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

[RedStratocas]

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]

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.

[Seatherny]

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---]

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.

[Seatherny]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[Seatherny]

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]

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..