|
|
Post by parceltongue on Apr 5, 2006 15:32:19 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Apr 5, 2006 15:36:44 GMT
bit long to watch now, might try later
|
|
|
|
Post by parceltongue on Apr 5, 2006 16:46:27 GMT
yeah deffinitely watch it when u have time  well worth it |
|
|
|
Post by stormy on Apr 7, 2006 13:08:45 GMT
Watched a documentary last night that explained it perfectly well for me. No conspiracy theories just heat from the fires and angle of impact from the planes causing the steel floor supports and the outer and inner steel supports to warp untill the towers became unable to bear load. The drywall fire protection around the centre cores blew away. The fire reterdent foam covering the steel supports was blown off. The people saying this were the designer of the building and the investigation team, all top experts in their field.
Their conclusion was that the buildings performed brilliantly in staying up so long after such a catastrophe. Although the buildings were made to withstand an airliner impact nobody could have tested them out. They did infact survive the impact and one tower stood for over an hour.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaris on Apr 15, 2006 1:43:09 GMT
Started to watch...then realised how long it was  will watch when I have more time, it looks interesting. The first thought I had though was ... is all the information true or could it have been put together after the event?? eg .. are the old documentations real? or conveniently put together to look authentic? Can it all be legally checked? Only watched first few minutes though |
|
|
|
Post by bobco on Apr 15, 2006 16:25:10 GMT
Its good. Changed my views. I never believed the conspiracys before, now I'm unsure. The fact there were several explosions after the planes hit. The fact that the towers dropped as if they were being demolished. The fact a few of the fire crew saw the tower floors popping out as if some explosives were being used to bring it down. The fact that several towers had such fires as this but never colapsed. The fact that the jet that flew into the Pentegon disappeared. No signs of its engines or anything. And I found the website they mention, the BBC one. news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/middle_east/1559151.stm |
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Jon Donnis on Apr 15, 2006 20:54:11 GMT
you do like your conspiracies dont you bobco  |
|
|
|
Post by andy on Apr 17, 2006 21:42:20 GMT
I think everyone enjoys a good conspiracy. Even if they're not strictly true, misguided or even downright bulls**t!
LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by larry44 on Apr 28, 2006 18:19:43 GMT
I have to saw I've watched a few things about 9/11 now and some of the questions raised in the conspiracy ones do make me wonder. I've also watched a few programs about controlled demolitions lately and the lengths they go to make sure buildings fall in the right direction and/or straight onto their footprints. I was just amazed watching the buildings fall on 9/11 as it looked just like a controlled demolition. I don't usually buy into 'conspiracy theories', but I do feel there are certain things about 9/11 that don't add up.
Of course... George Bush's reaction is hard to comprehend as he couldn't be dragged away from that little goat story... but rather than thinking it was because he was already in on some conspiracy, I just thought it was because the guy is a total muppet ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by thiticalcrinker on May 2, 2006 4:50:40 GMT
Don't bother with this trash. It is a smear in the face of all the innocent victims and their loved ones. Controlled demolitions, remote controlled aircraft, missing aircraft, shot down aircraft and more all bundled together into the biggest cospiracy in the worlds history. What a bunch of bullsh*t.
The makers of such crap should be ashamed of themselves. No evidence for any of their accusations.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linkev on May 2, 2006 7:23:56 GMT
The only thing I really have ever doubted about 9/11 was the attack on the Pentagon. There's too much contradictory evidence to state that, that was indeed an airplane that hit it.
|
|
|
|
Post by larry44 on May 2, 2006 14:42:02 GMT
Don't bother with this trash. It is a smear in the face of all the innocent victims and their loved ones. Controlled demolitions, remote controlled aircraft, missing aircraft, shot down aircraft and more all bundled together into the biggest cospiracy in the worlds history. What a bunch of bullsh*t. The makers of such crap should be ashamed of themselves. No evidence for any of their accusations. There are actually relatives of 9/11 victims who ask some of the same questions as the conspiracy theorists. I don't blame them as everyone handles loss differently, but having lost someone very close to me suddenly, I needed to know every detail I could to try and make sense of what happened even if it meant I didn't like what I heard. I do take your point that there are people who would try and cash in on writing about or documenting 9/11 theories and that does disgust me. However, in itself, having questions and wanting answers to those questions, I personally feel is valid. |
|
|
|
Post by stormy on May 2, 2006 17:17:14 GMT
But if you have the answers provided by the experts such as the designer of the building and these answers are also back up by the investigation teams why must everyone look for a conspiracy based on rumours.
|
|
|
|
Post by Linkev on May 4, 2006 1:24:36 GMT
The World Trade Centers were designed to withstand the impact of a small jet aircraft. Something they never tested, and shouldn't have ever been tested. It's amazing that they stood as long as they did.
Controlled demolition? What happens during a controlled demolition is that the main support pillars in a building are essentially destroyed thus causing the floors to collapse one on top of the others thus destroying the building. When the airplanes hit the building, they took out some of these support pillars and with the addition of the fire from the jet fuel and office furnature[that stuff is quite combustable], the building was simply unable to support itself and the impact of the above floors onto the rest of the building caused it to fall in a style similar to that of a controlled demolition.
The Pentagon. The only part of the 9/11 story that I have my doubts about.
The side of the building was meant to be able to survive a missile attack. Which is quite possibly why the damage from the 'aircraft' wasn't so severe. But if we're following this theory, then the airplane would have simply crumpled against the side of the building leaving parts strewn across the lawn. But there is virtually nothing there. Where is the damage to the lawn where it supposedly skidded? Why aren't the cars pulled by the jetwash?
An airplane crashes into a mountain side, you see debris everywhere. An airplane crashes into the Pentagon, you get virtually nothing.
|
|
|
|
Post by vicki on May 4, 2006 13:46:03 GMT
I think that some Islamic extremists decided to exact their revenge on West by targeting one of the the most famous examples of the the wests capitalism.
They where probably training for this for years they would have been promised their place as martyrs and a place in heaven with 12 concubines.
My husband is an architect and he says no one can guarantee what a building can withstand, and no one could think that these people would actually go through with something so terrible.
I remember watching it on TV and not believing what I was seeing, I think that when something so bad happens we invent stories and conspiracy theories to make sense of something that has no sense. And with the Internet these things turn into a global Chinese whisper.
Maybe the building was designed that if it was to have some kind of impact that it would fall down on itself, rather than covering a large area in rubble.
|
|
|
|
Post by larry44 on May 5, 2006 0:51:52 GMT
The Pentagon. The only part of the 9/11 story that I have my doubts about. It was the Pentagon impact that first made me wonder as with all the footage that we've seen about 9/11, we haven't seen any footage of the plane even approaching despite a gas station CCTV camera opposite allegedly having a clear view. The size of the impact hole before the side of the building fell wasn't big enough for the wingspan of the plane and if the wings folded back on impact then why didn't we see the debris of the engines on the wings outside the hole? There may well be an explanation for all my questions without there being a conspiracy, I just haven't heard any explanation yet that answered everything. I probably never will. Having questions about one aspect of 9/11 threw up other questions. I watched a programme a couple of years ago explaining how the towers fell and it seemed a reasonable explanation at the time, but still didn't explain how WTC7 progressively collapsed from office fires alone. It wasn't hit by a plane, it collapsed from the fires inside it alone which apparently hasn't happened to any similarly constructed building before or after 9/11 - even with fires raging hotter for longer, the 'skeleton' of the building at least usually still stands. Maybe the twin towers were designed to fall that way, but why didn't it just state that in the official report then? The fact is that the official report hasn't answered a lot of questions - it apparently ignores the fact that WTC7 fell at all. I wouldn't want a conspiracy theory to be true. Just like I'm glad that Operation Northwoods was rejected after it was presented to JFK's Defense Secretary. I think Clinton would have had the same reaction if presented with a similar proposal - I just don't have the same confidence in the Bush Administration. |
|
|
|
Post by larry44 on May 5, 2006 1:03:04 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Linkev on May 5, 2006 4:41:28 GMT
I watched a programme a couple of years ago explaining how the towers fell and it seemed a reasonable explanation at the time, but still didn't explain how WTC7 progressively collapsed from office fires alone. It wasn't hit by a plane, it collapsed from the fires inside it alone which apparently hasn't happened to any similarly constructed building before or after 9/11 - even with fires raging hotter for longer, the 'skeleton' of the building at least usually still stands. Maybe the twin towers were designed to fall that way, but why didn't it just state that in the official report then? The fact is that the official report hasn't answered a lot of questions - it apparently ignores the fact that WTC7 fell at all. There is no logical reason for WTC7 to have fallen. The skeleton of a building is designed according to the fire code, which states that it has to be able to stay standing despite a raging fire. How on earth falling debris managed to make it inside of WTC7 and cause it to collapse is beyond me. It just doesn't add up. And yes, WTC7 is the first skyscraper in history to have fallen due to a fire. If the government has nothing to hide, then why are they covering up so much of this story? Why are they purposely leaving out parts of this whole event? |
|
rbt
Glint in fathers eye
Posts: 46
|
Post by rbt on May 6, 2006 11:12:45 GMT
Don't bother with this trash. It is a smear in the face of all the innocent victims and their loved ones. Controlled demolitions, remote controlled aircraft, missing aircraft, shot down aircraft and more all bundled together into the biggest cospiracy in the worlds history. What a bunch of bullsh*t. The makers of such crap should be ashamed of themselves. No evidence for any of their accusations. Emotion once again flying in the face of science. Please look at the hole in the ground where flight 93 crashed. No seats, no engines, no wings, no bodies. The local coroner gave up after 10 minutes because, quote "there simply wer'nt any bodies there". The pentagon:- The impact hole is 37 feet , measure the width of a boeing - etc. 200 cameras film the pentagon constantly. The sheridan hotel film/tape/cameras - filmed the flight path of the invisible boeing - the FBI confiscated the tapes [from the 911 comission]. The traffic cameras around the pentagon would have filmed this 140 ton aircraft flying 5 feet above the ground. The traffic cameras 'malfunctioned' 2 planes vaporised. How did the hijackers pilot aircraft [they had never flown before] from above clouds, into buildings, with there transponders turned off? [ trans = transceive/triangulation of whereabouts in the sky, to determine present position] If you want, i will send you some dvd's with this evidence on it, free of charge. Again at the pentagon - no wings,seats,aircraft paraphernalia at all - no wheels, no bodies,no seats. Have i got the answers? No, just questions. |
|
|
|
Post by miss fairymarymermaid on May 20, 2006 14:01:35 GMT
i have just watched that video!! It was long and wasn't planning onwatching the whole thing! I really don't know what to believe anymore! I have never read about any of the 9/11 things since it happend as it worried me too much. So have chosen , not to ignore that it happend, but not to think about it! A lot of the things on the video made sence, I just feel sorry for the people who died!
|
|
well worth it
will watch when I have more time, it looks interesting.
