9-11 conspiracy video

[ProtienShak3]

I've seen the conspiracy videos that said there was no plane wreckage found at the Pentagon. That's a load of sh*t. I have a close friend that was part of the rescue crew that responded. There was wreckage everywhere. I hate these videos....

yep my dad was there on buisness very very close to the pentagon at the time of the crash there was plane wreckage there for sure

[daytrader]

yea theres no doubt in my minda plane struck it..but thats like the TWA flight that "went down" south of long island a while back..

i personally knew someone who had video tape of the incident with TWA they called and said they had video cause they were asking if anyone had it to send it in. when he called 2 'FBI' agents came took the video said theyu were going to give it back after investigation.well as you may know time went by so he called..the FBI never heard of the 2 agents he mentioned and said he was scammed...who believes that?!

well if your not familiar with it the conspiracy that it was shot down, and on his video tape he personally told us that there was a streak before the explosion...now this guy lives on the southern shore of long island and just moved in and was filming in his new backyard..witch oversaw the bay and ocean..anyway do i think it was teroism maybe but do i think the gov. knew about it yes def. 100%. theres a lot more to it then whats been told i believe.
but after 9/11 it got the whole nation pumped for war over there witch was originally afganistan not iraq!!

sorry for the long post but this shit bothers me cause bush is a ****ing idiot if you ask me..should've voted gore in after clinton..as of the last election its kind've hard to vote a new president in during war. IT HAS NEVER HAPPEND during a period of war so was it bush cementing his 8 year term or otherwise..think about it..the guys a ****ing moron! okay im done sorry

Damn man thats some shit!!....Too bad he didnt make a copy of the video

[SVTMuscle*]

The only thing that really makes me question, is the part with a evenly made hole in the 4/5th ring in on the pentagon... thats pretty shady...

[Kärnfysikern]

popular mechanics article. debunking the 9/11 conspiracy myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

this is what happens when a plane going at 500mph hits hardened concrete(for those that claim a plane can not disintegrate).
http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

this one is pretty good debunking of the claim that a jet didnt hit the pentagon
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

[Kärnfysikern]

and here is a 4 page discussion of this we had in the politics section
http://forums.steroid.com/showthread.php?t=241611

[USfighterFC]

Jesus Christ where do you people get your information from.....it sounds like half of you work for the X-Files. To everyone who said that the black boxes were never found, you were right, half the bodies at the WTC were never found either because when 100 million tons of steel and concrete comes crashing down, everything gets obliterated and annihilated. And to whoever mentioned that TWA thing as well, what a load of shit that is as well. First off if he has video of it, it's a federal investigation the FBI is doing their job taking the tape. Secondly they found the blackbox on that plane and nobody said nothing of a missile. And their was 2 explosions on that flight not one. One sheered off the cockpit totally and the other destroyed the plane 15 seconds later. They determined what caused that crash. Also let me just explain this. If a missile hit the Pentagon or TWA, there would be residue from the high explosives that are in the missiles themselves. It cannot be washed off or fade over night. It takes YEARS for this stuff to eventually corrode off something. It is extremely traceable and from what I remember TWA flight 800 was tested specifically for it by an independent lab to shut up conspiracy theorists.

Also here is another thing, do you know how many independent Watchdog groups there are in this country that wait for corporations, gov't agencies, or gov't officials to specifically fvck up so to call them out on it? Why do you think political correctness is at its peak in this country? The U.S. gov't could never even pull off something of this calibur and I think in a way you are giving them way to much credit what they can accomplish clandestinely.

Do you know how the CIA found out about India's nuclear weapons test a few years ago even when everyone was expecting it?
They read it in the newspaper like anyone else. India timed the CIA's satellites, as to what time they would be over Indian territory. Pretty fvckin weak figuring the CIA is supposed to be the top spy agency in the world.

[Liftnainez]

Jesus Christ where do you people get your information from.....it sounds like half of you work for the X-Files. To everyone who said that the black boxes were never found, you were right, half the bodies at the WTC were never found either because when 100 million tons of steel and concrete comes crashing down, everything gets obliterated and annihilated. And to whoever mentioned that TWA thing as well, what a load of shit that is as well. First off if he has video of it, it's a federal investigation the FBI is doing their job taking the tape. Secondly they found the blackbox on that plane and nobody said nothing of a missile. And their was 2 explosions on that flight not one. One sheered off the cockpit totally and the other destroyed the plane 15 seconds later. They determined what caused that crash. Also let me just explain this. If a missile hit the Pentagon or TWA, there would be residue from the high explosives that are in the missiles themselves. It cannot be washed off or fade over night. It takes YEARS for this stuff to eventually corrode off something. It is extremely traceable and from what I remember TWA flight 800 was tested specifically for it by an independent lab to shut up conspiracy theorists.

Also here is another thing, do you know how many independent Watchdog groups there are in this country that wait for corporations, gov't agencies, or gov't officials to specifically fvck up so to call them out on it? Why do you think political correctness is at its peak in this country? The U.S. gov't could never even pull off something of this calibur and I think in a way you are giving them way to much credit what they can accomplish clandestinely.

Do you know how the CIA found out about India's nuclear weapons test a few years ago even when everyone was expecting it?
They read it in the newspaper like anyone else. India timed the CIA's satellites, as to what time they would be over Indian territory. Pretty fvckin weak figuring the CIA is supposed to be the top spy agency in the world.

I agree with you fighter.. i really have no clue what some people are thinking.. maybe there are some things that are secret but to say some of this stuff is ridiculous..the U.S did not plan this themselves.. the video was made by an UNCREDIBLE bored person... all a bunch of B.S.

[ascendant]

I agree with you fighter.. i really have no clue what some people are thinking.. maybe there are some things that are secret but to say some of this stuff is ridiculous..the U.S did not plan this themselves.. the video was made by an UNCREDIBLE bored person... all a bunch of B.S.

again, i think to dismiss all of it as bs is pure ignorance. there's just too many things that don't add up.

yes, you will get some people to lie to get attention and call "conspiracy" on this issue. however, you'll get plenty of people working for the government to lie for them as well. you're not looking at both sides of the coin here.

again, i don't believe the majority of us will ever know for sure, but it is definitely safe to say with how much questionable information there is, there is far more to all this that we didn't know about.

just because some people have given false information about aliens to get attention, does that mean ALL aliens are fake? yea, it's a bitch to seperate the fact from fiction in situations like this, but you can't just say "well, my buddy said there was plane debris and he saw it" and dismiss everything else. how do you not know that buddy said that just to try to claim he was there and witnessed it? to go way out on a limb here, how do you not know govt personnel didn't threaten him into saying what he/she told you, or possibly even brainwashed them? though things like that are of course highly unlikely, at least IMO, they're not out of the range of possibility.

also, of course there will be plenty of people to discredit info like this. after all, most these documentaries are made by 1-5 people, who are putting this info out there to be criticized and discredited by the govt. now, the govt has some of the most intelligent people in the world working for them, absolute geniuses, and they're working for a system that has been around for a very long time, so obviously they have the upper hand in these situations.

having studied extensively in quantum physics myself, i'd personally like someone to give me an explanation as to why the buildings "free-fell" when they collapsed? even anyone with a general knowledge of physics would know that it's not physically possible, yet the video, when played in real-time, shows the buildings clearly falling at free-fall speeds. friction alone from the collapse, let alone the deceleration as the framework collapsed, would be plenty more than enough to slow it down significantly. also, for them to perfectly fall straight down would also be a probability that is practically impossible. i had watched someone try to claim these buildings are designed so that if their framework collapses, they'll fall straight down, yet he gave no explanation beyond that and made no sense with half the stuff he did try to explain. if someone can actually help those 2 things make more sense, i'd like to hear it.

[USfighterFC]

having studied extensively in quantum physics myself, i'd personally like someone to give me an explanation as to why the buildings "free-fell" when they collapsed? even anyone with a general knowledge of physics would know that it's not physically possible, yet the video, when played in real-time, shows the buildings clearly falling at free-fall speeds. friction alone from the collapse, let alone the deceleration as the framework collapsed, would be plenty more than enough to slow it down significantly. also, for them to perfectly fall straight down would also be a probability that is practically impossible. i had watched someone try to claim these buildings are designed so that if their framework collapses, they'll fall straight down, yet he gave no explanation beyond that and made no sense with half the stuff he did try to explain. if someone can actually help those 2 things make more sense, i'd like to hear it.

Ok so you're just basically telling us out of all the structural engineers and BILLIONS of people who have watched the Trade Centers fall down you've basically picked up on something other extremely knowledgable people have missed that is as clear as day as you say?

[Kärnfysikern]

having studied extensively in quantum physics myself, i'd personally like someone to give me an explanation as to why the buildings "free-fell" when they collapsed? even anyone with a general knowledge of physics would know that it's not physically possible, yet the video, when played in real-time, shows the buildings clearly falling at free-fall speeds. friction alone from the collapse, let alone the deceleration as the framework collapsed, would be plenty more than enough to slow it down significantly. also, for them to perfectly fall straight down would also be a probability that is practically impossible. i had watched someone try to claim these buildings are designed so that if their framework collapses, they'll fall straight down, yet he gave no explanation beyond that and made no sense with half the stuff he did try to explain. if someone can actually help those 2 things make more sense, i'd like to hear it.

well what we would need to know first is what kind of difference should floors dropping down on eachother versus free fall make? If the difference isnt significant it would be hard to tell.
For instance I dont think I would be able to se the difference betwen a 9.81m/s^2 or a 8m/s^2 downwards acceleration on a video.

(pure speculation from my part)It would probably make a difference in the begining of the collaps but after that there is such a tremendous mass in motion that the difference would be miniscule.

[USfighterFC]

again, i don't believe the majority of us will ever know for sure, but it is definitely safe to say with how much questionable information there is, there is far more to all this that we didn't know about.

just because some people have given false information about aliens to get attention, does that mean ALL aliens are fake? yea, it's a bitch to seperate the fact from fiction in situations like this, but you can't just say "well, my buddy said there was plane debris and he saw it" and dismiss everything else. how do you not know that buddy said that just to try to claim he was there and witnessed it? to go way out on a limb here, how do you not know govt personnel didn't threaten him into saying what he/she told you, or possibly even brainwashed them? though things like that are of course highly unlikely, at least IMO, they're not out of the range of possibility.

Ok that right there is about as paranoid as you can get. I've been down to Ground Zero myself......I actually saw the landing gear they cleaned up that ended up a full block away that tore a womans legs off. No gov't agents ever pushed me around and tried to shut me up. Nor any of my friends. Actually gov't agents never even visited any of us nor spoke with us. But hey I'm just an internet personality, or I'm working with the CIA. My cousin is the sole owner of Bay Cranes, the largest Crane company in New York and I believe the northeastern U.S. The gov't specifically contracted his company to clean up down at Ground Zero so I think I have more than enough knowledge to say planes hit there and there was no conspiracy theory. But if thats not enough lets just all forget about Flight 93. Remember those guys?? They fought the hijackers, found the blackboxes, heard the struggle as well as the hijackers talking. But these people never existed, nor the plane never existed. The CIA just dug a big ass hole, set a little fire next to it and said a plane crashed there.

[Neo]

USFighter, I couldn't agree with you more bro....

[ascendant]

Ok so you're just basically telling us out of all the structural engineers and BILLIONS of people who have watched the Trade Centers fall down you've basically picked up on something other extremely knowledgable people have missed that is as clear as day as you say?

how many structural engineers do you know of that said it made sense that it fell the way it did and at the velocity it did? also, the planes hit one side of the building, which would've affected it's structural integrity off-balance, not all sides at the exact same moment giving out uniformly to make it collapse right down upon iself, as opposed to collapsing onto one side and simply breaking off or something similar.

though there may have been debris up to a block away as you said in your other post, consider how large the tower is and how all things considered, it fell almost perfectly straight down on top of itself? debris being a block away from the towers is nothing when taking into account it's height.

like i said before, if there are people who have information as to how all that is possible, i would love to see it cause so far, i only saw one person try to explain it and they fell way short of doing so. the people making these videos are not the only ones saying the way they fell didn't make sense.

additionally, structural engineers focus on building these type of structures and building them to be durable against damage and how they'll respond to it and the like. however, many of them wouldn't be knowledgeable in the velocity of a free-fall or be comparing it to the time it took for the building to collapse on itself.

[ascendant]

well what we would need to know first is what kind of difference should floors dropping down on eachother versus free fall make? If the difference isnt significant it would be hard to tell.
For instance I dont think I would be able to se the difference betwen a 9.81m/s^2 or a 8m/s^2 downwards acceleration on a video.

(pure speculation from my part)It would probably make a difference in the begining of the collaps but after that there is such a tremendous mass in motion that the difference would be miniscule.

i understand what you're saying here, and i'm not saying that it's completely impossible that the time was such a small variance that it's hardly noticeable, but here's why it doesn't make sense to me...

with the type of damage these buildings were supposed to be able to resist, the weight from those levels above where the planes hit and where it began it's collapse should not have been adequate enough to collapse the rest of the building down at that velocity. though the stuctural integrity of the building would've been affected by the impact of the planes, the areas below the plane not hit should not have had their structure that severely affected.

[USfighterFC]

how many structural engineers do you know of that said it made sense that it fell the way it did and at the velocity it did? also, the planes hit one side of the building, which would've affected it's structural integrity off-balance, not all sides at the exact same moment giving out uniformly to make it collapse right down upon iself, as opposed to collapsing onto one side and simply breaking off or something similar.

though there may have been debris up to a block away as you said in your other post, consider how large the tower is and how all things considered, it fell almost perfectly straight down on top of itself? debris being a block away from the towers is nothing when taking into account it's height.

like i said before, if there are people who have information as to how all that is possible, i would love to see it cause so far, i only saw one person try to explain it and they fell way short of doing so. the people making these videos are not the only ones saying the way they fell didn't make sense.

additionally, structural engineers focus on building these type of structures and building them to be durable against damage and how they'll respond to it and the like. however, many of them wouldn't be knowledgeable in the velocity of a free-fall or be comparing it to the time it took for the building to collapse on itself.

Here just read this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collaps...d_Trade_Center


I can write 1000 pages explaining your post but I'd rather just refer to the countless people who have already written it.

[USfighterFC]

But regardless of that....i dont know what point you're trying to make. Are you saying some kind of bomb did that or gov't engineers purposely designed them to collapse or what?

[ascendant]

Ok that right there is about as paranoid as you can get. I've been down to Ground Zero myself......I actually saw the landing gear they cleaned up that ended up a full block away that tore a womans legs off. No gov't agents ever pushed me around and tried to shut me up. Nor any of my friends. Actually gov't agents never even visited any of us nor spoke with us. But hey I'm just an internet personality, or I'm working with the CIA. My cousin is the sole owner of Bay Cranes, the largest Crane company in New York and I believe the northeastern U.S. The gov't specifically contracted his company to clean up down at Ground Zero so I think I have more than enough knowledge to say planes hit there and there was no conspiracy theory. But if thats not enough lets just all forget about Flight 93. Remember those guys?? They fought the hijackers, found the blackboxes, heard the struggle as well as the hijackers talking. But these people never existed, nor the plane never existed. The CIA just dug a big ass hole, set a little fire next to it and said a plane crashed there.

you seem to have missed the point in my last quote. the aliens reference was to indicate that though some incidents people report are false regarding a particular incident, that does not mean they should all be dismissed.

if it has a source that you can say started it all and it was a lie, then that's one thing, cause then you have proof that the entire basis of a concept was based off of one persons lie. however, alien reports had begun long before internet, long before global communication, and many of those reports were almost identical in their descriptions, particularly the "grey alien" stories. now, when sources that couldn't possibly have a connection to one another in any way to be able to relate info to each other come up with the same stories, it hard to dismiss it as bs.

of course nowadays, it's harder to figure out who didn't have a chance to talk to who, cause with the internet, you can communicate with virtually anyone in the world. however, if you take everything that was said in that persons video into consideration, there is much to consider, and i believe the truth and lies have to be sorted through.

there are several things he says on the video that i know i could prove are ridiculous myself. i know very well not all of it's true. but on the other hand, i know very well the media has told us things about 9/11 that made no sense at all as well, so why choose the media over these videos?

again, i'm not saying i believe it was a conspiracy, nor do i believe it wasn't. i will honestly confess that i don't have nearly enough information to know for sure either way, but i will not agree that either belief is right and it would take a hell of a lot of concrete evidence on either part to do so. all i'm trying to do here is open peoples minds to the fact that their concept of the situation might not be right.

[USfighterFC]

you seem to have missed the point in my last quote. the aliens reference was to indicate that though some incidents people report are false regarding a particular incident, that does not mean they should all be dismissed.

if it has a source that you can say started it all and it was a lie, then that's one thing, cause then you have proof that the entire basis of a concept was based off of one persons lie. however, alien reports had begun long before internet, long before global communication, and many of those reports were almost identical in their descriptions, particularly the "grey alien" stories. now, when sources that couldn't possibly have a connection to one another in any way to be able to relate info to each other come up with the same stories, it hard to dismiss it as bs.

of course nowadays, it's harder to figure out who didn't have a chance to talk to who, cause with the internet, you can communicate with virtually anyone in the world. however, if you take everything that was said in that persons video into consideration, there is much to consider, and i believe the truth and lies have to be sorted through.

there are several things he says on the video that i know i could prove are ridiculous myself. i know very well not all of it's true. but on the other hand, i know very well the media has told us things about 9/11 that made no sense at all as well, so why choose the media over these videos?

again, i'm not saying i believe it was a conspiracy, nor do i believe it wasn't. i will honestly confess that i don't have nearly enough information to know for sure either way, but i will not agree that either belief is right and it would take a hell of a lot of concrete evidence on either part to do so. all i'm trying to do here is open peoples minds to the fact that their concept of the situation might not be right.

Ok i see what you're saying about the alien theory, I misunderstood I see now after you explained it. Good point on that. But what exactly is hard to believe about what happened on Sept 11th exactly? That's not a rhetorical question I'm just trying to see your stand point.

[ascendant]

Ok i see what you're saying about the alien theory, I misunderstood I see now after you explained it. Good point on that. But what exactly is hard to believe about what happened on Sept 11th exactly? That's not a rhetorical question I'm just trying to see your stand point.

reason i like chatting back and forth with you on here is because we don't see exactly eye to eye, but we can both discuss our opposing views in a way that's constructive. if everyone saw eye to eye, how would we learn from each other? to be honest, i'm actually quite enjoying our conversation on here, as i'm sure it will help both of us (at least to some extent) see other perspectives to a situation we might not have seen before.

as far as explaining exatly what's hard to believe about sept 11th, i'll definitely have to throw a bunch of points out there and put them on here. might take me a bit though, cause i want to make sure it's thorough. i'll get it together as soon as i can though and we can discuss all this further. if i can't manage it by tonight, hopefully by tomorrow.

[USfighterFC]

reason i like chatting back and forth with you on here is because we don't see exactly eye to eye, but we can both discuss our opposing views in a way that's constructive. if everyone saw eye to eye, how would we learn from each other? to be honest, i'm actually quite enjoying our conversation on here, as i'm sure it will help both of us (at least to some extent) see other perspectives to a situation we might not have seen before.

as far as explaining exatly what's hard to believe about sept 11th, i'll definitely have to throw a bunch of points out there and put them on here. might take me a bit though, cause i want to make sure it's thorough. i'll get it together as soon as i can though and we can discuss all this further. if i can't manage it by tonight, hopefully by tomorrow.

Yeah it's def cool it's good to see someone elses stand point on it. I dont want you to bust your ass getting info lol (cuz that means i have to do the same) just shoot it by me when you can.

[Timm1704]

just finished watching the video, was only intending on watching the intro part, very compelling viewing. they raise some very interesting questions and points, but i highly doubt all the info they gave us is true. likewise, im sure the american government isnt telling us alot of the info, but really, would they actually do this themselves, to their own people? i sincerly hope not. on a side note, no matter how many times i see the clips of the planes hitting the trade center, and then its eventual collapse, it never gets any less disturbing

[ascendant]

Yeah it's def cool it's good to see someone elses stand point on it. I dont want you to bust your ass getting info lol (cuz that means i have to do the same) just shoot it by me when you can.

will do

[ascendant]

alright usfighter, rather than make a long list where we'll wander in a ton of different directions, i figured i'd just focus on one point and we can take it from there. so, here's some info i've gained tonight by browsing a few websites.

in regards to the ground floors experiencing the "explosive" damage they had, here's what i found...
the claim is that there was no way the planes could've caused damage to the ground floor that looked like nothing less than an explosion had gone off in them. in defense, this is the info that was provided (i'll provide web info later in this post): "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off.". Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died" says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser

now, i'm going to explain why their explanations, though in theory sound nice, according to general physics, wouldn't have happened...
what they basically say in this explanation is that as the jet fuel exploded, it traveled down the shafts causing the damage all the way down to the ground floor. now, taking into account the explosion caused by the planes crashing into the buildings, it's virtually impossible the fuel would've been unignited prior to making it to the ground floor. taking this into consideration, they're basically saying an explosion traveled through the elevator conduit, blew the elevator down to the bottom floor, and blasted the elevator through the ground floor doors.

now, anyone who has toyed around with pipe bombs or other small explosives knows that an explosion will always travel in the direction that's easiest for it to expand in. for example, if you make a pipe bomb and make the pipe out of plastic and make the two end-caps out of cardboard, the cardboard will blow out first because the explosive pressure releases from the weakest point(s) first. if the weakest point(s) (the cardboard) isn't adequate for the pressure release within a given period of time, then there is the possibility of it blowing out the plastic sides as well, but the expansion always happens in the weakest direction first. also, if a bomb is built and you leave one side of the bomb open, the explosive will merely burn out the one side where it can get air, again, if that open side is big enough for it to expand a specific amount within a given period of time.

so with that in mind, what those people are saying completely defies physics. they're saying that instead of the jet fuel blowing out the windows of the floors the plane went through and out the hole the plane blew through in the wall of those floors, the jet fuel instead chose to defy the laws of physics and blow through a tightly sealed elevator shaft which would be the hardest place for it to possibly blow through?

now, imagine the pressure required to blow through the elevator shaft, blow the elevator itself all the way to the ground floor, and put such pressure on the elevator that you blow it right through the ground floor? now, that pressure from the explosion would've been released long before that through the entry point of the plane, the windows on the floors of the entry point, and even if some of the explosion did make it to the elevator, it would have had every floors elevator doors to blow open to release the pressure, of which each floor has windows which would be far easier to blow through than each of those subsequent elevator doors. yet the ground floor, with not only the elevator doors but a whole elevator in the way of those doors as well, suffered damage equivalent to an explosion?

there's no explanation as to why that much pressure would've been put on the ground floor with so many other areas of pressure-release along the way. if anyone can answer why the explosion would've taken the opposite approach to regular physics and gone the toughest way to expand rather than the multitude of easier ways, i'd love to hear it?

oh, and as far as an explanation that the elevator itself had such downward momentum from the explosion that it blew through the ground floor and provided much of the explosive force, the problem is that the elevator had a downward momentum, and to blow through the elevator door, it would have to take a 90 degree turn, reducing it's energy significantly. let alone the fact that as the elevator was being forced down, it had the air pressure in the shaft below it to push against as well in order to gain velocity, which would've been a very powerful resistance to slow it's momentum.

there are far more other reasons why the "jet fuel down the elevator shaft" excuse for the ground floor explosion makes no sense, but hopefully the above information makes it quite clear that their explanation goes beyond reason. the information as for the quotes above can be found at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...42.html?page=4

[dianasaur]

popular mechanics article. debunking the 9/11 conspiracy myths
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...tml?page=1&c=y

this is what happens when a plane going at 500mph hits hardened concrete(for those that claim a plane can not disintegrate).
http://www.break.com/index/concreteplane.html

this one is pretty good debunking of the claim that a jet didnt hit the pentagon
http://www.abovetopsecret.com/pages/..._evidence.html

Good post Johan, it's disappointing to see so many smart people get suckered into this conspiracy nonsense. I watched about five minutes of the OP's video until it got to the part about the "put options" being placed on AA and UA stock before I just had to shake my head and close the browser. Sure enough, I typed "put option american airlines septermber 11" into yahoo and in thirty seconds I had this link explaining how it's a bunch of crap.

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/putcall.asp


And please guys, don't say that the entire 9/11 comission was conspiring to cover this up. Conspiracy theories are for people who feel helpless and out of control in their own lives and want to believe that strings are being pulled around them and that the world is run by secret groups and organizations.


If two guys (mostly Johan) on a weight lifting board can disprove so many of the videos major claims with two posts and four links, maybe it isn't the best place to get your info on 9/11 from.

[RA]

I personally believe 9/11 is all one huge smoke/mirrors trick to set the stage for what "someone" wanted to do the next 6-7 years as the one in charge. Huge events all on one day to try and justify what would happen the next 6-7 years which is war, invasion of privacy, gas prices out the ass, homeland security bullshit to invade your personal space, etc. etc.

Time cannot pass quick enough.

~SC~

lol.

[MAXIMA5]

I personally believe 9/11 is all one huge smoke/mirrors trick to set the stage for what "someone" wanted to do the next 6-7 years as the one in charge. Huge events all on one day to try and justify what would happen the next 6-7 years which is war, invasion of privacy, gas prices out the ass, homeland security bullshit to invade your personal space, etc. etc.

Time cannot pass quick enough.

~SC~

WELL SAID.

I think Swole should fight Bush to the death in a steel cage match.

[USfighterFC]

alright usfighter, rather than make a long list where we'll wander in a ton of different directions, i figured i'd just focus on one point and we can take it from there. so, here's some info i've gained tonight by browsing a few websites.

in regards to the ground floors experiencing the "explosive" damage they had, here's what i found...
the claim is that there was no way the planes could've caused damage to the ground floor that looked like nothing less than an explosion had gone off in them. in defense, this is the info that was provided (i'll provide web info later in this post): "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off.". Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died" says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser

now, i'm going to explain why their explanations, though in theory sound nice, according to general physics, wouldn't have happened...
what they basically say in this explanation is that as the jet fuel exploded, it traveled down the shafts causing the damage all the way down to the ground floor. now, taking into account the explosion caused by the planes crashing into the buildings, it's virtually impossible the fuel would've been unignited prior to making it to the ground floor. taking this into consideration, they're basically saying an explosion traveled through the elevator conduit, blew the elevator down to the bottom floor, and blasted the elevator through the ground floor doors.

now, anyone who has toyed around with pipe bombs or other small explosives knows that an explosion will always travel in the direction that's easiest for it to expand in. for example, if you make a pipe bomb and make the pipe out of plastic and make the two end-caps out of cardboard, the cardboard will blow out first because the explosive pressure releases from the weakest point(s) first. if the weakest point(s) (the cardboard) isn't adequate for the pressure release within a given period of time, then there is the possibility of it blowing out the plastic sides as well, but the expansion always happens in the weakest direction first. also, if a bomb is built and you leave one side of the bomb open, the explosive will merely burn out the one side where it can get air, again, if that open side is big enough for it to expand a specific amount within a given period of time.

so with that in mind, what those people are saying completely defies physics. they're saying that instead of the jet fuel blowing out the windows of the floors the plane went through and out the hole the plane blew through in the wall of those floors, the jet fuel instead chose to defy the laws of physics and blow through a tightly sealed elevator shaft which would be the hardest place for it to possibly blow through?

now, imagine the pressure required to blow through the elevator shaft, blow the elevator itself all the way to the ground floor, and put such pressure on the elevator that you blow it right through the ground floor? now, that pressure from the explosion would've been released long before that through the entry point of the plane, the windows on the floors of the entry point, and even if some of the explosion did make it to the elevator, it would have had every floors elevator doors to blow open to release the pressure, of which each floor has windows which would be far easier to blow through than each of those subsequent elevator doors. yet the ground floor, with not only the elevator doors but a whole elevator in the way of those doors as well, suffered damage equivalent to an explosion?

there's no explanation as to why that much pressure would've been put on the ground floor with so many other areas of pressure-release along the way. if anyone can answer why the explosion would've taken the opposite approach to regular physics and gone the toughest way to expand rather than the multitude of easier ways, i'd love to hear it?

oh, and as far as an explanation that the elevator itself had such downward momentum from the explosion that it blew through the ground floor and provided much of the explosive force, the problem is that the elevator had a downward momentum, and to blow through the elevator door, it would have to take a 90 degree turn, reducing it's energy significantly. let alone the fact that as the elevator was being forced down, it had the air pressure in the shaft below it to push against as well in order to gain velocity, which would've been a very powerful resistance to slow it's momentum.

there are far more other reasons why the "jet fuel down the elevator shaft" excuse for the ground floor explosion makes no sense, but hopefully the above information makes it quite clear that their explanation goes beyond reason. the information as for the quotes above can be found at: http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...42.html?page=4

Ok lol give me some time to get back on that. From what I was aware I never heard of a ground explosion in WTC's case. I know jet fuel itself did in fact travel down the elevator shaft because they did have a woman on tv who was in the elevaator at the time ans was deeply scarred from it but I dont think know if she was on or near the bottom floor yet. Let me do some research.

[Kärnfysikern]

like i said before, if there are people who have information as to how all that is possible, i would love to see it cause so far, i only saw one person try to explain it and they fell way short of doing so. the people making these videos are not the only ones saying the way they fell didn't make sense.

I guess the official report would be a good place to start reading. That would be the first place I would get info if I ever had the patience to read up on 9/11

additionally, structural engineers focus on building these type of structures and building them to be durable against damage and how they'll respond to it and the like. however, many of them wouldn't be knowledgeable in the velocity of a free-fall or be comparing it to the time it took for the building to collapse on itself.

They still have to take alot of physics classes. Im not sure, but I would bet structural engineers know classical mechanics better than most physcisists. Simply because they deal with classical mechanics everytime they plan anything.

i understand what you're saying here, and i'm not saying that it's completely impossible that the time was such a small variance that it's hardly noticeable, but here's why it doesn't make sense to me...

with the type of damage these buildings were supposed to be able to resist, the weight from those levels above where the planes hit and where it began it's collapse should not have been adequate enough to collapse the rest of the building down at that velocity. though the stuctural integrity of the building would've been affected by the impact of the planes, the areas below the plane not hit should not have had their structure that severely affected.

One thing though. WTC was not designed to withstand getting hit by a jet the size that did hit it. From wikipedia

The modeled aircraft was a 707 weighing 263,000 lb (119,000 kg) with a flight speed of 180 mph (290 km/h), as would be used in approach and landing situations

The 767s that actually hit the towers had a kinetic energy more than seven times greater than the specifically modeled 707 impact

I think that the weight of the floors above the crash site would be enough to cause the rest to crash if just one floor crashes. Cant guarantee it but I belive so. On tower 2 the plane hit the 77th floor and there was a totalt of 110 floors. So almost a third of the building was above that point. I cant se how any kind of support would be able to withstand 33 floors crashing down.

Calculating roughly difference in fall time is fairly easy(if making a bunch of aproximations like equidistant floors and roughly equal weight of each floor). If I get time I think Im gonna do that. It would not be a exact figure by far, but it would be a resonable guide to se if the fall time is comparable with free fall.

[MAXIMA5]

OK. Good discussion above.

Here's an idea for discussion regarding the motive for demolishing the buildings.

Who knows why anyone would want to stage the event, but if they did, it was done brilliantly.

First, the planes were flown into the top of the towers. Why? Wouldn;t a terrorist want to hit as many buildings as possible, or clip off the buildings as low as possible to cause the most destruction? Wouldn't they also want both planes to circle and hit at the same time to catch everyone off guard? The planes hit high, giving more people the opportunity to flee, and more news crews time to arrive to film the second plane hitting.

Secondly, if the government, or other domestic organization staged it, then the controlled demolition would have been a perfect way to reduce collateral damage to the surrounding area, while still getting extended news time and traumatizing the public.

Just food for thought. I know our government is full of shady people, and we all know we never get the real truth in the media, but I'd hate to believe our own government was behind it (although anything is possible).

[USfighterFC]

OK. Good discussion above.

Here's an idea for discussion regarding the motive for demolishing the buildings.

Who knows why anyone would want to stage the event, but if they did, it was done brilliantly.

First, the planes were flown into the top of the towers. Why? Wouldn;t a terrorist want to hit as many buildings as possible, or clip off the buildings as low as possible to cause the most destruction? Wouldn't they also want both planes to circle and hit at the same time? The planes hit high, giving more people the opportunity to flee, and more news crews time to arrive to film the second plane hitting.

Secondly, if the government, or other domestic organization staged it, then the controlled demolition would have been a perfect was to reduce collateral damage, while still getting extended news time and traumatizing the public.

It takes MONTHS to do a controlled demolition of a building that is only several stories high. Also the buildings are totally gutted as so they IMPLODE not explode and the amount of explosives it would've taken to bring the building ALL the way to the ground is astronomical. The WTC towers exploded that is why debris was found blocks away. Also you have to think these guys werent expert pilots they just crashed the planes wherever they could. But one can rationalize that they hit the tower high so rescue workers could not reach the trapped people easily or quickly. Bin Laden himself said he didnt expect the towers to fall all the way down. He only expected the upper part of the building to collapse above where the planes have hit. But there are 4 steel columns that are the load bearing support systems that do the bulk of the workand 4 were totally severed on one and 3/4 were severed on the other.

I dont understand when people say there is some sort of bomb or gov't cover up. A plane hit a building. There are millions of people who saw it live and not on TV. There are people like me who were watched the building come down who ran like everyone else. There was no explosion in the lobby and there was actually a french documentary filmmakers who were in the lobby of the 2nd Tower when the first one came down who saw no explosion. In fact the crew and firefighters said they heard a huge rumbling when the first tower came down and looked at the first Tower and it was normal (this is actually the time is took for the debris to fall to the ground). I wish you people could've gone there for yourselves to see how the WTC is constructed. The bottom looks exactly like the top. There is no giant concrete and steel base where a controlled explosion could take place without anyone seeing. The top matches the bottom. If there was an explosion EVERYONE would have seen it. Its like setting fireworks off in a library. People are just going to notice it. People with these theories have never even laid eyes on the WTC or been inside the doors or have seen the lobby. If you have then you would see how outlandish these claims really are.

[MAXIMA5]

I hope your right. Watching that video and re-living that day for the length of the film was nerve-racking.

[USfighterFC]

It was absolute insanity in the city, nobody knew what to do or what to say. Its like everyone around you was so stunned people were so panicked while others were just in total disbelief and not saying anything or moving. Words can never describe how bad it was.

[ascendant]

Ok lol give me some time to get back on that. From what I was aware I never heard of a ground explosion in WTC's case. I know jet fuel itself did in fact travel down the elevator shaft because they did have a woman on tv who was in the elevaator at the time ans was deeply scarred from it but I dont think know if she was on or near the bottom floor yet. Let me do some research.

see, there's just so much mixed information about all this stuff, it's hard to distinguish the fact between fiction. however, there were numerous reports of the ground floors being severely damaged immediately after the crash, at least in one of the buildings if not both. the damaged included tiling blasted off walls, dead bodies, glass broken, and other damage indicative of an explosion.

if all this was made up, it was made up by a lot of people, many of them being people who had gotten out from above floors of which many of those people as well indicating damage had been done on their floors that seemed like an explosion as well. even the people attempting to discredit the "conspiracy theories" behind it failed to deny the claims it happened, they only tried to give reason as to why it happened.

as far as the jet fuel traveling down the elevator shaft, that certainly is possible, but what i find not possible is that the elevator shaft could've built up enough pressure to have caused what seemed like an explosion on the ground floor(s). like i said before, there was just far too many other areas for the pressure to be released than for the pressure to push against one of the strongest points of resistance like that.

i will admit however at this point from other research i had done, the buildings collapsing on themselves without the help of explosives is certainly possible, unlikely, but possible. i'm not going to get into all the details, but from all the info i gathered, the damage done to the structure from the impact combined with combustible materials burning in the building may have very well brought it up to temps to make the building lose it's structural integrity. my only remaining issues is still the velocity at which they fell and how they fell fairly straight down upon themselves, but like i've said before, there is still too much info i'm missing to be sure either way. at this point however, i'm favoring that this building may very well have simply collapsed itself without any explosive assistance.

[ascendant]

I think that the weight of the floors above the crash site would be enough to cause the rest to crash if just one floor crashes. Cant guarantee it but I belive so. On tower 2 the plane hit the 77th floor and there was a totalt of 110 floors. So almost a third of the building was above that point. I cant se how any kind of support would be able to withstand 33 floors crashing down.

Calculating roughly difference in fall time is fairly easy(if making a bunch of aproximations like equidistant floors and roughly equal weight of each floor). If I get time I think Im gonna do that. It would not be a exact figure by far, but it would be a resonable guide to se if the fall time is comparable with free fall.

i'd like to see that info if you ever have the time johan. after some thorough research last night, it does seem to me as if the buildings may very well have simply crashed down upon themselves without the assistance of any explosives. however, there is still the issue of the ground floor(s) experiencing what could only be described as an explosion. well, all the info is here already, so i'll leave it at that.

[USfighterFC]

i'd like to see that info if you ever have the time johan. after some thorough research last night, it does seem to me as if the buildings may very well have simply crashed down upon themselves without the assistance of any explosives. however, there is still the issue of the ground floor(s) experiencing what could only be described as an explosion. well, all the info is here already, so i'll leave it at that.

I think we all have to consider the structural engineering of the building itself. The outter walls of the WTC werent meant as load bearing walls at all. The core of the buildings held the weight up. Thats why when the building came down it disintegrated outward and not inward. As you watch the building come down you can see the core of the building is the last part to come down. When the building first starts to come down its the outter walls of the building that start to crumple and sheer away from the rest of the building right before it collapses. Hence if explosives were used they would had to have been put on the outter load bearing walls first and in essense unless those 4 steel columns were severed (which they were because of the plane cutting and destroying them) the building wouldnt have come down the way it did. In fact if the 4 inner steel columns hadnt been severed, the building wouldnt have collapsed at all.

[aadrenaline]

It was absolute insanity in the city, nobody knew what to do or what to say. Its like everyone around you was so stunned people were so panicked while others were just in total disbelief and not saying anything or moving. Words can never describe how bad it was.

it was a bad day at that, and it lasted more than a year..ive never seen the city move slow like that before, it was unusally queiter for a long time..depressing


the day of was kind of weird though not as many cabbies and some stores stayed closed before it even happend? coincidence?

[ascendant]

personally, i don't think bush has the brainpower to be behind a conspiracy such as this. however, i do believe they at least had a fairly good idea something was going to be happening on sept 11th and took no action to attempt to prevent it, as was shown by all the controversy and investigations done into why so many warnings were tossed out and disregarded.

i do however believe he took advantage of the situation as an attempt for political and financial gain. the political being he knew war would keep him in office for a second term. the financial being he knew the war would bring oil prices up, and saying as his family is oil tycoons, well, nuff said. saying as he's running out of reasons to be in iraq more and more everyday, it's becoming more and more obvious his intents had very little to do with just getting saddam out of there as he originally stated.

this is not to say i don't think any kind of conspiracy behind all this is completely out of the question, i just find it pretty unlikely. there is still some issues i'm trying to figure out that don't add up, but like i've said before, i think it's impossible to know the entire truth about this whole situation. luckily, usfighter is here to help clear it all up for us, right bro? lol, just playin.

[xmenWolverine]

usfighterfc.

You saw the plane slam into the twin towers. Well the planes that hit the building had already landed as all aircraft were ordered to land.

A plane did not hit the pentagon. The hole in the pentagon was the size of a plane fusealage. However there is no imprint of two 6 tonne rolls royce engines slamming into the pentagon. There was no wreckage of the plane. amazing..........

Also in the air over the pentagon was a hercules monitoring plane and another aircraft not identified. The explosion on the pentagon was that of a tomahawk cruise missle launched from the unknown aircraft. If a plane hit the pentagon where are the bodies all over the lawn, Wheres the black box, the two 6 tonne engines.

No offence to americans but it looks like bush planed this to go to war with iraq and now they threaten iran. Hitler is alive........once again

[MAXIMA5]

usfighterfc.

You saw the plane slam into the twin towers. Well the planes that hit the building had already landed as all aircraft were ordered to land.

A plane did not hit the pentagon. The hole in the pentagon was the size of a plane fusealage. However there is no imprint of two 6 tonne rolls royce engines slamming into the pentagon. There was no wreckage of the plane. amazing..........

Also in the air over the pentagon was a hercules monitoring plane and another aircraft not identified. The explosion on the pentagon was that of a tomahawk cruise missle launched from the unknown aircraft. If a plane hit the pentagon where are the bodies all over the lawn, Wheres the black box, the two 6 tonne engines.

No offence to americans but it looks like bush planed this to go to war with iraq and now they threaten iran. Hitler is alive........once again

Dude,

I think something smells fishy too, but you just summarized the entire hour long video to a T.

BTW, I think tomahawk cruise missles are launched from the ground.

[USfighterFC]

Dude,

I think something smells fishy too, but you just summarized the entire hour long video to a T.

BTW, I think tomahawk cruise missles are launched from the ground.

They can be launched from the air, ground or sea. And to the previous post I have no fvckin idea if that was a joke or not. But no the planes weren't all ordered to land before they crashed into WTC, otherwise that'd be telling the future wouldnt it?