Jump to content

September 11th; does anyone else think it was suspicious


Fanghur
 Share

Recommended Posts

Not all the points have been previously addressed, let me make them clear:

 

1) The collapse of building 7, no planes hit it, nothing fell on it, it just randomly caught fire and collapsed into a small pile of rubble (controlled demolition style) within a few hours, and fire alone cannot cause this.

while fire alone might not cause that it seems like at least something must have hit it (flaming debris)

 

 

Even this person wants an explanation for this (although he is unwilling to accept that it was obviously a controlled demolition that brought it down), but his theories that a seismic shock wave caused by the collapse of the first two WTC towers is ridiculous. I've never even heard that before (building 7 was designed to handle more than what would be caused by this relatively small shock wave, if it was even produced). The theory about the computer monitors bringing down building 7 is also silly. You don't even have any evidence or sources to back up these claims!

note: it is not a theory but a hypothesis and by definition a hypothesis requires less proof than a theory

i see few sources for your claims and your posts so far have done not proven anything

2) The eye witnesses that heard several explosions, even before the first planes hit, and why several eyewitness accounts weren't included in the "official" (flawed) commission report.

and yet these people have not made any form of testimonial on Youtube for you to link to?

 

3) The visible explosion at the WTC (video) before the building started to collapse.

i have seen no obvious explosion in any of your videos

4) Why do 90% of Germans not believe the "official" 9/11 theory. Why are there so many architects and engineers that don't believe this theory either (more than the 200 or so that where involved in this NIST report)?

at some point everyone believed that the world was flat; the number of people believing something is not evidence that it it true

 

I supposedly made a negative remark that got me a couple "red squares", demerits if you will, and don't want to go there again. But no, I will not argue with those who believe it was a conspiracy. Their thoughts are as good a reason to why it happened as mine are to think it didn't happen that way. But to blame our government for the act of this terrorism, is not rational. Building #7, I honestly believe was the rauma and shock of the towers caoming down on 9/11.

 

which is what i meant when i said

 

@rigney you seem to say that you think the towers fell as the official explanation says they did but your video says that it was blown up by bombs in the elevators.

(note: I do not believe in any 9/11 conspiracy but...)

i would like explained how the WTC tower 7 fell.

i saw a explanation of how tower 1 and 2 fell

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/sunder.html

and such a explanation would be helpful for tower 7.

if fire alone is not enough to destroy a insulated steel building what was it that damaged the fire proofing?

some form of seismic shock wave from the WTC tower' 1 and 2s' collapse?

perhaps there is some unknown chemical *perhaps in computer monitors* that is explosive/flammable that could have contributed to the fall of 7?

it does not seem "suspicious" but it does seem odd.

Edited by dragonstar57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not all the points have been previously addressed, let me make them clear:

 

1) The collapse of building 7, no planes hit it, nothing fell on it, it just randomly caught fire and collapsed into a small pile of rubble (controlled demolition style) within a few hours, and fire alone cannot cause this.

Your facts are wrong. WTC 7 was struck and damaged by falling debris; there is significant photographic evidence to attest to this. Please do your research.

 

The NIST report also points out the inadequate fire suppression systems used, which allowed fire to spread unhindered.

 

4) Why do 90% of Germans not believe the "official" 9/11 theory. Why are there so many architects and engineers that don't believe this theory either (more than the 200 or so that where involved in this NIST report)?

http://www.nizkor.or...popularity.html

 

Also, why do you only pick out a small part of the NORAD story, about the F-16s and their speed? Why don't you address all of it? Like how so many things failed on that day, when NORAD has practiced intercepting airliners before, with 100% accuracy in the past, but not in this specific day. No plausible explanation has been provided for failing to scramble interceptors in a timely fashion from bases within easy range to protect the September 11th targets. Fighters that were dispatched were scrambled from distant bases.

  1. The airliners had transponders turned off, so military pilots had to rely on their own radar units to pick up the airliner. They had no definite location to head for.
  2. F-15 pilots were ordered to scramble within 12 minutes of NORAD being alerted to the hijacking. Unfortunately the time from hijacking to hitting the tower was just over twenty minutes, so they had no time to find the plane.
  3. Controllers did not realize what Flight 77 was up to because it turned off its transponder and vanished from radar. They did not report it to NORAD.
  4. NORAD was notified about Flight 175 after it crashed into the South Tower.

I don't see any problems with videos (I don't find them dramatic), the ones I've posted (and hour long ones I've watch in the past) provide lots of information. Also, the videos that support the "official" 9/11 theory are just as equally "dramatic." This "conspiracy" theory has been written down as well (not just videos), there are articles on it everywhere, even books, and scholarly articles as well!

I have a finite quantity of time, and it is easier to respond to written text than video, since I can scan through text for pertinent facts and details.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still didn't comment on the eyewitnesses (and dragonstar57, I posted videos and links in one of my previous posts about this).

The "everyone believed the world was flat" thing doesn't apply to this, I'm talking about hundreds of architects, engineers, etc. (more than what was involved in the NIST investigation), 90% of population of an entire country, surely these numbers mean something. I still find it hard to believe that 2 airliners can fly for hours off course, even with their transponders turned off, and not be intercepted. NORAD has practiced this hundreds of times, this event wasn't a surprise to them, they train for this kind of stuff. Provide some links about WTC building 7. From what I know, not much hit it (noting hit it from what I know), and a few blocks falling on it (if they did fall on it) will not cause it to implode and fall into a mere pile of rubble. And dragonstar57, that video shows an object being ejected from the WTC tower, if it wasn't an explosion, then what ejected the smoke/ object?

 

On a side note, I have exams coming up, so I won't have anymore time this week, well have to continue the debate later :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still didn't comment on the eyewitnesses (and dragonstar57, I posted videos and links in one of my previous posts about this).

The "everyone believed the world was flat" thing doesn't apply to this, I'm talking about hundreds of architects, engineers, etc. (more than what was involved in the NIST investigation), 90% of population of an entire country, surely these numbers mean something. I still find it hard to believe that 2 airliners can fly for hours off course, even with their transponders turned off, and not be intercepted. NORAD has practiced this hundreds of times, this event wasn't a surprise to them, they train for this kind of stuff. Provide some links about WTC building 7. From what I know, not much hit it (noting hit it from what I know), and a few blocks falling on it (if they did fall on it) will not cause it to implode and fall into a mere pile of rubble. And dragonstar57, that video shows an object being ejected from the WTC tower, if it wasn't an explosion, then what ejected the smoke/ object?

 

Eye witness testimony is ridiculously faulty. The could very well say, and believe, they heard about these explosions because someone else thought they heard it. The sound could have easily been many other things and only attributed to the WTC after the fact if, in fact, they heard something similar to explosions. Again, as most have already pointed out, argument from incredulity is not a valid argument; whether you find it hard to believe or not that is how it probably happened.

 

It doesn't matter what a bunch of people who have probably never been on the scene say what they think may be possible. I would take someone's word on something they investigated more so than someone's word who get their facts from conspiracy videos. On the 'explosion', a great many things could cause that. It could have just been pressure built up from the heat of the fires, someone may had something very flammable in their office, etc. There was nothing about the smoke to suggest that it could have been powerful explosives. If it were it probably would have taken out far more than a single window.

Edited by Ringer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still didn't comment on the eyewitnesses (and dragonstar57, I posted videos and links in one of my previous posts about this).

The "everyone believed the world was flat" thing doesn't apply to this, I'm talking about hundreds of architects, engineers, etc. (more than what was involved in the NIST investigation), 90% of population of an entire country, surely these numbers mean something. I still find it hard to believe that 2 airliners can fly for hours off course, even with their transponders turned off, and not be intercepted. NORAD has practiced this hundreds of times, this event wasn't a surprise to them, they train for this kind of stuff. Provide some links about WTC building 7. From what I know, not much hit it (noting hit it from what I know), and a few blocks falling on it (if they did fall on it) will not cause it to implode and fall into a mere pile of rubble. And dragonstar57, that video shows an object being ejected from the WTC tower, if it wasn't an explosion, then what ejected the smoke/ object?

 

On a side note, I have exams coming up, so I won't have anymore time this week, well have to continue the debate later :P

once every person even the brightest minds of the times thought the world was flat

and there are many things that could cause a puff of smoke in a building struck by an aircraft

as for your videos they don't do much other than show some dramatic scenes and tell people what to believe

Edited by dragonstar57
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You still didn't comment on the eyewitnesses (and dragonstar57, I posted videos and links in one of my previous posts about this).

The "everyone believed the world was flat" thing doesn't apply to this, I'm talking about hundreds of architects, engineers, etc. (more than what was involved in the NIST investigation), 90% of population of an entire country, surely these numbers mean something.

Surely "logical fallacy" means something to you.

 

I still find it hard to believe that 2 airliners can fly for hours off course, even with their transponders turned off, and not be intercepted.

Go read my post. They did not fly for hours off course. It is not NORAD's responsibility to track airliners, anyway, it's air traffic control's -- and they notified NORAD within minutes of knowing of the hijacks. NORAD scrambled fighters in twelve minutes.

 

Provide some links about WTC building 7. From what I know, not much hit it (noting hit it from what I know), and a few blocks falling on it (if they did fall on it) will not cause it to implode and fall into a mere pile of rubble.

See this report (PDF), pages L-17 and L-18. I quote:

  • Southwest corner damage extended over Floors 8 to 18
  • [...]
  • Damage was observed on the south face that starts at the roof level and severed the spandrels between exterior columns near the southwest corner for at least 5 to 10 floors. However, the extent and details of this damage have not yet been discerned, as smoke is present.
  • Damage to the south face was described by a number of individuals. While the accounts are mostly consistent, there are some conflicting descriptions
    - middle one-fourth to one-third width of the south face was gouged out from Floor 10 to the ground
    - large debris hole near center of the south face around Floor 14
    - debris damage across one-fourth width of the south face, starting several floors above the atrium (extended from the ground to 5th floor), noted that the atrium glass was still intact
    - from inside the building at the 8th or 9th Floor elevator lobby, where two elevator cars were ejected from their shafts and landed in the hallway north of the elevator shaft, the visible portion of the south wall was gone with more light visible from the west side possibly indicating damage extending to the west

At least do some research before you jump to conclusions!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eye witness testimony is ridiculously faulty. The could very well say, and believe, they heard about these explosions because someone else thought they heard it. The sound could have easily been many other things and only attributed to the WTC after the fact if, in fact, they heard something similar to explosions. Again, as most have already pointed out, argument from incredulity is not a valid argument; whether you find it hard to believe or not that is how it probably happened.

 

It doesn't matter what a bunch of people who have probably never been on the scene say what they think may be possible. I would take someone's word on something they investigated more so than someone's word who get their facts from conspiracy videos. On the 'explosion', a great many things could cause that. It could have just been pressure built up from the heat of the fires, someone may had something very flammable in their office, etc. There was nothing about the smoke to suggest that it could have been powerful explosives. If it were it probably would have taken out far more than a single window.

 

If "our government" and the terrorist perpitrating this crime had found ways of bringing all of of those explosives into the towers without being detected, rigging and sequentially setting them to go off at specific intervals, why would there have been a need to fly airliners into them to start the destruction? What a pity we can be so gullible. I suppose they must have planted explosives in the Pentagon also? Would someone in the conspiracy department run that by me? Do a stretch, stress analysis on a 1/2" bolt 3" long at a pull rate of 1 cc per sec. Grab it when it snaps after perhaps a second or so, then take care of the blisters. Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building 7 was 700 feet away from one of the buildings which collapsed from the impact of an attacking plane, and that building was 1300 feet high. So about 600 feet of support structures could have hit building 7, and the bottom of building 7 was obviously damaged by debris. There was also a fire at its base, presumably having spread from the other buildings, but there is considerable debate among eye witnesses about how extensive this fire was. However, since most of the discussion about how the other two buildings collapsed focuses on the enormity and intensity of the fires caused by the jet fuel being sufficient to cause the metal support structures to give way, I don't understand how the very much smaller fires in building 7 were supposed to have caused essentially the same effect. The only answer must be that the debris from the falling support structures from the nearby building were sufficient in themselves to cause the total collapse of building 7. Perhaps some structural engineer can speak to the question of whether such debris would suffice to bring down building 7, but my sense is that modern building construction should be able to withstand an impact of that magnitude, especially since the support structures of the other falling buildings pancaked and thus collapsed in situ rather than toppling over onto surrounding structures.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Building 7 was 700 feet away from one of the buildings which collapsed from the impact of an attacking plane, and that building was 1300 feet high. So about 600 feet of support structures could have hit building 7, and the bottom of building 7 was obviously damaged by debris. There was also a fire at its base, presumably having spread from the other buildings, but there is considerable debate among eye witnesses about how extensive this fire was. However, since most of the discussion about how the other two buildings collapsed focuses on the enormity and intensity of the fires caused by the jet fuel being sufficient to cause the metal support structures to give way, I don't understand how the very much smaller fires in building 7 were supposed to have caused essentially the same effect. The only answer must be that the debris from the falling support structures from the nearby building were sufficient in themselves to cause the total collapse of building 7. Perhaps some structural engineer can speak to the question of whether such debris would suffice to bring down building 7, but my sense is that modern building construction should be able to withstand an impact of that magnitude, especially since the support structures of the other falling buildings pancaked and thus collapsed in situ rather than toppling over onto surrounding structures.

 

The sensationalism of "Who shot John" in this instance runs as deep as the assassination of President Kenedy. I walked those grounds for three solid hours one day, wondering how so much could have been made of a demented and determined mind to kill our president. How could a person fire three shots in a matter of three seconds and make them count for all of the wrong reasons? The conclusion was simple. A slow caravan, Count one, count two, count three. No conspiracy, only the act of a madman filled with hate!

The towers, the Pentegon and the folks who died in Shanksville, Pa. were no different in that respect than the Lincoln or Kennedy murders. Hate is a powerful tool. Thank goodness the act of humanitarism and Justice is just as powerful, if not more so.

Edited by rigney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about that. Sure it was the excuse, but.......oil and desire to please daddy probably had more to do with it.

read ALLIES by William Shawcross http://books.google.com/books?id=KhZjia_en6oC&printsec=frontcover&dq=ALLIES+by+William+Shawcross&hl=en&ei=4ShCTa7KDsP98Aa7uf20AQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If "our government" and the terrorist perpitrating this crime had found ways of bringing all of of those explosives into the towers without being detected, rigging and sequentially setting them to go off at specific intervals, why would there have been a need to fly airliners into them to start the destruction? What a pity we can be so gullible. I suppose they must have planted explosives in the Pentagon also? Would someone in the conspiracy department run that by me? Do a stretch, stress analysis on a 1/2" bolt 3" long at a pull rate of 1 cc per sec. Grab it when it snaps after perhaps a second or so, then take care of the blisters.

 

When exactly did I say anything about rigged explosives in that statement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 6 months later...

First off, we heard you the first time.

"Any science teacher, architect, structural engineer, welder & metalegist would know that structural steel will not be weakened to even near failure by burning jet fuel,"

and your evidence for this is what exactly? I did not day the fuel did not burn/flame. It was the steel that didn;t melt or burn. What I was trying to say was, tempertures higher than 4,000 degree would have been required to cause the steel to soften to the point of separation. Separation at each and every rivited connection of structural steel over an inch thick at the web and 3 inches thick at the flanges. Such melting would have had to happen at every floor, even the floors that were not on fire. Anyone thought to ask UL, ASTM or BOCA?

 

I have personally worked steel by heating it to red hot. If the flames from the jet fuel were not at least red hot they would not have been visible.

People report seeing flames (and the video supports this). Of course flames were seen, fuel was burning NOT steel, NOT concrete.The flames were clearly hot enough to soften steel.What I find most disturbing is eyewitness reports that explosions were heard before the first plane hit ... shivers. Makes one wonder, what else the government lied about; the Kennedy assasssination, Pearl Harbor, were we really asleep at the radio or did we just want to get into the War? Where does it stop?

I suspect most American suspect that the WTC collapse was a implosion ignited in part at least by the jetfuel but most don't care. They thought the end result would be cheap oil and here we are paying $4.00 a gallon 10 years and hundreds of billion of dollars and thousands of our SONS later.

"you will not be able to miss the key factor on making steel melt ... time time time!"

 

Bollocks.

The melting point of water is zero degrees C, hotter and it melts, colder and it freezes. Time doesn't enter into it. The same is true for steel.

I can burn steel in seconds with a candle flame as long as the steel is thin.

"They are bright red but still not hot enough to melt."

No, but they are soft enough to roll into shape. That's the point. Did you think they heated the stuff to red heat because they liked the colour?

 

"If it could be meakened or melted by jet fuel, how could it be used to power the jet engines"

Because the structural parts of jet engines that take the brunt of the flame are not made of steel but from so called super-alloys. Even then they need to be cooled to stop them melting.

These materials are very expensive so they don't build skyscrapers out of them.

 

You may have a point about poor standards of education, but you seem to be looking in the wrong direction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I've heard this argument before, and I am very divided on my opinion of it. The conspiracy theorists will say that it was all a ploy by the Bush administration to be able to justify hugely increasing the budget of the military, but while I certainly wouldn't put it past Bush, there's one huge hole in the premise. We're supposed to believe that Al Qaeda, who hates the US, agreed to work WITH the US to bomb buildings in US territory so as to rally support from United States citizens to allow the US to go to war against Al Qaeda? That seems pretty absurd in my opinion; it would be the very definition of shooting yourself in the foot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Yeah, but X, Y and Z are still unexplained" is "conspiracy of the gaps." Missing evidence for another position is not the same as support for yours. You can't have an honest discussion if you try that approach. It's the same reason that a "god of the gaps" argument fails, and why any engagement with conspiracy proponents fails. If the two sides don't have to follow the same rules, it's inherently dishonest. Besides, it was aliens. Prove me wrong.

 

I agree with you about aliens.

The U.S.A Government is secretly co-operate with Zeta Reticuli TARX alien from 1947 to 2001.

But the U.S.A has lied to the aliens. America is using WMD (Weapon of Mass Deception on them), thanks to the republican party.

The alien realize this, and starting to move their base from AREA-51 to a new location in China. Then the aliens put their best bombs to destroy the twin tower, brainwashing some of the Arab Nationality passenger in the airplane.

This is only a child's play to the aliens.

Prove me wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you about aliens.

The U.S.A Government is secretly co-operate with Zeta Reticuli TARX alien from 1947 to 2001.

But the U.S.A has lied to the aliens. America is using WMD (Weapon of Mass Deception on them), thanks to the republican party.

The alien realize this, and starting to move their base from AREA-51 to a new location in China. Then the aliens put their best bombs to destroy the twin tower, brainwashing some of the Arab Nationality passenger in the airplane.

This is only a child's play to the aliens.

Prove me wrong.

 

 

You completely misunderstand, it's not up to us to prove you wrong it's up to you to provide evidence you are correct... read the rules dude...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.