmoil if they made an 'honest' mistake and shot down this innocent passenger plane. Whenever 9/11 is mentioned, whether it be by US government or Al Quaeda, there is never a mention of the pentagon incident. Al Quaeda have never claimed responsibilty for it (as far as i know) and the US hasn't technically denied firing a cruise missile at the pentagon. 'Surprisingly' there were no fatalitys and very few casualties in the pentagon incident, I doubt the pentagon went 'Wow plane has hit the twin towers. We must evacuate'. Well yeh, thats my oppinion, im sure others differ. I mean no disrepect to anybody, I simply feel that the US government aren't being 100% truthful with the public, chances are they never will.

RedStratocas
20-04-2007, 06:21 PM
The only theory I believe in is the theory of the cruise missile hitting the pentagon. Was there any actual video footage of the plane hitting the pentagon? But somehow there was of the Twin Towers? Reckage was discovered miles from the pentagon, a plane wreckage. I believe the US government were embarrased by shooting down an 'innocent' plane and fired the cruise missile to cover their *****. Think about it, the government would be in turmoil if they made an 'honest' mistake and shot down this innocent passenger plane. Whenever 9/11 is mentioned, whether it be by US government or Al Quaeda, there is never a mention of the pentagon incident. Al Quaeda have never claimed responsibilty for it (as far as i know) and the US hasn't technically denied firing a cruise missile at the pentagon. 'Surprisingly' there were no fatalitys and very few casualties in the pentagon incident, I doubt the pentagon went 'Wow plane has hit the twin towers. We must evacuate'. Well yeh, thats my oppinion, im sure others differ. I mean no disrepect to anybody, I simply feel that the US government aren't being 100&#37; truthful with the public, chances are they never will.

There was footage of the the plane hitting the Pentagon [Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+plane)]. So youre wrong. Not to mention there were dozens of eye witnesses who saw the plane crash. And there was some footage of the first plane hitting the WTC because someone was filming a different piece, it was all a coincidence. I have no clue what youre trying to say there?

The American people would be PROUD of the U.S. government for shooting down a plane and preventing more attacks, that also makes no sense.

I have no idea what youre talking about, are you really thinking about what youre saying before you type it? People talk about the Pentagon getting attacked all the time. Just not as much as WTC because WTC had far more deaths. Al Quaeda HAS claimed responsibility for ALL the attacks on 9/11.

Why would the U.S. government have to claim it DIDNT do something? Why would they say "we didnt attack our own building with a cruise missile". Think before you type. Would the government have to say "We dont have an underground lair of chocolates and marshmallows and pink bears"? Why would they have to prove that they DIDNT do something?

Sorry, but you REALLY dont know what you're talking about.

Aces
20-04-2007, 06:46 PM
Im confused? they were moveing a 100billion dollars

by the end of 1990 there were $246 billion dollars in existence, $541 million in cash is printed every day, 95&#37; of that goes to replaceing notes already in circulation, thats around 27 million new every day.

Then total money stat is 17 years old, so 17*365(days in a year) can be timed by the money printed a day to estimate roughly how much money exists.

6205 * 27 million = 167 535 million (rounded up 167 billion)
167 billion + 246 billion = 413 billion

So your telling me they moved a quater of ALL the money in existence in the US and no one noticed any missing? a quater of all printed notes and no ones seems to be missing anything?

How does that even start to make sence?

If they wernt transporting the money in notes, what was it being transported in? did they clear out the federal reserve from fort nox or somthing?

...

Secondly, why blow up the twin towers, if you had that much money you could by out the entire goverment, never lown a few customs officers. plus if you had the resorces to hijack plains and crash them in to buildings? yet you could just get private planes to fly the money out? WTH?


In what way does it look fake? alot of the videos releaced by terrorist organisations are very blury?


Wish what you like, it holds less water than a sive...
First: You may think this was a big amount, though much of US, Dubai, Bahrain, Israeli money was added to this amount, something was purchased, nobody knows what. Money was transported in over 50 vechiles and it was put under another of the WTC's basements ( there is many ) Also one of them colapsed just like that, they say it was cause of the hard winds attacking the sky when the twin towers colapsed = not true, since the twin towers are too far away from the further away one that suddenly colapsed. tower. Also, not only the bluryness was the part that makes it look fake, the way hes guards move = typical US army format, there was also something to do with hes ring, though i cant remember what it was... My source has been removed from the internet.. I think youre not allowed to wear a ring outside the house, according to Shiite islamic law ( im not sure about this, something around the lines of it though )

Sammeth.
20-04-2007, 06:52 PM
I think you are way too confused to be making judgements like this. For one, you said "Furthest away tower" shows you know nothing about the layout of the WTC Complex. "Furthest away tower" could mean any of the two, depending on where you were standing!!! Learn some of the basic facts before you try and delve into lots of weird and wonderful theories...

Mentor
20-04-2007, 07:09 PM
First: You may think this was a big amount, though much of US, Dubai, Bahrain, Israeli money was added to this amount, something was purchased, nobody knows what.
So what your saying is you lied and are now going to completely change your story, since firstly you said a 100 billion dollars was being transfered from the US to dubi, indicating these must be US dollars.
Secondly it wasnt being spent on anything in the first version.

Now difference currency's have different values so 100 billion dollars would have to be in a single dollar currency, Canadian dollar, American dollar etc or simply be a total value, if it was a total value then theres still the problem. If there not moveing US money out of the US why the hell would they move none us money to the us just to move it back again?

No single existing item on earth costs 100 billion dollars.


Money was transported in over 50 vechiles and it was put under another of the WTC's basements ( there is many )
The WTC volts often contained up to 200 billion dollars worth of gold at any one time, who cares about just a 100 billion of actual currency. Which also means the money is pretty much unuseable as if you tryed to, it would be very obvious?


Also one of them colapsed just like that, they say it was cause of the hard winds attacking the sky when the twin towers colapsed = not true, since the twin towers are too far away from the further away one that suddenly colapsed.
Who is thay? so far your probably the only person who has EVER said that as far as im aware. thats not what the official story says.


Also, not only the bluryness was the part that makes it look fake, the way hes guards move = typical US army format,
Most of them were trained by the US military, just the the iraq police forces are trained by the US military.
The taliban was instated by the US to fight of the russian invasion in the reagon, the forces whom comprised it were armed and trained by the US.


there was also something to do with hes ring, though i cant remember what it was...
Thats in loose change and one of the stupits claims there, since in pretty much every other photo of video of asama bin larden hes also wareing that very same ring.
The supposed claim is islamic law prevents people from wareing gold items. it has nothing against, watches/rings or gold like substances.
Most prominat exstreamist figures also ware rings and watches.

So thats utter **, plus its obviously stolen from loose change since there the only soruce of this mistake.


My source has been removed from the internet.. I think youre not allowed to wear a ring outside the house, according to Shiite islamic law ( im not sure about this, something around the lines of it though )
As i said, its off loose change, second recut to be exsact since you didnt mention the watch which is cut out from the first one. the ring remains but is still a load of **.
Go google some pictures of him and look at his hand... oh wait, same ring.

Aces
20-04-2007, 07:42 PM
I did not change my story, i added stuff to it, and no of the men where trained in the US ( men on the movie is " untrained Al-Qaeda men " Taliban is only a part of Al-Qaeda. They wherent transfered to Dubai Bank ( In Dubai ) It was transfered to to another WTC then wasent seen of again. ( MOST PROBALY TAKEN TO DUBAI NOTE: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS, THOUGH THERE IS THEORYS )

Kardan
20-04-2007, 07:45 PM
Is it me or is $100 billion going to take more than 50 veichles to move?
Or am I just being unrealistic?

Aces
20-04-2007, 08:05 PM
They didint use large trucks to do so, they used package-cars.

YouFail
20-04-2007, 08:05 PM
There was footage of the the plane hitting the Pentagon [Link (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+plane)]. So youre wrong. Not to mention there were dozens of eye witnesses who saw the plane crash. And there was some footage of the first plane hitting the WTC because someone was filming a different piece, it was all a coincidence. I have no clue what youre trying to say there?

The American people would be PROUD of the U.S. government for shooting down a plane and preventing more attacks, that also makes no sense.

I have no idea what youre talking about, are you really thinking about what youre saying before you type it? People talk about the Pentagon getting attacked all the time. Just not as much as WTC because WTC had far more deaths. Al Quaeda HAS claimed responsibility for ALL the attacks on 9/11.

Why would the U.S. government have to claim it DIDNT do something? Why would they say "we didnt attack our own building with a cruise missile". Think before you type. Would the government have to say "We dont have an underground lair of chocolates and marshmallows and pink bears"? Why would they have to prove that they DIDNT do something?

Sorry, but you REALLY dont know what you're talking about.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+plane

Your link proves nothing. You see an OBJECT then the flames. Plus someone just happened to be waiting filming the Pentagon? And why was the plane only at Quarter capacity or something like that on Boeing 767.

The US government bit:

They would atleast say after the conspiracy theory arose that they didnt do it. I respect your oppinion, atleast respect mine is all im asking for.

Sammeth.
20-04-2007, 08:13 PM
Plus someone just happened to be waiting filming the Pentagon?

LOL. CCTV footage, of the CCTV cameras inside the parking barrier booth which let cars in and out I believe. If not, it was still CCTV footage, not a randomer outside with a video camera on a tripod, pointing at the front of the building.

YouFail
20-04-2007, 08:18 PM
LOL. CCTV footage, of the CCTV cameras inside the parking barrier booth which let cars in and out I believe. If not, it was still CCTV footage, not a randomer outside with a video camera on a tripod, pointing at the front of the building.

Yeh I realised after I posted xD. Sounded better in my head ;)

Mentor
20-04-2007, 08:23 PM
I did not change my story, i added stuff to it,

Adding to, is still changing...


and no of the men where trained in the US ( men on the movie is " untrained Al-Qaeda men " Taliban is only a part of Al-Qaeda.
Really? and i take it you were there to know exsactly how well trained these al-qaeda members were? regardless of the fact the talibans training resime was taken from the US who taught the instructors, and al-qaeda uses this hence there are many simlartys to the US miltary in the training of the soldures.

They wherent transfered to Dubai Bank ( In Dubai ) It was transfered to to another WTC then wasent seen of again.
They needed to blow up the world trade centers to move it form the US, but could freedly move it from dubia's bank with no problems what so ever "/

( MOST PROBALY TAKEN TO DUBAI NOTE: THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THIS, THOUGH THERE IS THEORYS )
So theres no evdice, just theorys based on no evidence? so basicaly your makeing stuff up and claiming its a theory (Somthing based on evidence)

Aces
20-04-2007, 08:25 PM
They where doing something very illegal, they went so far to distract people so nobody woulld notice this, i have no real idea what happened to the money after it was put into the other WTC and NOBODY knows.

Mentor
20-04-2007, 08:40 PM
They where doing something very illegal, they went so far to distract people so nobody woulld notice this, i have no real idea what happened to the money after it was put into the other WTC and NOBODY knows.
yet after 9/11 when everything returned to normal no one noticed any of this money missing, a quater of all the money in the US isnt a small amount people are not going to notice...

Aces
20-04-2007, 08:53 PM
How do you know the money wasent illegal? Unregistered?

Mentor
20-04-2007, 09:13 PM
How do you know the money wasent illegal? Unregistered?
because money that was never printed, quite obviously doesn't exist. if it was counterfeit (which is usealy very detectable) why not just print the money elsewhere anyway to start with?

RedStratocas
20-04-2007, 11:24 PM
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5658198482624505213&q=pentagon+plane

Your link proves nothing. You see an OBJECT then the flames. Plus someone just happened to be waiting filming the Pentagon? And why was the plane only at Quarter capacity or something like that on Boeing 767.

The US government bit:

They would atleast say after the conspiracy theory arose that they didnt do it. I respect your oppinion, atleast respect mine is all im asking for.

The object = plane. Its a security camera, someone wasent just waiting there. You cant just claim something and say "or something like that"-- it has to be a fact, otherwise how can I dispute it? I would respect your opinion if it was actual facts, but youre talking about things you are uncertain of or have no idea about.

The government doesnt usually bring up problems or questions themselves. Reporters ask them, and to my knowledge, there is no respected reporter in this country who believes any 9/11 conspiracy theory.

Mentor
21-04-2007, 03:08 AM
The object = plane. Its a security camera, someone wasent just waiting there. You cant just claim something and say "or something like that"-- it has to be a fact, otherwise how can I dispute it? I would respect your opinion if it was actual facts, but youre talking about things you are uncertain of or have no idea about.

The government doesnt usually bring up problems or questions themselves. Reporters ask them, and to my knowledge, there is no respected reporter in this country who believes any 9/11 conspiracy theory.
theres also no structural engineers or demolition experts in existence who think the twin towers or wtc7 look anything even remotely similar to controlled demolitions.

Ekalb
21-04-2007, 03:24 AM
theres also no structural engineers or demolition experts in existence who think the twin towers or wtc7 look anything even remotely similar to controlled demolitions.

There was one on a video but it was probably Loose Change so you guys will debunk that in a few minutes.

Mentor
21-04-2007, 06:26 PM
There was one on a video but it was probably Loose Change so you guys will debunk that in a few minutes.

If you mean the guy in the loose change video quoted as an expert, technicaly he is, just not in any field remotely related anything that happened on 9/11. He teaches language of history or something like that, i could look it up if your particularly interested

piddle2k6
21-04-2007, 06:28 PM
Im not sure although there are obvious reasons to believe both sides.. if i had to say one set up because they had like 5x more safety drills than normal running up the week to 9/11

Mentor
21-04-2007, 06:49 PM
Im not sure although there are obvious reasons to believe both sides.. if i had to say one set up because they had like 5x more safety drills than normal running up the week to 9/11

On the grounds thats an outright lie, there were no additional or extra safty drills done in the surrounding time. Its an unsourced claim that has no grounding in reality.

RedStratocas
21-04-2007, 06:56 PM
Im not sure although there are obvious reasons to believe both sides.. if i had to say one set up because they had like 5x more safety drills than normal running up the week to 9/11

Even if that were true, what would it mean? If the government wanted to kill as many people as they could, why would they have drills? It makes no sense.

YoManGo!
22-04-2007, 01:52 PM
i just follow whatever maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com) says on the matter.

-Soph-
23-04-2007, 01:08 PM
i just follow whatever maddox (http://maddox.xmission.com) says on the matter.

thats a good way to go:)

Markage
23-04-2007, 02:46 PM
It is said that the most logical answer is normally the right one.

"Terrorists hit some buildings, people died... Hey lets blame the american government"

Kardan
23-04-2007, 03:05 PM
It is said that the most logical answer is normally the right one.

"Terrorists hit some buildings, people died... Hey lets blame the american government"

But why would the American Government want to kill people of their own kind? If they did, you'd think they'd "demolish" other skyscrapers.

Want to hide these adverts? Register an account for free!