UKC

Does anybody else know that a 3rd tower collapsed on this day?

Not many people do.

Here's some interesting viewing: youtube.com/watch?v=jeYPm8XzC3g&

In reply to buzby78:

Yes, it featured in the 24 hours of news coverage that day. And as far as I can remember, was consistent with fire damage.

But I'm not a structural engineer, or demolition expert.

In reply to Mediocre Scientist:

Consistent with fire damage, really? Can you give an example?

In reply to buzby78: It was done with lasers, or thermite, or lizards. Where's my tin foil hat?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Sure it wasn't fire damage then?

In reply to buzby78: Certain. It was a shadowy cabal, rogue CIA agents worked for days before laying thermite charges throughout a number of floors, they were worried that 2 large buildings falling down wouldn't be very newsworthy so they wanted to knock another one down to make sure the event didn't get bumped off the front pages. How do I know, I hear you say. Well, if I told you that I'd have to kill you.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

and I thought nobody knew about it...

In reply to Mediocre Scientist:

There are some that are that apparently don't agree
www.ae911truth.org/

In reply to Sir Chasm: but... http://pigroll.com/img/these_blast_points.jpg

In reply to buzby78:

Yup, well aware. Conspiracy theorists I believe have the whole 9/11 thing going as a front for getting rid of that building.

Also well aware that steel loses something like 50% of its structural strength at an alarmingly low tempterature. In fact, as far as fire resistance is concerned, structural timber is actually a lot better. However that was from my six years being a civil engineer...

In reply to buzby78:

i did it. wasnt too hard, i just laced the building with C4 while no one was watching then waited for my friends to fly their planes into the other two and pressed a button. simple really. when dicussing it with osama the week before we all decided 'what the hey, if we are going to trash the other two, why not this one. it wont fall by itself'.

getting all the jews to not show up that day for work was the hard bit. thankfully 100% of them have kept their mouths shut.

but dont tell anyone ok.

In reply to buzby78:

Yes.. everyone knew about it.. it's been discussed since it fell.

If it was CIA etc why wait 6 odd hours...

Haven't watched the youtube link..

In reply to ice.solo:

sorry but it as everyone knows the secret commando ninjas used thermite not C4.

In reply to dissonance:

actually we used thermite in the other towers - easier to make look like the effects of plane fuel.
C4 was better for the 3rd tower, so it would appear as structural failing.

see, we hoodwinked everybody.

commando ninjas are pretty good

In reply to buzby78:

Without looking at the links, im sure I read an article once that said prior to 9/11, no steel structured building has ever completely collapsed as a result of fire.
The 3rd tower, WTC7 did.

In reply to vincentvega:

The start of that video says that.

It's a subtle implication, presuming it's true. And quite worthless, too. The world is full of events happening that haven't happened before.

In reply to John_Hat: it's 600 degrees for an RSJ

In reply to buzby78:

Yes, the second Cardington test that was stopped due to the imminent failure of a column. Column failure was the most likley trigger of the WTC7 collapse too.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

In reply to buzby78: Have you seen the video of the Chinese building on fire? Shows what a building on fire actually looks like.

youtube.com/watch?v=nH5-DpMObGc&

In reply to buzby78: youtube.com/watch?v=7gwcQjDhZtI& Aaron Russo talks about Rockefeller Elite and 9/11

In reply to Moggsy:

That means nothing without the size of RSJ/UB.

In reply to needvert:

Although it was also the first steel structured building to collapse due to fire, it was also the 3rd ever building to collapse in a uniformed way receiving no resistance from other floors, just like its two neighbouring buildings that collapsed a few hours earlier? Peculiar if you ask me...

In reply to buzby78:
? Peculiar if you ask me...
Why?
Had two planes ever been deliberately flown into buildings previously?

In reply to MG:

Ok thanks,I was just wondering why this may have been? So planes hitting a neighbouring buildings will definitely cause this type of collapse then?

In reply to buzby78:

No, but quite possibly.

In reply to buzby78: The New York fire brigade "pulled it" apparently they're fully qualified demolition experts who can drop a 49 floor building in minutes.

In reply to Steve Perry:

Thanks Steve, that was quite funny...

In reply to buzby78:

Planes full of kerosene, they had just taken off, are likely to have this effect. It's not a common occurrence, in fact I don't think it had happened before.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

Thanks Bruce, that was even funnier!

In reply to buzby78:

Really, has it happened before then?

In reply to MG: From the NIST report :
'NIST’s entire investigation included no physical evidence'
I'm no scientist but I find this a bit strange.
It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy for the official line to be wrong. NIST have put together an explanation that many experts believe plausible. There are other experts who disagree. Unusual things happen.
What I see on this forum, as in real life, is that anyone who questions the official line is immediately labelled as a shape-shifting-lizard believer. People who question shouldn't be mocked, the sheeple who eat up everything the powers-that-be tell them on the other hand....

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

I've never heard such a funny thing no!

In reply to gritrash0:


Questioning is fine.. with evidence.. not made up bullshit.. and also they don't answer the questions other people ask them..

In reply to IainRUK:

Evidence you ask for.....

fill yer boots

http://drjudywood.com/

In reply to gritrash0:


No reasonable enquiry shouldn't be mocked but idiots who think the whole world is run by the Illuminati or Mossad and nit pick on the details of an official report in the hope of discrediting it to a point where they can then propose their own ludicrous theory based on almost no evidence but which fits in with their puerile world view do need the piss taken out of them.

My view? A couple of planes were flown into two huge building which went on fire and collapsed causing lots of collateral damage. As a result another building near by also fell down. The mechanism for it's collapse is probably broadly in line with the official story but not exactly. In fact isn't the "official" story a "probable" explanation rather than "the" explanation.

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

In reply to JSA:

Change in properties with temperature depends on material rather than shape or size, an ice cube and an iceberg both melt at the same temperature - just one takes a bit longer.

A bigger girder will take longer to heat up but it will get weak at the same temperature a smaller girder.

In reply to buzby78: Demolition experts later said to drop a building like building 7 in such a controlled demolition - as the NY fire brigade achieved in minutes - would take around 2 months of prepping with around 50 guys. Inserting explosive around support columns that have had the concrete removed is a very laborious task and where did the NY fire brigade get there explosives??

In reply to Removed User: There were buildings a lot closer than building 7 which received no structural damage from the impacts of 1 & 2

In reply to Steve Perry:

... and your point is?

In reply to Steve Perry:

That ties in with fire damage being the cause of collapse rather than impacts.

In reply to elsewhere:

Quite true. Anyone who doubts this should try heating a bit of steel with a blowtorch to red heat, it become really soft and can be bent easily. The girders in the buildings were, IIRC, boxed in concrete but the heat from all those thousands of gallons of fuel burning was sufficient to destroy the structural strength all the same - the buildings had not been designed with such an event in mind. Two airliners full to the gunnels with fuel, hardly a likely design event... until it happened.

In reply to Steve Perry: Assuming its not a conspiracy, did Allah shine on Al Queda that day?

In reply to buzby78:

I was trying to get a handle on why people want to believe in 9/11 conspiracies and read this:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-people-believe-in-cons...

Like many articles now, the real fun is reading the crazy batshit comments.

In reply to buzby78:

It's been quite interesting reading the replies to my post.

I was really just interested in hearing whether people knew of the 3rd tower collapsing, not many people I have spoken to have, so I thought i'd see if others had similar experiences?

Nearly every reply has been an assumption on my supposed conspiracy belief (which I have never stated) or an explanation on how it collapsed.

I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?

In reply to Bruce Hooker:


1992 Amsterdam.

In reply to buzby78:

You'd almost think that the UKc mob gets a bit bored with Sept 11th posts.

I wonder if his topic has ever been brought up before.....

I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?


Did you really just want people to reply with "Yes, i had heard of it" or "No, i hadn't heard of it". Not much of a debate there either is there?

In reply to radson: I guess you decided to actually click on the OP's link and then deleted your post.
You made your mind up before looking at the facts which I guess makes you just as ignorant as these 'conspiracy theorists' eh?

In reply to Al Evans: I suppose the answer to that would be determined by a persons' religion and beliefs, however radical they may be.

In reply to Steve Perry:

Speaking of people believing in things with no scientific evidence to back them up...

In reply to buzby78:

If anyone wants any more paranoia fodder just have a look at the list of occupants of building 7.

In reply to buzby78: To put it another way, up untill 9/11 no one knew if a plane hitting it would bring the building down. Yes we can model it and see what temperatures the building will fail at. A better example of this was the Titanic. We thought that would be ok, untill it reached a critical point. When the 5th compartment was breached.

One other point is that if your building is going to fall down, its best that it wont fall on another building. Maybe it was made that way. I dont know this, just putting it out there.

In reply to itsThere:

Fair points indeed, apart from the fact that building 7 was never hit by a plane. Building 7 was partially on fire for 7 hours and then uniformaly collapsed at the speed if gravity exactly like its two neighbouring buildings. I can't help but think that that is a pretty unfeasible thing to happen...

In reply to buzby78: What's your feasible alternative?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I absolutely don't have one I'm afraid! Is it not ok to question something without having an answer though?

In reply to buzby78: What response would you expect from a that sort of structure after a seven hour fire? Why do you think collapse isn't a feasible result?

In reply to buzby78:

I guess this is the usual caliber of a UKC debate then?

Not wanting to be perdantic, but it's calibre and not caliber.

In reply to MG:

I'm sure a partial collapse would be more than feasible, just like other buildings have partially collapsed in the past. But, a building has never collapsed in that way purely through fire damage before. I guess it's just a coincidence that this building also collapsed in a completely uniform manor after receiving completely different damage to it than its neighbours?

In reply to MJ:

Thanks, I'll remember that for the future...

In reply to buzby78: it was also on fire which wont help. Another way to look at it is how many high multi storey building have collapsed like this. I dont know. Here is also an examples of bad luck.

http://tinyurl.com/cwc2935

You can also think of it as what random chain of events do we need for such event to be triggered. This can be related to lots of disasters, think piper alpha, deep water horizon, Mount St. Helens, Fukushima Daiichi and so on.

This brings us back to the titanic, so WTC7 was on fire and by chance that was enough to cause the collapse.

In reply to buzby78: As above that is not the case - collapses have occurred experimentally and in real buildings but it is very rare to have such severe fires so there are not many examples. And no, its not a conicidence that three buildings collapsed together. All three were subject to very severe, multi-storey fires, well outside any design requirements. This is a unique situaton. The collapse mechanisms were similar but not identical between WTC7 and WTC1 and2, reflecting the different structural systems.

In reply to MG:

I don't see how WTC 7 being on fire was a unique situation that would result in its complete uniform collapse though? Fair do's when it comes to WTC's 1 and 2 but WTC 7 collapsing in the same way?

In reply to buzby78:

Once the building start to go, what are the options - fall sideways like a tree or collapse straight down? I would imagine with the weight of material above the damaged area is only going one place when it starts to fail.


Chris

In reply to Chris Craggs:

Yes buildings can fall sideways or straight down, however, no building has ever collapsed in a free fall way like this before, there would be resistance from other parts of the structure. It looks totally unreal to me...

In reply to Chris Craggs:

No idea.. however thinking about it with my ex-structural-engineer hat on (and its a fairly old hat), the natural tendency for all the material of a building is to fall straight down unless pushed otherwise.

I would have also through that a domino effect would apply, so that once one support failed, the four on either side would then have to bear the load it was taking, so if they were already stressed, they would be likely to go to, which would then over-stress the eight around them, etc.

i.e. I'd say the most likely failure mode would be sudden catastrophic failure of the whole building some while after the fire started, and for all the material to head to earth in the most direct fashion - i.e. straight down.

In reply to buzby78: It's not 'freefall' - it is a bit slower. Plenty of buildings collapse downwards, even in earthquakes where there is sideways motion. John Hat is about right in his explanation. WTC7 wass a little more complex becaue it was an unusal structural form.

In reply to MG:
From NISTs analysis of the video footage:

Stage 1 (0 to 1.75 seconds): acceleration less than that of gravity (i.e., slower than free fall).
Stage 2 (1.75 to 4.0 seconds): gravitational acceleration (free fall)
Stage 3 (4.0 to 5.4 seconds): decreased acceleration, again less than that of gravity

See stage 2. They give an explanation as to why they believe this was :
http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/faqs_wtc7.cfm

In reply to MJ:

Not wanting to be pedantic, but its pedantic and not perdantic

In reply to jayme:

Think he was making a cheeky joke there...

In reply to MG:

Ta! Yes, I remember a picture of a building that had collapsed in an earthquake and it was simply a reasonably neat pile of floor slabs one on top of the other, almost as if they had been stacked for delivery.

Best not to think of the staff who had been working in between them.

In reply to JSA: i wouldn't trust you to design a garden shed..... Metal properties don't change with size you nugget. It just takes longer to heat

In reply to buzby78:

To be honest I don't know why the two towers got all the bad attention it did, personally I thought it was the best lord of the rings film.

Duh dum chh

In reply to jkarran:

Not quite the same, only one plane, not a skyscraper, just a fire. Interesting about the dodgy cargo of Israeli chemical weapons though - plenty of scope for conspiracy theories there. I don't think the crash raises the same issues as being discussed on this thread at all though, does it?

In reply to John_Hat:

i will confirm that. having spent a fair bit of time in earthquake affected areas (not just japan, but elsewhere with less regulated construction, ie sichuan, turkey, iran and pakistan) most buildings do just collapse downwards. especially modern buildings in places with strict codes where they are designed that way (i live in a new 36 story building and have had the tennants intro tour where all this is displayed).

the weakest point is amplified in accordance with their height and mass and they collapse from there. to the point where in tokyo thats commonly regarded as the 4th, 5th and 6th floors and rent is often cheaper as people are not so keen on living there.

without buying into it all; it could be that the ground shock of the 2 main towers emulated something akin to a localized quake, and the fire in the building (unsurprisingly) affected the 'collapse level' and you have what happened. im assuming all towers shared a common foundation complex. it would be interesting to hear about close by buildings to see how they were affected.

In reply to ice.solo:


The fell straight down is one of those slightly misleading claims. The obvious example being WTC7 which has pictures showing the massive damage to one corner caused by debris from the main tower collapse.

In reply to dissonance:

Sure. 'downward' more so than 'tree-like'.
With so many factors its way beyond me - other than that sinister agents blowing it up from the inside is a long way down the list of likely causes.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Bollocks! It was the Pentagon, they did it in order to start the war in Iraq and to seize control of all the middle east oilfields. The Lizards were just resting in the basement.

I'm not saying there aren't real conspiracies out there, I think there probably are - given how history is full of deceit.

But this building falling down...No, I don't think its one of them.

In reply to buzby78:
I find it difficult to understand why there is no cctv of the object/plane that crashed into the pentagon...
on such a high profile building I would have thought there would have been several cameras panned onto this building.
not even a mobile camera pic/video ,nothing ..unless im missing something

In reply to needvert:


and your qualification for making this assertion ? just so we know how much or how little relevance it is.

In reply to colina:

You're missing something. Google video pentagon 9/11.

In reply to colina:


you say object/plane. Does this mean you are not convinced the plane hit it? In which case what did happen to it and all the passengers?


yes you are.

In reply to buzby78:

I think you might be confusing 'what you don't understand', with 'unfeasible'.

In reply to GrahamD:

I watched the video the OP linked. That's about all the information I'm going on.

Some parts of it seemed far fetched, like the fire department being in on it.

It all seems a rather elaborate setup, involving even the fire department, and possibly conceived in the 80s when the building was made - possibly laced with explosives or 'nano' thermite then.

Given as the OP says, few realise that a third building fell down, I wonder what the motivation was? I was unclear on that.

With a high density area like that, you cherry pick witnesses and you can make up all kinds of rubbish.


And if you're in the business of conducting conspiracies, I dare say you'd focus your attention on things that didn't leave a huge pile of evidence behind or require massive cooperation and secrecy to pull off.

In reply to buzby78: the big name conspiracy nuts concerning 9/11 have realised the evidence for an inside job is just not there.they have given up,its just the youtube hero's who are like the stuck records.
If there was any truth in the silly claims there would be court cases going on all the time.

How they even began to think anyone would listen to them why they think the planes were missiles or even holograms.

In reply to needvert:

I find those two statements contradictory. We only know about the deceit because people found out about it. Conspiracies somehow remain covered up to the extend that the only people who know the "truth" are the conspiracy theorists.

I am convinced there are no conspiracies simply because those in power are bafoons like this

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21320992

and this
http://www.trump.com/

who couldn't mount a conspiracy for toffee.

The idea that thousands of government employees are also in on it is laughable.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I think that your definition of "conspiracy" needs some major revision. History is full of examples of major conspiracies; just because we found out about them or they failed doesn't stop them being conspiracies and as such there must surely be examples that were never discovered. Not necessarily implying that 9/11 was one of these though.

In reply to EeeByGum: agreed. im not sure what to think really. i dont think the bush administration were clever enough to plan and carry out all this. there again im not sure a maniac like bin laden could either.

In reply to heidi123:


Consider this.

To pull this off from OBL point of view = Money + Willing Religious Fanatical Maniacs

To pull this off from George Bush point of view = Blimey where do I start?

In reply to dissonance:




you've not read my post correctly ,im not saying nothing hit the pentagon i'm sure it was a plane, .there are 1000s of vids on planes that hit the twin towers however I have seen no video of a plane hitting the pentagon and that's it.
if you could post me a youtube link or video clip that shows a plane flying towards or hitting the pentagon then this will clear it up for me
.

In reply to heidi123:

I dunno. Hijacking a plane was as easy as pie back in those days. The attack was simplicity itself.

In reply to heidi123:

OK. Which of these scenarios do you think is more likely?

1. A small committed group of people with little or no regard for either their own lives or that of others takes advantage of lax security to hijack a number of planes and use them as weapons in an attack on soft targets.

2. A clandestine group working within the government arranges to demolish those same soft targets by planting large amounts of explosives in buildings that are in constant use without attracting any suspicion then arranging for a group similar to that mentioned in scenario #1 to act as the "trigger" and divert attention.

ALC

In reply to Rampikino:

Actually, when it comes to money and religious fanatics, George Bush was short of neither.

Or was that your point?

In reply to heidi123:


Which part of what happened required exceptional intelligence? In essence it was a very simple plan very well executed. There's doubtless an element of luck involved in that but it's also important to remember it happened in a somewhat more relaxed security environment.
jk

In reply to colina:

The fact that you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Try my google search I suggested before lunch.

In reply to John_Hat:

No.

To pull this off from George Bush's point of view would require an awful lot more than money and a handful of willing religious fanatical maniacs.

In reply to tony:

tried that tony before lunch and after lunch ,help me out here and send me the link .thanks

In reply to colina:


firstly why do you expect others to do the searching for you and secondly exactly what would it clear up?

In reply to jkarran: i meant to think of it all in the first place! and to carry it out with the precision they did. especially if it was a conspiracy

In reply to tony:

I really don't know why you bother..

The conspiracy theorists will believe any flimsy unreliable story that backs up their story.. anything that supports the official line is evidence of just how far the conspiracy goes.. so you can't win..

In reply to dissonance:

no need to get stroppy old son.I don't expect others to do the searching for me.i have tried and found nothing that's why I am asking tony to send me the link. he has obviously seen it .
re clearing it up it would be good to see wot exactly hit the pentagon.

In reply to IainRUK:


amusement and fascination with how some people think. Apart from anything else if i really thought the US gov had done that to itself i would be a tad wary about announcing i have proof in case i experience a sudden accident or trip to Guantanamo.

Has Buzby been back or is this a troll.

In reply to colina: Absence of proof isn't proof of absence..

People saw the plane hit.. noone saw a ruddy great cruise missile zoom in.. it'd be a risk to assume that EVERYONE in the area was in on it from the start..

In reply to heidi123:

As I understand it...

When the WTC was first car bombed in 1993, the idea was to knock one of them down to fall into the other. So the idea was not new.

When Yousef, one of the perpetrators was brought to justice, he was flown back over New York to make the point that the towers were still there, whereupon he allegedly said;

“They wouldn't be if I had enough money and enough explosives."

In reply to colina:

Seriously? You've used that well known search engine to find video of something hitting the Pentagon, and found nothing? You do the search and get 0 hits?

In reply to a lakeland climber: well yeah. its much more likely to have been a terrorist attack. but was their security so lax? i was in the states several times before 9/11 and found security to be really tight?

In reply to tony:
as I said tony have not seen any clear video of a plane hitting the pentagon.
there are 1000s of hits on this ,however have not seen anything resembling a plane on any footage I have seen.
im not going to debate this anymore as its going off tangent and I have no wish to get into a discussion on conspiracy theories,(4 the record I think it was a terrorist attack)
however if anyone has a video clearly showing a plane ,it would be good to see cause I haven't found one YET.

In reply to colina: Go on - I will bite

Here are some pictures of the wreckage from the plane:

http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/ats/pentagon757/757-americanlogo.jpg
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/conspiracy/pentagon/pentagon-wheel-04....
http://cdn-www.cracked.com/articleimages/wong/pentagon1.jpg

Presumably, these were places on the scene by special agents immediately after the missile strike?

In reply to heidi123:

When I flew home from San Francisco via New York, I had a couple of hours to burn at JFK. My explorations from the gate where I landed lead me to the taxi rank of the airport. No security. No passport control. Nothing. And the flight to London left from the gate next to the gate I landed at. I ended up having to give my green card to the stewardess!

In reply to heidi123:

(from memory) There used to be a rule where you could take a 4" blade on board but not a 6" or something like that. Remember Americans used to treat internal flights pretty much like buses: turn up, pay, get on.

ALC

In reply to buzby78:

not quite sure why you mention a missile strike.ive not mentioned missiles at all.thanks for finding the pics ,a good find. .
The pics certainly show wreckage from a plane .
At the risk of repeating myself video footage would have been good .thanks anyway

In reply to colina:


well search for it. It really isnt hard.
Although then i expect some complaints about how it isnt perfect quality and ignoring the fact a)cctv rarely is and b)even when working well isnt intended for capturing planes etc.

In reply to colina: I'm presuming there were some people on that plane that are no longer with us. I doubt their grieving families are all paid actors.

In reply to colina: This is the unofficial story... a cruise missile.. they even painted it in American Airlines colours...


youtube.com/watch?v=yRPWLqc5T20&

Honestly.. crackpots..

In reply to buzby78: I haven't read any of the comments on this post but will say this.

Anyone who has researched 9/11, and still believes the official story, has not researched enough.

The evidence refuting the official story is overwhelming.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

So "overwhelming" that noone except a few fruitcakes with too much time on their hands believe it sort of "overwhelming" ?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

This is just superb. You've made my day..

The evidence supporting the official story is pretty strong.. like the 59 passengers and crew who are now missing...

Plane wreckage..

Missing plane..

Eye witness reports..

In reply to GrahamD: "...A few..." - maybe you should do a bit more research.

The paradigm has shifted.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Brilliant... lets reply being all vague.. it makes you look really clever... or just unquestioning ignorance..

So where is this plane? the people?

In reply to Sircumfrins: It's funny, I remember your name because last year you were linking to holocaust denial sites and suggesting people should do "research" there.

You have, lets be charitable, "interesting" ideas about what research means.

In reply to Sircumfrins: How was it done and who was behind it? Please, don't be coy, enquiring minds are open to the truth.

In reply to IainRUK: Please, as if I had time to spend refuting every person that responds to my ignorant post.
I'll find a link to over 300 facts about 9-11 if you care to read?

In reply to colina:


Maybe there isn't any. Would that be a conspiracy in itself?

In reply to Sircumfrins: Yeah sure.. 'facts'.. sound like Rafa...

Just answer my questions re the plane and the missing people..

It just seems preposterous that it was easier to use a cruise missile.. instead of a plane.. they then made sure nobody saw anything.. and made a plane dissapear.. with 59 innocent people on board...


I can just see the argument that security was lacking to enable such attacks so they could respond.. just.. I don't buy it, but I see the reasoning..

But to stage all this?

In reply to IainRUK:


My in-laws are into this crap. According to them, the above are all in on it and we have all been dupped by the press.... who are also all in on it! I really didn't expect my in-laws to be fruitcakes and the ensuing argument ended up being my first Christmas bust up!

In reply to Sircumfrins: Do you really believe this idiot had the brain power to pull of such an act?

http://thebobofiles.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/12/george-bush-no-brains.jp...

And for the hundreds of people who would also have been involved to say absolutely nothing?

I mean - we found out about the US torturing prisoners. We found out about associates of Regan selling missiles to Iran. We found out about Clinton's personal interests! The list goes on and on.

Yet so far, no one has said anything. And if there is one thing humans are rubbish at... it is keeping secrets. It just doesn't add up.

In reply to EeeByGum:

I honestly don't know anyone who actually belives the offical conspiracy theory put out by the mainstream media, I read a few wacked out nut jobs on here still believe that fairytale, too much X factor no doublt.

In reply to EeeByGum:

The conspiracy theory that says it was all a CIA job was in fact a rumour started by the CIA in an attempt to convince people that they're not actually a bunch of incompetents for whom a brewery would be challenging environment for an alcohol-enhanced soiree.

In reply to a lakeland climber:
flew out of Heathrow Saturday, they had signs saying no blades over 4" next to the rules about liquids.

In reply to buzby78: I know how this forum operates and have learned from previous mistakes. There is no way I can I can continue to answer people because I prefer not to spend too much time arguing with people online.
I'll post some links that I believe some people will find interesting soon.
I would like to encourage people to look at photos of the towers collapsing and notice that within seconds you have massive ejections of heavy debris that are thrown 100's of feet away from the tower.
What force could do this? Why is concrete immediately pulverised to dust? Why does the building collapse through the area of most resistance?

In reply to johnj: I was going to mention Dr Judy Wood. There is a good interview with her on richplanet which i'll post a link too.

In reply to Sircumfrins:
Normally building are designed to withstand burning offices (fixtures, furniture etc). If the twin towers didn't come down due to fire, how did the designers in the sixties and the builders in the late sixties/early seventies manage to make it resit tonnes of burning jet fuel thirty years later?

In reply to Sircumfrins: You've ignored my questions..

In reply to Sircumfrins:

They won't bother reading it, if you can watch over a million tons of steel turn into dust, and think that some planes could do that, well they'll just see what you're trying to tell them is insane, because the weapons of mass distruction which could do that kind of job well they just don't exist, same with cold fusion, anti gravity, etc.

In reply to johnj: Steel turning to dust? Fascinating, tell us more.

In reply to johnj: OK.. where did the plane go for the pentagon..

I do think planes hitting a tower block full of fuel causing a huge explosion and serious fire could cause that.

In reply to johnj:


a million tons of steel? Really?
There might not be some other materials involved?


see above.


oh what WMD do you have in mind?


oh you have to be trolling.

In reply to johnj:

Are you suggesting that not only was 9/11 an inside job, but "they" used a top secret weapon system - which has never been seen deployed in war - to destroy the towers?

In reply to johnj:

How do these differ from weapons of mass destruction? Sounds intriguing...

In reply to TobyA:

well the whole WMD story from the start was a smokescreen, for example gas doesn't destroy anything it kills people.

I've been reading about this stuff for a loooooooooong time now

If you want to read the psyop, go here

http://www.veteranstoday.com/category/911-and-terror-war/

if you want to read, the so called last man standing, as already posted on this thread, hence the nobody reads this stuff

go here

http://www.drjudywood.co.uk/

all I can say is, the offical story is so full of holes

I don't know what the truth is, but the links I've posted pose some very intresting questions, If you think the links are bogus well thats your call.

Whole can of worms time!

In reply to Sircumfrins:

She's a CIA operative. This blog says so, so it must be true http://donaldfox.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/dr-judy-wood-911-gatekeeper-extra...

In reply to johnj:


well thats ok then.


can you get to the specifics of how the WTC was destroyed. You seemed to be indicating it was cause by a WMD, so what was it?

In reply to buzby78: Although the 'official' narrative about 911 has problems I think one of the big issues is the inability for the government agencies involved to say 'we don't know'. The public demands answers when events such as this happen and we have been offered a very likely scenario. Perhaps someone will come up with an evidence-backed and realistic alternative but at the moment I see most people arguing over semantics and using small areas of doubt to discredit the official major conclusions.
I suggest you look into the history of Al-Qaeda and see that there is an explanation as to who is to blame for many of the well armed, well trained and formerly well financed islamic extremist groups seeking to commit 'terrorist attacks' on the West. Not to mention who is pushing large numbers of disaffected people who's lives and countries have been ruined towards supporting these groups.

In reply to dissonance:


Yes, but I'd rather you did the reading on the links rather than making assumptions of my assumptions, so for the meantime like them real big fish I'll refer to the as WMD

In reply to dissonance:

Cans of worms! Many cans of genetically modified super CIA wood worms specially trained to eat the structures of the buildings from the inside out!

In reply to johnj:

Cheers.

Fascinating article on how Ossama Bin Laden actually died in 2001 and the operation to assassinate him last year was a ploy to get Obama re elected.

The that other site revealed a lot I didn't know about, Directed energy weapons for example.

You don't honestly believe any of that shite do you?

In reply to Removed User:

I'd say I believe it a lot more than some radical dudes with box cutters overpowered planes full of people, then in 75% of the case foxed the worlds best air defence system and the managed to hit targets 2 which completed turned to dust, then WTC7 which was the headquarters for the whole shooting match which was completely over engineered just fell down cos someone had been smoking a big bong in the basement, and then in the pentangle the ones who might have blown the whistle all got squished.

In reply to johnj:

Aye, fair enough.


Cheers.

In reply to Sircumfrins:


Have you ever watched a controlled demolition of a building? It's not that unusual for debris to be thrown great distances. A woman in Glasgow was killed a few years ago when they demolished one of the towers in the Gorbals in Glasgow.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/family-sues-over-gorbals-b...

She was hundreds of feet away in the so-called 'safe zone'. Maybe that was a conspiracy too for her non-payment of Council tax?



Why do you assume it's concrete dust you are seeing?



Probably because the initial impact so seriously compromised the structure locally or a column(s) had defective fire proofing on it and collapsed well within its designed period of fire resistance, thereby causing a sudden massive increase in point load on the floor below, thereby increasing the rapid overall collapse of the building/buildings. It's not rocket science, just simple construction deficiencies and basic engineering.

Yes, it could all have been done by a bunch of munchkins in black ninja suits and special, secret weapons, but seriously...what are the chances compared to the obvious explanation? Jeez!

In reply to johnj: Don't tease us, come on, who do you think was behind it and how did they do it?

In reply to Fraser:



Not wanting to be overly reactive but somone on here might find that last statement as a bit....well insensitive....

In reply to johnj:


Fair enough. Rather than believe it was a horrific twist to the common tried and tested terrorist tactic of hijacking aircraft to target their established enemies of the USA, you choose to believe it was a massive multi-agency conspiracy to kill the US' own citizens deploying top secret weapons systems never seen before or since on the battlefield with the conspirators themselves assassinated by "super" conspirators, and all protected by a wall of silence.
Just to make sure I understand you right?

In reply to Father Noel Furlong:

Fair point, sorry. It was supposed to illustrate my contempt for a numpty's rationale.

In reply to johnj: Hey johnj. As I mentioned above there is no point posting on this topic as these people have already made up there mind...which is extremely closed minded of them.
I'm always reading about things that can potentially shatter my current world view. I believe that's the only way to live.
I don't believe but KNOW the official story is ridiculously flawed and encourage others to investigate 9-11.
It's the most tragic and important event in my generation and it's vitally important to know the truth as specific agendas continue to be pushed because of it.
I'll put some links up after my climbing session...although I know the majority of people won't look at them...yet will continue to tow the line.
You know who you are.

In reply to Fraser:

Couldn't agree more....some real pish being posted on this subject!

In reply to Fraser: So what are you saying? It was a controlled demolition?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Oh do keep up! It was either Judy Wood and her directed energy weapons, or it was Donald Fox and his mini-nukes, or it was the CIA with their thermite. It most definitely wasn't a bunch of crazed nutters in hijacked planes, because no-one saw anything that might suggest that to be the case.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

Ok, as you won't believe me anyway, here goes.

The technolgy whilst based on Telsa work, they just can't make it under earths gravity, so the Nazis of course who else whould it be developed anti gravity in about 34, research maybe the Nazi bell. Basically if you understand magnets well thats all it is, so off the went into outer space and also on the secret mooooooooooon bases, they say the KFC up there tastes mighty fine, to make WMD. Then beacause they had developed looking glass technology, in 1971 they discovered that on 9/11 bad shit was going to happen, what they didn't know at that point was they were looking at a time line, not all of future just a timeline.........

In reply to Sircumfrins:


Well it seems we agree on one thing!

In reply to Sircumfrins: I think it is you who is closed minded...

I sat and watched the planes hit..

It seems a very elaborate system to fake something which could just have been explained on a bomb planted by terrorists..

You've still not answered the question regarding the missing plane, flight 77?

In reply to johnj: You shouldn't mock the afflicted, mental health problems are more common than you think.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I could equally accuse you of having a closed mind.

For me, the way to approach any subject is with a rational and skeptical head, remember that not all opinions are equal and keep in mind that when there are competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions is usually the correct one (Occam's razor).

Actively seeking out things that 'can shatter your world view', is obviously going to bias your reasoning somewhat.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Stop trying to introduce reason and rationality to this discussion. Maybe ask about him about the holocaust ...

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I find if you open your mind too much, your brain falls out.

In reply to off-duty:


I may have believed the story if the buildings had been damaged in the way that you would have expected, i.e partial faliure, not as what happened they turned to dust, and there was a big hole at the bottom, I'd like to know where the 100 odd floors went to and why they didn't follow the path of least resistance and end up in a big pile of rubble. You seem to be saying I'm implying something, I can give you theories like your rather silly one for as long as you want.

Can you explain where the few million tons of builings went to?

In reply to johnj:

It was all there.. that's why a decade later they still haven't finished redeveloping the site..

In reply to IainRUK:

For real, roflmao!

In reply to johnj:

Fair enough you clearly saw something different from me. When I watched the buildings collapse I should have seen them vanishing.

I guess the 1.2 million tons removed don't count, or aren't enough or something.

Still now they've got a weapon that can convert all that mass into nothing shouldn't we be expecting free energy production now?

In reply to johnj:


The total mass of both Towers was 1.5 million tonnes: http://www.nysm.nysed.gov/wtc/about/facts.html

There was a big pile of rubble afterwards, I'm not sure what you're on about.

In reply to off-duty:

so you didn't seem rising dust like a nuke had go off, effectively yes the shape of the structure disapears, not really a collaspe in the conventional sense


No you're guessing, like pin the tail on the donkey?


I think before we can understand that we need to understand how to forgive rather than blowing the shit out of the place and killing folk, whole other subject.

In reply to johnj: Dust goes up.. spreads out..

In reply to IainRUK:

I don't understand your point have you missed some bits out?

In reply to johnj:

You do know the dust cloud isn't a result of the bomb but as a result of the bombs effect - eg collapsing structures and massive displacement of air. Like, say when a 110 story building collapses...


>

Ah, while your source for it "disappearing" is YouTube? I was actually going off the figures from the companies employed to shift the rubble.


A whole other subject it might be, but it is entirely predicated on your suggestion that this matter "deconverter" system exists and is therefore yet another thing that is not only being kept secret by the conspirators, but also being used in one gigantic attack on the US own citizens, rather than in any of the various wars the US are involved in, or used to produce energy and shift the power balance massively in favour of those who own it.

Me - I'm still going with the hi-jackers.

In reply to johnj: Mushroom cloud..

That's just a standard cloud column.. you see it in upwelling events.. goes up.. spreads out.. you even see the building slowly collapse on itself..

In reply to off-duty:
Will thats what you think, many others probably more qualified and also less qualified would disagree
This is your assuption, if you'd bothered to read the links i posted in any detail you'd have seen more.
But if we're going to talk about youtube why is it there there is so much breakdwon on there but none on the TV, but we get endless of slo-mo football of somebody tripping up? something to hide perhaps?

Well yes if they used it in war well then others would start to develop it, keep em in the dark ages much easier to manage


Fair enough, doesn't mean i have to

In reply to johnj:


not that difficult. Up until that point if you got hijacked then the odds were you would just be bored for a couple of days. That and they wouldnt be fighting the


75%?
Also where does this claim of best air defence system come from. Possibly against the Russians but not designed for internal use.


they didnt.


wait a second. Are you claiming WTC7 was the base for the government ninjas?
Dunno about anyone else but if i was planning to either blow buildings up/use space lasers I would be making the nerve centre a tad further away.


pentagon even. Interesting most of the 125 were civilians.
You seem to be implying that the most of the people involved were killed off, guess it makes the reason no one squeals easier to claim but has a few flaws. Like why they didnt notice there was something aimed at them and for those who killed the first lot why they didnt get paranoid that someone else might be after them.

In reply to IainRUK:

'Slowly collaspe', no it would have had to follow the laws of motion, that one just kept falling at a uniform rate, as the mass of the tower above reduces as its falling the strength of the lower becomes stronger as its no longer load bearing, not in this case it kept falling through itsself well it doesnt fall through itself more like a firework burning down and pluming out, just all wrong.

In reply to johnj:


Umm, well a quick google reveals the towers had 7 underground levels, so I'd guess all of that space was filled up. The rest was spread all around the ground, exactly as you'd expect really and as is shown on the thousands of photos available to view online. If you think about it, most buildings are more void than solid, so what appears a big monolith on the outside is in reality a lot 'less' when broken down to its constituent parts and all the voids removed. Like I said before it's pretty simple. You've over analysing it and looking for conspiracies.

You're welcome to do so of course, but you can't be surprised when folk POINT OUT THE BLEEDING OBVIOUS.

In reply to dissonance:

This is what happens on here, the group think agrees one thing then if there is a view outside that more and more people come in with broken down bits of others statments to somebody else at a differnet time to try and find some relievance. Until folk go away or whatever. Nothing what anyone has said has changed probably anybodies view.

In reply to johnj: Then why not try giving a coherent idea of what you think happened (preferably in English)?

In reply to johnj:

Okay, I understand the first 8 words there, but after that it's gibberish. Can you rephrase it so we can understand what you're trying to say?

In reply to Sir Chasm:

I think that if those buildings had not have been destroyed when the planes hit, and there was only a partial failure, people may have thought, you know what isn't it time that we gave peace a chance, crazy radical nut jobs are prepared to die crashing planes like that man you can never ever win against that. Lets have a go at increasing the peace eh?

However too much money on it so down they came, all insured anyway, nice little war to fight, it just didn't look real more like a sci-fi movie bout a war in outer space.

In reply to Fraser:

More and more people want to tell me I'm wrong because i don't agree with the larger peer group.

In reply to johnj:


It doesn't though, it build up layer upon layer as it all comes down... matter doesn't disappear, except a bit of dust thrown out sideways. This is all very clear in the news films of the time - we saw them often enough for days on end.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

But it should all go out side ways, does a rock falling off the top of a mountain destroy the mountain?

In reply to johnj:


Yep, like on gravity, antibiotics, the grade of Three Pebble Slab etc.

But back on subject, have you read the excellent book "The Looming Towers" by Lawrence Wright? It's great and fascinating. You'd probably enjoy it.

In reply to TobyA:

No i haven't, you've told me about this one before, I would read it if I had a copy.

In reply to johnj:

I don't know if you saw the film of the big rock fall on the Petit Dru a while ago.... it looked quite a bit like the films of the buildings collapsing, especially the dust cloud. Although in fact it was different as rock is solid, not empty structures. What happened was the floors just collapsed one on top of the others. The vertical structures were beams than concertinaed or went sideways. The momentum once the buildings started falling would have been colossal, once underway no structure could have resisted. The delay was the time it took for the heat to weaken the vertical structures, destroying the concrete casings and heating the steel inside until it became incapable of supporting the load.

As I said the procedure was very clear from the news film of the time.

PS. I don't think I can be considered as belonging to the ukc peer group, there aren't many subjects I agree with the majority on... which doesn't prove anything much I'll grant you.... I could be in the plot too, but crafty like.

In reply to johnj: Now we're getting somewhere, so the towers were rigged to be demolished (or the energy weapon was ready) in case the planes didn't do the job? So was the US government behind the hijackings or merely aware they were going to happen?

In reply to johnj: I'd lend you mine if i was local. Its quite a well known book now so maybe your local library has a copy or could get one? Alternatively, they're only 8 quid with free delivery on Amazon now as its a paperback.

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

With regards to the momentum it started from 0 mph x gravity, so it may have broken a few floors, at that point the falling floors would have different vectors from straight down due to all the anglular upward force of uprights still in place, plus you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength so the acceleration would not be constant. At maybe mid height everything would have started going sideways, law of entropy and all that path of least resistance, and you'd have probably be left with half a tower.

But then it wouldn't have even started with that force, the weakened steel would have partailly collasped and at most it would have bent, that fuel burns out like a flash when in the open hardly time to do any real damage

I've been watching the videos for a long time now Bruce, I'm not saying I know what happened, I just can't see it how the mainstream do anymore just looks so obvious that aditional factors were required for total distruction.

In reply to TobyA: Cheers anyway, I will try and get to it.

In reply to johnj:

I don't care about the size of your peer group. I care about the tenuous nature of your theory and the extremely farfetched (and ill thought through) consequences and implications of magic matter destroyers and self destructing massive numbers of multi-agency conspirators, able to not just kill their own side but then kill each other.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

You're asking me questions that I have no way of knowing the answer to, all I can say is if a plot so clever that could destroy the world trade centre could be hatched don't you think somebody in the oh so intelegence savvy switched rulers of the first world would have known about it?

In reply to johnj:

eh? you are assuming 100% capture of info..

In reply to off-duty:

So you're the babalon yeah? well you've jumped to all the wrong conclusions, they're not my theories they are theories that you can read about in the free western world.

I just don't buy the current can of worms.

In reply to johnj:


You have already said that but it is not exact (I've already said this too) as the weight of the collapsing structure can't evaporate, it builds up. No need for using words like entropy and vectors, they add nothing and are not appropriate.... All the forces are vertically down (gravity) countered by the upward force of the remaining structure lower down beneath the accelerating and ever increasing mass coming down. Momentum is the key.

It started building up as soon as the floors directly affected by the fires collapsed, due to the vertical structures (steel beams cased in concrete) buckling when they heated beyond a temperature which reduced their resistance to less than the weight bearing down on them. This weight increased floor by floor, but more important the kinetic energy developed (square of velocity) made all resistance impossible, as the daleks would say.

In reply to IainRUK:

You'd need about a 2% capture rate to sniff that one, as soon as the job was done all the players were up there for the world to see, done and dusted.

I love it when people think "research" means reading websites...

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So you can state how a tower fell without even using a simple terms like vetor, I can see why you quote the Daleks lol.

In reply to colina:


Scud missile, flying too fast. Ordered by Dick Cheney.Who is a reptoid.

In reply to Jim Brooke:

Haha. I totally agree.

In reply to johnj: "0 mph x gravity" mph and gravity dont mix get your units right.

"anglular upward force " there is no angular force since this isnt a rotating mass, just force.

the base would not increase in strength just change in position as the rubble built up.

everything would not just start to go sideways, newtons second law.

the law of entropy would say it falls straight down because the adjacent is always shorter than the hypotenuse. this gives the path of least resistance to be down.

half a tower, just think about that one again.

bent steel is buggered steel, bend a tube on your bike it wont be fun when it fails.

a sudden change in temp can do damage since the heat cant be dissipated. then the big big fire did the rest.

IF your going to poke fun at other users, sort your own posts out first.
any corrections welcome.

In reply to johnj:

You have an opinion. It differs from most others.

Whilst everyone should have the right to express an opinion, they should also be prepared to be told its pish when it doesn't pass simple, intuitive (to most) tests based on reason, logic and evidence.

If people like you knew how hard it was to keep secrets, there probably wouldn't be any conspiracy theories at all.

In reply to buzby78: Here is the Dr Judy Wood interview:
Part 1: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=76&part=1

Then click "Click to watch next part of the show"

Part 2: http://www.richplanet.net/starship_main.php?ref=78&part=1

Then click "Click to watch next part of the show"

I found the section on burnt out cars (very far away from the collapsing towers) extremely interesting. This phenomena in it's own right should raise alarms as the people were not incinerated by the dust clouds however certain makes of cars were burnt (and rusted) beyond repair.

A truly fascinating interview.

I challenge you to watch the whole documentary and not have your point of view challenged.

In reply to jonny2vests: I was once in a talk.. someone spoke up saying they had a theory... an academic listened.. and then retorted.. 'that's not a theory.. no evidence supports it'

In reply to itsThere:

that ones easy to understand standing start
of course there is an angular force did you not see the top of the building twist we need to define direction


it would increase in strength because you are reducing load from it
ok i'll give you that one, not everything would go sideways, but not in the assumed case would everything go down, newtons second law


but when down has something in the way which due to how it was built it gets stronger and stronger like a pyramid path of least resistance is not down


yeah you're right tower would have never started falling it would have bent first.

no its not a spring bends all the time, depends what it was designed for

yes every time our coal fire gets hot the chimney falls down and we have to build a new house


it's too easy that way, gotto have some banter with the daleks now.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Incredulous...
http://911logic.wordpress.com/

You should read that..

Just superb...

Cars get burnt.. they melt..

In reply to jonny2vests:

Yes I agree, why i think the silly tabloid tale is proper pish


This is why i can read all about how they probably did it, however the people with the real power, don't care cos most folk think how they did it is nuts. QED

In reply to off-duty:


you would start getting suspicious about why the pension scheme appeared so good wouldnt you, after the orders came in to bump off someone lower down the chain of command.

The other bit that confuses me is what was the plan behind this. I am assuming it was to get Saddam in which case why didnt they plant some decent evidence framing him.

In reply to IainRUK: I read it. What's your point?
Why did the cars get burnt to such a degree when they were well away from any falling towers? Are you saying that embers set cars alight?

What do you think of this link?

http://drjudywood.com/articles/DEW/StarWarsBeam5.html

In reply to johnj:


Are you aware that this element of logic is common to all conspiracy theories? Is that just coincidence?

In reply to Jim Brooke:

It's going to play a big part in it, that's what makes them what they are, people generally with some power over some others conspire to reach a certain outcome, and not all conspiracy theories are conspiracy, but some are, just the way of the world.

In reply to Sircumfrins: I've changed my mind.. this is far more likely than 2 planes hitting the towers.. full of fuel.. causing huge explosions..

You've still not answered my question regarding flight 77? where did it go?

You've spent all day saying its directed energy.. star wars beams.. but where are the 59 people and flight 77?

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Photos of burnt out cars does not equal space laser. Don't you think it even slightly odd that there is no footage of the space laser doing its thing?

In reply to Sircumfrins: Cars do burn to such a degree.. Have you watched a car burn? They burn very localised and very intensely..

In reply to jonny2vests:

There was... the CIA got hold of all the footage...

In reply to dissonance:

That's it though..

Its like if they wanted to make it seem as though the terrorists blew up the twin towers.. why not just strap a load of explosives in the basements, bring them down and frame a group of terrorists.. nice neat package... instead they kidnap planes.. fly them into the buildings.. use undemonstrated space technology..

yet couldn't just hide a few barrels of anthrax and some uranium in the desert and find them a few months later..

In reply to IainRUK:

Oh. Bugger.

They had a big day, what with their office getting melted and everything too.

In reply to johnj:

The point is not whether some conspiracy theories turn out to be true (of course they do, that's trivial). The point is about your logic. Either you ignore that argument altogether, or you have to accept that we are ruled by shape-shifting reptilian overlords, QED.

In reply to Jim Brooke:

Can you explain how my logic links the possible use of classified Tesla based technology to the theories of David Icke?

In reply to johnj:

You both live on the same planet.

In reply to jonny2vests:

How about compared that to Tesla and Icke in one throw away comment, er, wow, what to say, I'm almost speechless... lol cheers!

In reply to Sircumfrins: It did not challenge me at all...

Not in the slightest, it left me with many questions..

Like mine to you about where Flight 77 is..

In reply to johnj:

Well, the Babylon actually...

well you've jumped to all the wrong conclusions, they're not my theories they are theories that you can read about in the free western world.

I can also read Mad magazine, Private Eye and the Daily Mail, and I tend not to believe everything I read there either. And they have the benefit of editors and a reputation to maintain, rather than self publication (in all senses of the words).



There's skepticism and there is wilful blindness. I take it Occam's razor is part of the conspiracy as well.

In reply to johnj:

I already did. And I never mentioned David Icke - he's some crackpot who has go it ALL WRONG about the Reptilians.

Referring to 9/11, you presented the remarkable logical proof : "the people with the real power don't care cos most folk think how they did it [9/11] is nuts. QED".

So in referring to our overlord masters, I say "the shape shifting lizards with real power don't care cos most folk think how they do it [conceal themselves] is nuts. QED".

In reply to johnj:

You talk funny. My head hurts.

In reply to johnj: let me guess,you also think the moon landings were faked.you think vacancies cause autism,you think the world leaders are on big family.aeroplanes are dropping mind control drugs on us.
You like to base your twisted beliefs on ideas with NO evidence or rational thought to support them.
You like to think you are amongst a special group of people who 'think out of the box' you are in on the secret.
Why not gather all your 9/11 evidence and present it to a government willing to listen,then you will be forever known as the man who took down the u.s superpower.
Every point you and your pal sircumalot makes is proven wrong by the people above who actually reads the facts and come to a rational decision.
The drum you 9/11 morons keep banging has worn out now and the big names have moved on and accepted it for what it was....a terrorist attack

In reply to Jim Brooke:

You may not have mentioned Icke but he is credited mainly with your assumptions of my throw away comment about presentation of logical proof. Also you taking the quote of of context is proof that you can assume things which are not logical or proof.

In reply to mark s:

Look at this more people who understand everything, well done

In reply to johnj: It's not proper trolling if you keep replying.

In reply to off-duty:

So you can read a forum and understand the context of what somebody posts also, well done maybe you're related to mystic meg. lol

In reply to johnj:

No, that's definitely not why people are telling you you're wrong. It's because....oh you know what, I give up. Life's too short. As you yourself said, some people have already made up their minds and there's no persuading them otherwise.

In reply to johnj:

Oh, I noticee you didn't choose to respond to the clarification as to what happened to 'all the rubble' you claim went missing. Any special reason for the omission?

In reply to johnj:

Have to say, I'm quite impressed at your ability to remain jovial in light of the kicking you're getting. Good effort

In reply to Fraser: Has it been mentioned it went to the perfectly named "Fresh Kills" landfill site? It's a good job irony isn't Americans' strongest suit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresh_Kills_Landfill#Post-9.2F11

In reply to IainRUK: Really? It did not challenge you at all? Not even all the burnt out cars? You don't find it strange that there are burnt out cars everywhere and the only plausible explanation as to how they were burned is the ash cloud that enveloped New York...which somehow didn't burn all the people...I tip my hat to you sir.
You continue to go on about Flight 77. Your answer to that is Operation Northwood. Look it up and learn something about a declassified project that envisioned the exact same scenario.
Oh yes, and do you actually believe that the terrorist "pilot" (who couldn't qualify to fly a Cessna) was able to pull off one of the most difficult descending spiralling turns, that 100's of really experienced pilots said was impossible, just to hit a a section of the Pentagon that was undergoing renovations...instead of continuing on it's straight trajectory which would have hit the building anyway?
Here's a question for you and anyone else that believes the official story...How do terrorists get NORAD to stand down? See the Norman Mineta testimony for further info.

In reply to Fraser:

Exaclty, so i'm wrong so what, get over it, but, you're back again to agree, and more and more people want to reply to me to tell me I'm wrong.

In reply to jonny2vests:

Cheers we've be discussing this for a good while on here now so you develop a robustnest, off out anyway now, have fun ;+)

In reply to Sircumfrins:

So your best explanation for some burnt out cars is a space laser? Really? I wonder how you get to be that skewed.

I work in the field of space geodesy, so I have some perspective on the silliness of what is being said. Maybe I'm in on it though.

In reply to johnj:

No worries John, I'm sure you're a top bloke in real life.

In reply to Sircumfrins: Operation Northwoods? Hmmmm, so 9/11 was an incident created by the US in order to give grounds for an invasion of Saudi Arabia?

In reply to johnj: I've got it! Bin Laden was working for the CIA. They all plotted it together

In reply to Sircumalot:


can you provide links to these 100's who say this?

In reply to Sircumfrins:


There is air between the floors to begin with, there isn't afterwards. It's a lot of air and it has to go somewhere in very little time. Big pressure, big areas, big forces.


See above. Gravity and air pressure.


Do yourself a favor, calculate the energy released in the collapse then compare the figure to say detonating a small nuclear weapon. Why was the damage so total? Because the energy released was enormous. That's the energy stored in the shape/mass of the buildings by the way, just in case you think I'm somehow suggesting the towers were 'nuked'.


I presume you mean why does the central structure collapse? Because it's sufficiently weakened primarily by fire that it can no longer support the mass above.

jk

In reply to buzby78:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

Then have another look

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

And then if you are still confused

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/9/11_conspiracy_theories

In reply to jkarran: ive read the weight at 750,000 tonnes each.roughly a third above the impact area in one tower and a quarter in the other.that weight dropping into the next and each floor adding to that and muppets still ask why there was explosions and loud noises like bombs?
they use firefighter quotes from the day like 'i heard explosions' what do they think is going through those blokes heads,they are going to be in a mental state like never before.
the explosives needed to bring that down would have been far louder than anything heard that day.

why do the so called 9/11 truth seekers seem surprised when they get ridiculed ?

In reply to johnj:

I learnt what the word "vector" meant over 50 years ago and your use of it adds nothing, force and direction have been covered, as with your passing mention of entropy you are, like many who read texts they don't really understand, trying to add weight to your pretty well non-existent "arguments" by using what you think are technical terms. It might be more interesting if you explained why you thought:

"at that point the falling floors would have different vectors from straight down due to all the angular upward force of uprights still in place, plus you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength so the acceleration would not be constant."

What "removed mass from above"? How did the upward supports become "angular"? Why would the base "increase in strength"?

Either explain your incomprehensible statements of admit you are just copying and pasting gobbledygook that you don't understand yourself.

In reply to jonny2vests: When have i ever referred to a space laser? Please quote that passage for me.

In reply to mark s: You've never heard of these guys?

http://www.pilotsfor911truth.org/

In reply to Sircumfrins:

Oops! Forgot I'd set up that site. I'd better take it down in case anyone still falls for it.

ALC

In reply to Sircumfrins: Go and read 911 myths.. it deals with the stand down... all a myth...

You still don't say what happened to 77.. Northwood.. OK explain where 77 is.. it was seen by a pilot flying low 100m from the side of the pentagon.. it was seen on radar going towards DC.. so where is it?

No vague answers..

In reply to Sircumfrins:

If it was all a US plot to create reasons to invade Iraq, how all the bad guys were Saudis?

In reply to Sircumfrins: haha and that's 100's of pilots? Need to try harder.

In reply to Sircumfrins: I'm sure we would all like a little post from you discribing the day of 11th Sept an way happened and who did what.try and include information that is good.no copy and paste stuff.just explaination of the main events in your eyes.

In reply to jkarran: You think that gravity and air pressure caused this mushroom effect?

http://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2012/06/02/the-judy-wood-enigma-a-disc...

In reply to Sircumfrins: Ok so read about Northwood.. so where is the aircraft?

In reply to tony:

Now we’re getting down to brass tacks - forget all the orchestrated 9/11 inside job stuff (which is clearly bollocks), the real issue is how and why the Bush administration managed to steer the agenda away from dealing with the real treat (Saudi terrorists and Taliban) to invading a country that had no involvement with 9/11 on the basis of dodgy WMD intelligence.

In reply to Phil79:

Err... the invasion of Afghanistan was a direct response to the Taliban threat...

In reply to Sircumfrins:


A very energetic building collapse (dust cloud) plus fire (smoke column)... Quite frankly, yes I do.

I'm not sure what you think it shows, perhaps you could explain?

jk

In reply to IainRUK: Yes, but it wasn't the Taleban flying those planes, it was sodding Saudis - trained in the US. So the question is valid.

In reply to IainRUK:

Sorry, what I meant is how did we end up invading Iraq in addition to Afghanistan.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward: Saudi nationals.. they could have been from anywhere

Generally the US/UK have a strong relationship with Saudi.. sales.. forces based there..

I'm not sure there was any case to attack them..

The Taliban strong hold was Afghanistan.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

The problem I have with arguments like this is that the conspiracy theorist who uses photos to validate their argument always use assumptions that it is a conspiracy theory because it doesn't look right.

"You can't see any stars in space photos therefore man hasn't been to space" is based on the incorrect assumption that you can see stars from space. The irony is that if man hasn't been to space, how would anyone know?

In exactly the same way, you are saying a building falling as a result of a plane attack shouldn't create that sort of mushroom cloud. Unfortunately, you provide absolutely no evidence to back up that assertion.

The best I can offer, is that it proves nothing one way or another but on the side of the non-conspiracy theorists is the simple fact that a plane hit the building, there was a massive fire and then the building fell down. Why that isn't sufficient an explanation is beyond me.

In reply to IainRUK:

You're missing the point a bit, Iain. The contention of the conspiracy theory nutters is that 9/11 was a US set-up, to create a rationale for the invasion of Iraq, so that Dubya could finish what his daddy started. If that was the case, why did the US not create a paper trail that led right back to Saddam Hussein, rather than to a random bunch of Saudis?

In reply to tony: ok.. so the US is clever enough to develop space age weaponry.. which hasn't been proven to exist.. but just confused nationalities when framing all this..

It does seem the most elaborate hoax attack..

I'd like the big ray gun idea if it wasn't such a sick subject..

In reply to IainRUK:

Finally somebody actually points out one of the key things here.

The wealth of utter nonsense and speculation made up (and I mean MADE UP) is an insult to the families of those who died and who have to face a regular onslaught of this nonsense while they simply want to grieve.

In reply to EeeByGum:


Eh? What are you on about? I mean, I can understand why photos light metered on close objects, the earth, moon, astronaut, ISS etc might not allow for seeing stars because the exposure length will be too short, but with the naked eye, I would of thought you could see more stars than within earth's atmosphere? No? Or perhaps you mean there are so many stars visible, that it becomes more difficult to distinguish one star from another? Anyway, this seems plain wrong to me.

In reply to Jimbo W:

vimeo.com/38409143

In reply to Jimbo W: It is a classic conspiracy from the moon landings. There are no stars in the photos taken from the moon (and spacewalks etc generally) therefore we didn't go to space.

A complete load of tosh as you pointed out. I was simply using it as an example to put my point across that conspiracy theorists always seem to use wild (but wrong) assumptions on why photos / videos look as thy do.

In reply to buzby78: People are deviating off topic here. I think we need to focus on the towers as this is crucial evidence.

Never has a modern steel structured building collapsed, SYMMETRICALLY AND AT NEAR FREE FALL SPEED, due to fire. Nevermind 3 in one day!

Take a look at this building that was ablaze in Madrid...it did not collapse!

http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/windsor.html

Building 7 is the smoking gun in this whole issue.

It was not hit by a plane.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

I asked you a direct question.

In reply to Sircumfrins:


Yes they have. Also in experiments, collapse of steel structures in fire has been seen.





That was a concrete and steel building. The steel bit did collapse.

In reply to Sircumfrins: How many times have sky scrapers been hit by large passenger airliners?

Maybe, just maybe, we can therefore expect to see something different..

You still have not answered where flight 77 is?

In reply to johnj:

You are more than welcome to assume whatever the f*** you like. Personally I don't assume anything, I come to conclusions based on evidence and rational logic.

In reply to Sircumfrins: So lets get this right..

The whole attack was framed to point the finger at Iraq and justify the war..

Yet they used Saudi's...

Planes didn't bring down the WTC's.. even though we saw them hit..

A huge ray gun did.. which, in one of the most populated well filmed city in the world, nobody saw operating.. and no evidence of such a weapon exists..

And you can't say what happened to flight 77.. but it didn't hit the pentagon..

Do you not realise there are HUGE holes in your arguments.

In reply to Jim Brooke:

Yes like lots of other people you read something i wrote late at night and now say that was rational logic, good job!

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

So because you can't understand something it's gobbledygook, to be expected really as you keep saying we should dumb it down as noted above, all that happens if i answer your questions is I waste time. If you want to read theories read the links and email them with your questions.

In reply to gingersmut:

Same as when the earth was flat and mars was a star, life moves on

In reply to Sircumfrins:
Was it hit by a plane?

Why were the bad guys Saudis?

In reply to gingersmut:

And I just don't buy it, too perfect, the more I see too, the more it's so obvious that there is a lot more to it. We can't help the way we think, that makes us human, and if others want to ridicule us for what we think, that's cool, such is life

In reply to johnj:

Alternatively, you could try answering questions, rather than just posting links to random websites.

Assuming it's not gobbledydook, could you explain what you said about the removed mass from above, and what's the mechanics behind the base becoming stronger?

And why were the bad guys Saudis?

In reply to johnj:

There was little evidence the earth was flat..

There is evidence the WTC got hit by 2 huge passenger jets..

There is no evidence of a huge ray gun being used in downtown NYC..

There is evidence of super high heat in the towers from the impact of said jets..

In reply to johnj:

You do understand Occams Razor...

In reply to gingersmut:
I see it like a tabloid version of the story, then to get a bit more info you watch Newsnight, then to get more info you start reading all sources and the truth for you can only be that which resonates with you.


As said above I don't know which theory is actual what happened, I just can't believe the dummed down version, it just looks so unreal

In reply to IainRUK:

yeah, doesn't make it the case in all examples tho does it.

In reply to gingersmut:

why not, what is sane, in an insane world?

In reply to IainRUK:

There is a lot of evidence about a lot of things, what you choose to believe does not make the other stuff untrue.

In reply to johnj:

No, but if logic suggests something is true it normally is..

All logic points to 2 jets hitting 2 towers..

Is there any evidence of this huge ray gun?

In reply to IainRUK:

Yes but does all logic point to 3 towers failing because 2 jets hit them

who said it was a huge ray gun?

In reply to johnj:


No, I understand what these terms mean and when they are appropriate - you clearly don't which is why you use the words incorrectly and type sentences which are not comprehensible. If you mastered the subject a little better you would accept a discussion - not the same as saying read the links - and explain such simple things such as what you mean by "you've removed mass from above so the base would be increasing in strength" and how this "removal of mass" took place.

If you understand what you are posting you would be able to explain yourself here, for as start. Afterwards you could do the same for other strangely worded phrases.

In reply to johnj: As said.. there was a huge collapse.. millions of tonnes hitting the ground.. huge tremors.. fire damage..

So.. WTC's collapse.. huge loss of life.. why risk the whole story by demolishing a much smaller, evacuated building.. what did they have to gain?

Logically why bring that one down?

In reply to johnj:

What's the directed energy beam which burns all cars in its path..

In reply to Bruce Hooker:

This is so obvious, the upper floors were no longer there the lower floor had been supporting them so the lower structure at that moment was stronger. Now we have a falling mass, which due to all those things which you say are not important is moving through free space, your unimportant factors are important to the direction of the falling mass, but you seem to believe it falls through its own footprint and keeps accelerating, it's not really me you have an argument with it's Isaac Newton, but there you go

In reply to johnj:


good question. that website you pointed us to was rather vague about what they claimed it was hence why various people responding chose laser/ray gun etc (probably based on tv shows or movies in their formative years).


Perhaps you can clear it up to us and explain what sort of weapon it was?

In reply to IainRUK:

Because as posted on here several times, the third tower was the HQ, if there were any plans of a big dems job on the towers, that's where it would have been.

Now the BBC announced it fell down 23 minutes before it did, well somebody knew there was a bit more about the timeline of events to all this than what we watched on the TV

In reply to Sircumfrins:


Again - what does this prove? Was the building in Madrid 110 stories high? Was it built in exactly the same way as the trade towers? Had a 757 flown into it at high speed? Just because a building has supposedly never fallen down due to fire, doesn't mean anything.

Based on your hypothesis above, you could conclude that since all people who die of cancer drink water, drinking water causes death by cancer... which is utter rubbish.

Correlation does not mean causation. The number one error made by conspiracy theorists.

In reply to dissonance:

as already also said it comes under the term of WMD

In reply to johnj:

Why not use the HQ somewhere away from the attack site.. or inside the actual towers?

Did they (the BBC)? There was no simple confusion?

Part of the missile evidence from the pentagon was an official saying 'and it was hit by the missile.. plane'...

Just a simple mistake and that's concrete evidence.. more so than the missing 59 people.. missing plane.. and plane wreckage found at the impact site..

In reply to johnj: And let me get this right..

BBC editors and news reporters were also in on this..

Why did they need to be?

It seems a huge risk to involve them as there was no need to involve anymore than the CIA/martians involved in this hoax..

I'm still waiting to find out what happened to flight 77? Its not the wreckage.. it was tracked on radar.. lost.. found again (as it had changed direction) and lost in DC...

In reply to johnj: So "they" knocked building 7 down because that's where "they" kept the 9/11 plans? Why didn't "they" hide their plans somewhere else? Loving your work.

In reply to johnj:


posting it doesnt make it true. Can you explain why someone would put a HQ at ground zero?
Particularly since that location was the first one hit. It would be sort of distracting i would have thought.


wait so the beeb were in on it?
Foreign media journalists in on the biggest conspiracy of the century.
ermm, yes right.

maybe, just maybe the beeb reporter made a mistake?

In reply to johnj:

What do you mean? They clearly were still there. They didn't vanish. The point is the structure below was weaker due to getting hot on floors which were on fire and could no longer support the upper floors.



the lower floor had been supporting them so the lower structure at that moment was stronger.

How does it become stronger? It hasn't changed at all.


Now we have a falling mass,


Exactly. The force on the lower floors was very much increased due to this mass (F=ma), which led to a sequential failure.

In reply to johnj:

If it exists then maybe. However you still need to tell us what it was. There is no point in whining about people using raygun or laser and not explaining where we are going wrong.

In reply to Sircumfrins:

And never before have two large commercial jetliners travelling in excess of 400 mph and carrying a near full load of jet fuel been flown into modern buildings. So to claim it was just down to the fire (for WTC 1 & 2) is just wilfully ignoring the facts.

In plan, the structure of the WTC 1 & 2 was essentially an exterior square perimeter of steel columns on the outside of the building and an interior core of more columns (and lift shafts and stairs) held together with steel floor trusses. The aircraft impacts destroyed or weakened some of columns, both in the perimeter but more critically within the core, while at the same time knocking fire proofing off the columns and starting fires.

The weight of the building above then began deforming the weakened steel, with the subsequent fire both weakening the columns further, and causing the floor trusses to sag and pull exterior columns inwards. Steel columns in buildings are primarily designed to accommodate vertical static loads (i.e. the weight of building above), but not really designed to be bent and pulled laterally. So eventually, the perimeter columns along one face fail, the load they carried is transferred inward to the building core via the trusses, the core is also compromised and also fails at which point all the weight of building above becomes a dynamic load and drops onto the ‘uncompromised’ section of building beneath.

Once the collapse started, the mass of floors above the point of failure is far in excess of the resistance offered by the floors and columns below, which progressively collapse with the rate of failure accelerating as the building comes down.

Now to me, that sequence of events (taken from the NIST report) appears to be a fairly logically method for the failure of the building, and largely ties up with what was observed. Clearly the sequence of events was far beyond what you’d expect in a normal fire, and comparison with other fires in buildings is misleading.

WTC 7 was structurally far more complicated that the towers, in part IIRC due to the large spans that were needed to bridge over existing services below the building, so I can easily imagine and that impact damage (from falling towers) and fires within the building could cause collapse, albeit by a more complicated method.

There are so many variables involved in this that the ‘official’ explanation will never be 100% correct, and there will be uncertainty involved. But as far as I can see, this a far more convincing explanation of what happened than throwaway theories like ‘it was a controlled demolition’ or ‘it was thermite’ which in no way appear to provide an overall explanation of what specifically happened, when it happened, & how it happened. Therefore, logic and reason wins.

In reply to MG:



johnj seems to take the stance that some sort of US super weapon vaporised the top floors from space.

In reply to Sir Chasm:

This is like exponential central, for every post I make 3 new people reply, I just need to apply this principle to selling things, would love to stay around and shoot the shit, but work to do ya'll. I'm sure you'll have fun in your big happy gang proving how wrong I am again ;+)

In reply to johnj:


It's funny that - just like at court I find the more actual robust evidence I supply the less arguments I receive.

In reply to off-duty:

So now robust evidence is lots of people saying the same thing, you're funny :+)

In reply to johnj: Just so we know where were are, which of the following do think is implausible.

1) Planes crashing in the WTC towers caused severe fires
2) These fires heated structural steelwork to an extent that it could no longer support the structure above.
3) The floors above the fire fell on those below
4) The inertial forces from the falling floors caused the cold floors to fail sequentially.

In reply to johnj:

I think you'll find I said precisely the opposite... keep up!

In reply to johnj:

Again we come back to that logical approach thingy...

As you say some things defy logic.. specifically you..

In reply to johnj:


clearly not since there seems to be plenty of sites and people coming out with crap about space weapons etc.

In reply to dissonance: I love reading conspiricy nutters explainations of big events.
Pyscologists must be in their element.it has to come down to a few crossed wires.or too much sitting on their own listening to iyke and alex Jones smoking weed

In reply to johnj:

I am beginning to understand your concept of logic now. I find robust evidence generally involves an explanation of events that doesn't involve the unobserved participation of mysterious conspirators and secret weapons systems operated by unknown people with unclear objectives.

I find if it looks like a burglary, smells like a burglary a bunch of independent witnesses say it was a burglary then it probably wasn't a governmental secret conspiracy.

In reply to off-duty:

You're obviously missing a trick. Your clear-up rates could be fantastic if everything could be pinned on secret government conspiracies. And you could claim you were being hampered in your pursuit of justice by "them". It's a win-win right up to the point that "they" make you disappear".

In reply to off-duty:


it was the CIA who burgled it though.