[Closed] I'm not one to buy into conspiracy theories... ever, but....

Hahahahahahahhhahahhahaha

Don't mind me

And I was just about to put the tele on too...

the professional perspectives of eight psychologists who explain some of the reasons why it is so hard for people to face the scientific evidence. This is the most scientific and compelling 9/11 documentary film to date

I think you'll find that's 'science fact truth'

Can I just clarify.. I'm not saying that these theories are correct...

I've laughed my head off at lots of them over the years.

Watched them and seen through all the flaws and paranoya, but the evidence surrounding tower 7 (the third building that dropped even though no plane hit it) just made me go.... oooh eerrr, what if?

You remind me of someone?

If i could just find my bearings id be able to claim my £5

Website with breaking news Topinfopost.

Sorry..who?

Easy guys, as much as i completely cannot abide the rabid enthusiasm of conspiracy nuts at least give chilled76 a coherent answer as to why he is wrong.

This is just playground bullying at its lowest.

(You're wrong, You're sad, haha. ) Come on, try a bit harder.

This is just playground bullying at its lowest.

Rubbish, I've barely got started.

The video is an hour long, can't you just tell us who done it ?

Wait, let me guess .......... "nobody knows" ? 🙂

as much as i completely cannot abide the rabid enthusiasm of conspiracy nuts at least give chilled76 a coherent answer as to why he is wrong.

Really does it?

You lot are hilarious, I'd like to point out that playground bullying requires the recipient to be affected by it.... of which this isn't the case. I should know, I had to deal with a serious incident of racist bullying at 10:30am this morning.

Some of the users on here could do with learning to have a mature discussion though (which ultimately is what a forum is for).

Piemonster... your behaviour reminds me of a lot of 15 year old's I teach. Well done you.... I'd love to tell you that you should be proud of how brilliantly you have scorned me, and that I feel suitably humiliated and publicly belittled by you... however... you actually only really achieved to make me think "what the hell has happened to STW?, has half of pinkbike migrated here?"

I've already stated I don't necessarily believe this, and that I've always laughed at this stuff, but this ONE video made me think oooh what if...

Not "oh my god, it was all a government stitch up".

If you watch it, this video doesn't even try and point a finger of blame, it just shows engineering evidence of why it seems unlikely that the steel structures should have failed like they did.... I've considered what has been put in front of me and [b]for the first time ever[/b] [b]not completely dismissed[/b] what is being suggested.

It's just interesting, nothing more will come of it... other than speculation and discussion. Something I thought might happen here, however it appears the maturity of some of the users on this forum has turned back a few decades.

I posted it on here, as I'm aware there are a large number of degree qualified engineers (of which I'm one.. I left engineering to be a Maths teacher), and would love some opinions from other people who understand steel and malleable temperatures better than I do.

Paul

Piemonster... you're behaviour reminds me of a lot of 15 year old's I teach.

Correct

But it's meant with affection.

Come's across more like an internet troll.

this video doesn't even try and point a finger of blame

How disappointing. I'll carry on blaming Al-Qaeda then.

Come's across more like an internet troll.

It's more a 50/50 split

Wish you had been my maths teacher, I might have been able to convince you that the dog did really eat my homework, because I must have done it otherwise I wouldn't have called it homework, and it would have just been a story of a dog eating a blank piece of paper.

Just to give a more objective viewpoint,

3/10 for the Troll

7.5/10 for the banter
😮

Thanks guys, clear this sort of discussion isn't welcome here. I'll see if I can find a civil engineering forum to discuss some of the technical aspects/flaws in this video.

Eight seconds on google provides a number of responses. Here's one.

http://www.icke-exposed.co.uk/911-truth/911-explosive-evidence-debunked-by-the-snowball-effect/

(amusingly, when I typed "explosive evidence" one of the suggested search terms was "explosive evidence debunked"...)

I'll see if I can find a civil engineering forum to discuss some of the technical aspects/flaws in this video.

Oh, [i]please [/i]post the link here when you do. That sounds like it'll be compulsive reading.

3/10 for the Troll

*flounces at the disappointing score

chilled76 - Member

Can I just clarify.. I'm not saying that these theories are correct...

I've laughed my head off at lots of them over the years.

chilled76 - Member

Thanks guys, clear this sort of discussion isn't welcome here.

So basically what you are saying is that you used to laugh at 9/11 conspiracy theories but now you've changed your mind and strongly resent other people who haven't also changed their minds and are still laughing, is that right ?

My god, why are you bringing this up again? Can't you just accept it was the extremist Muslims who hate American freedom, after all Uncle Sam told us, so it must be true, HOORAH!

[b]DISCLAIMER [/b]

Before the Stw Liberalist argumentalists get all agitated, I'm not saying the video is the truth, just that I don't take everything that's rammed down my throat as gospel.

Peace out

I don't take everything that's rammed down my throat as gospel.

What's been 'rammed down your throat' ?

Do you mean the news ?

Improbable as the attack was, an inside job just seems utterly impossible to me.

I'm going to put my head above the parapet here and await having it blown off but I actually watched it and found it very interesting and thought provoking . On the other hand the playground bullying mentality displayed here is pretty pathetic , did any of you actually spend an hour of your oh so precious time watching the video before condemning it ?

Figure of speech.

No, I haven't got that much time to waste on puerile drivel, I'm much too busy on the forum

I saw a program recently that said that although the WTC was designed to withstand a hit from large aircraft, it could not stand up following the resultant fire. Stated that fire supression systems were poor, as was the fire resistant foam that should have covered much of the steel.Open space allowed fie to spread more quickly, so down todesign flaws and workmanship.

Not an expert in their use in demolition, however I have practical knowledge of rigging explosives charges.
If explosives were used they would have to be brought past security by teams of people, presumably past security in not one but 2 buildings. Experts would have to be used to calculate quanities required and positioning to best bring the buildings down. I doubt there are a huge amount of people capable of doing this whilst making it look just like a plane strike. They would have to be detonated at a specificc time with nochance of accidental initiation from the plane strikes.

Presumably those charging the buildings would have known which floors the planes were to hit so that charges were not placed above that point. This is time consuning, seems hard to believe this could happen with nobody noticing.

As the quantity of explosives needed is so large then I would imagine some debris would show signs of explosion, or remnants could be found, so the recovery team must have been in on it.

Specialist explosives likely to be needed, det cord, shaped charges. Not likely to be done with lorry loads of fertilizer wheel barrowed upthe stair. If sourced in the US it is unlikely that enough explosives to destroy the WTC could disappear from a depot without somebody noticing.

To summarize I an unconvinced by thw theory.

The official explanation in less than 5 minutes

[url=

Pretty sure Cougar didn't watch it. There are counter arguments to everything, which is what makes this discussion so difficult. Some of the arguments are much poorer than others, though. See cougar's link for an example. btw, there's a book entitled "Debunking 9/11 Debunking" by your logic, does that mean it wins?

It seems to me that the sobriety of the arguments, and the willingness to consider all the facts is skewed more on one side than the other. There's certainly one side that wins on petty name calling and nasty vindictiveness, eas evidenced here.

Edit after athgray: yup there's plenty that's not explained, same goes both sides. What we've got isn't a satisfactory, though.

I don't have an hour to watch this.
Why exactly do these conspiracy theorists think anyone other than terrorists would have wanted to do this? What would they gain?

It looks like a horse. It runs like a horse. It has a mane like a horse.

I know, it must be a Zebra!

Conspiracy theories really irritate me. Why are people so willing to believe the most complicated, involved and unlikely theories which are entirely dependent upon vast numbers of conspirators all working in complete secrecy, when governments and "secret" organisations have proven themselves time and again as inept at keeping secrets?

Molgrips, really ? They managed to make a war from non existant WMDs??

Just popped back to see there has now been a few more civil responses..

It's the bit about [b]the third building that dropped[/b] that I've never seen before. No aviation fuel in that building no plane flew into it and it went down like a sack of spuds in the same manner...

How does that happen? Genuine question.. I'm really intrigued as to a civil engineering explanation as to why that happened.

It's a steel framed building, admittedly there was fires in that third building, but office fires making a steel frame building flatten... well it's just never happened in history has it? How does that work? When you watch the footage of the third building it looks like a controlled demolition.

It most probably isn't... but I would love to know what caused it to do that?

WT7 for anyone that's not already read one of these threads.

The wiki overview http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center

No aviation fuel in that building no plane flew into it and it went down like a sack of spuds in the same manner...

When you watch the footage of the third building it looks like a controlled demolition.

It sounds as if the conspirators forgot to fly a plane into it, very amateurish.

Do people not think that an airliner with tens of thousands of KG of jet fuel on board is not explosive enough? The WTC was designed to take a hit from a Boeing 707, and in actual fact the towers withstood more than that as one took a hit from a Boeing 757 and one from a Boeing 767, both substantially heavier than a B707. In the end it was the force of the impact that compromised the fire protection off the steel structure and the heat of the burning jet fuel weakened the steel structure - the strength of steel is significantly compromised at relatively low temperatures - say around 600 degs C and the heat due to the burning jet fuel was far greater than that. I really don't see what is wrong with this explanation and why people feel the need to look for some other more fantastic and less plausible explanation.

Wrong building wobblibiscuit, WT7 wasn't hit by a plane.

Ah good point. That'll teach me to try to multi-task - my computer may be capable of it, clearly i'm not!

Why would anyone jump to the least likely explanation?

There may be things we cannot explain, but there's no evidence actually in favour of a conspiracy, is there?

molgrips - Member

Why would anyone jump to the least likely explanation?

Because some folks like to feel superior, and one way to do that is to know things other people don't. Some do this by coming up with genuinely new information, some do it just by being better informed than most... But those are hard. Some do it by withholding information from others, and some do it by making things up/believing made up things. For these people, a fact is better if few people believe it, because that puts you in the elite minority, and the easiest way to find a fact that few people believe is for it to be a made up one.

Ironically it seems like 9/11 conspiracies are too widely believed for it to be a really satisfactory conspiracy theory now.

I think part of the problem is that many Americans [i]want [/i]to believe in conspiracy theories because they have been brought up to deeply dislike and distrust the their government.

Had the attack happened in another country it is far less likely that so many people would be have been prepared to believe that it was an "inside job".

Perhaps it was some elaborate cover to distract everyones attention from the fact that they never went to the moon? Clever buggers eh!

The REAL truth is far worse than any conspiracy theories. Bin Laden warned the USA they would be attacked with aircraft if they didn't stop meddling in the Middle East. How do we know? Because in a Discovery documentary about the 1996 TWA800 crash, the tape was played of that warning, in reference to the FBI thinking the TWA800 explosion WAS the threat come true. The documentary was shown pre 9/11.

The US continued meddling in the Middle East, the attack came.

Lots of US citizens like to believe that nasty old terrorists attacked innocent old' USA, but the truth is somewhat different.

IME it is rare that someone believes one conspiracy and think the rest are nonesense and they tend to believe them all.

Some people take the deep suited lack of trust of government, who clearly are a bunch of two face lying bastards, and assume they must be responsible as they are capable of anything.

The fires in the third building went uncontrolled for most of the day. Add to that that it was partially damaged from falling debris, and was probably as poorly fire protected as the other towers it seems reasonable.

The alternative is that you add the same variables as mentioned for explosives use on the other 2 towers to a third tower makes it seem even less likely. The lower floors were open and the building probably had a lower factor of safety against collapse than the other towers.

Is it likely that a third building would be rigged to detonate so long after the other two, especially with no plane hitting it?

I also don't think it looks like a controlled demolition. Normally explosives rigged on multiple floors on a delay so you collapse one section onto the one below. If explosives were used on it then it appears only charged on one or two floors lower down.

Good chance that the building would have suffered only partial collapse leaving the embarassing situation of explosives still attached to the building. It all seems highly implausible. (I am trying to be kind).

Planes laden with fuel crash in to buildings

Explosion so violent it blasts protective foam from steelworks

Bare Steelwork (that is also damaged from impact) carrying vast weight exposed to intense heat for some considerable time

Steelwork fails and building collapses.

Dammit, you're right! How could this happen without explosives?! Definitely an inside job

I'm sure the video has a certain surface plausibility, but then so does the website of the flat earth society.. If the OP really does think there is something in this, he needs to be able to see the wood for the trees. Who cares if there are civil engineering arguments to be made, the fact is that two large jets were seen to crash into the two towers and that the organisation responsible admitted they did it. The fact that civil engineers are able to debate about the third tower should not obscure this fact. Occam's Razor strikes again.

I find it hard to belive that explosives could be rigged to demolish over 500,000 tonnes of one of the most prominent building in one of the Worlds busiest cities and nobody would notice!

the organisation responsible admitted they did it.

Which can only mean that Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden were in on the conspiracy. Or at the very least didn't in anyway want to undermine the official version.

So an "inside job" backed up by Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden then. The plot thickens.

i am not a conspiracy theorist.. i believe in the ability to muck stuff up iobn

for 20 years my father was site/ contracts director of probably the countries largest demolition company. throughout my late teens early twenties i saw hundreds of explosive demolitions from light houses to cooling towers from coal bunkers to tower blocks.

two things strike me. that third tower looks like i d expect a controlled demolition to look. i saw a large number of failed demolitions/ partial demolitions yet the video is a typical controlled demolition.

the amount of work that has to be done to prepare a building is unbelievable the amount and scale of the drilling alone takes several weeks before laying the charges and the miles of wiring. this is not something that could be done during construction without virtually everyone on site being aware of it equally it would be impossible to do whilst the building was inuse impossible

my conclusion has to be that despite appearances it was not a controlled demolition merely coincidently looked like one..

the organisation responsible admitted they did it.
Which can only mean that Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden were in on the conspiracy. Or at the very least didn't in anyway want to undermine the official version.

So an "inside job" backed up by Al-Qaeda/Osama Bin Laden then. The plot thickens.

Not to mention the number of people who'd go to work every day knowing they were about to commit an attrocity against the US and possibly murder thousands of people and keep quiet about it.

Basically, the only sane people left in this world are those who consistently question things i.e. regardless of where the information comes from.

If you simply cannot conceive of the idea of the government lying to the populace then you must be, as Victoria Beckham once mimed on every tv show for a week with Dane Bowers, [i]out of your mind[/i].

Let me make this really easy for you:

WTC 7, Urban Moving Systems Inc and a wealth of other leads suggest there was certainly something a bit fishy going on there...

whilst we're in this realm, what about this whole Diana SAS thing...

we all know the daily mail is a wealth of top class information:

http://www.****/news/article-2407571/Princess-Diana-SAS-murder-claim--mad-think-says-SUE-REID.html

alot of things about 9/11 dont add up including the 'plane' that hit the most protected building (apart from the white house), the pentagon, yet no one on the ground dies in the building that day and there's no video evidence of it ever happening ( apart from 1 security camera which shows jack) . snowball effect does occur but not at freefall speed

Amusing to see Russia Today cited on the topic of security-service organized bombings of public buildings (FSB involvement in apartment bombings blamed on Chechens and used as a pretext for military escalation).

clear this sort of discussion isn't welcome here. I'll see if I can find a civil engineering forum to discuss some of the technical aspects/flaws in this video.

If you've ever seen a building being demolished you'll notice the sheer amount of work involved in weakening the structure, placing the explosives, wrapping the building to contain flying debris from the explosives, in order to ensure the building collapses in on itself within its own footprint. I think the locals would have noticed all of this weeks of activity and planning if someone brought the building down deliberately. More likely the foundations of the building were damaged when the weight of the twin towers was relieved. If you take away the foundations of a building it is only going to fall one way - straight down. Only a guess, but I don't have the confidence in the US government or any US government institution to pull off a secret conspiracy like this. Too many loud-mouths and people seeking to blab about government secrets for their own personal gain.

In fact I think the original conspiracy goes further - doesn't it suggest hat the US government actually planned and executed the jets crashing into the twin towers to cover up the demolition of the WT7 building? That is even more difficult to believe, that the US government or men in black are capable of pulling this off.

My employer is building a brand new factory at the moment with a steel framework. We have coated the steelwork with an intumescent paint because the factory will be full of chemicals like terpenes and guess what? terpenes burn like aviation fuel. Intumescent paint will retard the bending of the massive steel beams, so massive they were built in a shipyard in Belfast. When our warehouse burned down 15 years ago all the steelwork collapsed like cooked spaghetti. So that's why I think anybody who says the twin towers were demolished deliberately is talking twaddle.

1)

[img] [/img]

2)

I think the locals would have noticed all of this weeks of activity and planning if someone brought the building down deliberately.

I think the conspiracy theory runs that the explosives etc were laid in the course of a long-running lift replacement job (or something) that involved bogus technicians doing the installation for months. Needless to say, it's all nonsense.

Who said anything about Al-Qaeda? I was talking about the CIA

I wasn't aware that the CIA had admitted to the fact that they were responsible for flying two large jets into the twin towers.

That does indeed put a whole new angle on the story.

^ makes you think doesn't it.

The comprehension that governments lie. Does not automatically mean everything is a lie.

You need to question all sources, not just the ones you are pre loaded to be suspicious of.

Is it time for a PressTV YouTube clip?

I couldn't be less interested if I'm honest..

What I do find quite interesting though, is the way that folk get almost [i]angry[/i] when they dismiss people that see fit to question the official line..

I find it a bit unnerving

Off on a [i]complete[/i] tangent now.. I was watching the events unfold that morning, with the very first reports coming in and the panic in the newsreaders faces, an astonishing experience for anyone..
My instant assumption, perhaps due to other things that were in the news that summer, and the obvious symbolism of the target, that it was the work of anti-capitalists..

How different would the outcome have been over the following years if this were the case?

[i] the way that folk get almost angry when they dismiss people that see fit to question the official line[/i]

I'm not sure it's anger so much as outraged disbelief that anyone would give the conspiracy theories credence.

A lot of people have a similar 'you seem like a rational person but you're prepared to believe *that*?' reaction to organised religions.

Just to give an engineers view, I did a fair amount of study on this during uni. The fire precautions in the tower was ok the intumescent cladding was a bit shoddy but in 99% of fires it would have been ok. With the damage caused by the planes strike the poorly fitted cladding came away.
Modern Fire protection mainly looks at single source fires, steps to control it and give time for the people above the fire to escape, they are not based about 5 floors starting in a fully engaged fire.
The largest limiting factor in a building fire is the amount of air if can get not the amount of fuel that can burn, the aviation fuel was a great accelerant to get the real fuel load burning the paper and the flame retardant office furniture.
With 5 floors worth of windows blown out there was plenty of air getting in and a fire burning paper and wood at stoichiometric rates you an see temp of over 1000C in the flame, steels structural fail tep is well exceeded so is no shock that the floors involved with the fire would collapse.
The structure of most high buildings is made to cover the static weight of the floors above with a extra margin for safety, around 50% if i remember right (I'm a fire engineer not civ so I could be out on that) but that's static weight the force of the top dropping though the 5 damage stories would have been like a bomb.

So why did the 3 tower drop? The same as the first 2 massive uncontrolled fire, and plenty of big holes for air to get in.

There is no need for explosives.

Well that settles that then.

What about the moon landings ?

the flag ernie - it's all in the flag

Wow chilled is a genius!!! he/she just light the touch/flypaper which attracted all the usual smug argumentative know-alls and then retired to a safe distance and let them get on with it,genius.

Off on a complete tangent now.. I was watching the events unfold that morning, with the very first reports coming in and the panic in the newsreaders faces, an astonishing experience for anyone..
My instant assumption, perhaps due to other things that were in the news that summer, and the obvious symbolism of the target, that it was the work of anti-capitalists..

How different would the outcome have been over the following years if this were the case?

Well....

Binners wouldn't be here on STW to entertain us.... He'd mostly be wearing orange while on an extended holiday in the Caribbean

The problem with this conspiracy theory isn't the practicalities of it.

Let's assume for argument that the theories are correct, that it's an inside job by the US government or the CIA for some reason; to stir up ill feelings against brown people with beards, or whatever.

Let's also assume that the logistics aren't an issue. For instance, rigging up a building with explosives is a massive undertaking with a high risk of being discovered; aside from suspicious building staff, if any one of those contractors suddenly had an attack of conscience it's game over. Can you imagine someone whistle-blowing 9/11, what the repercussions would be for America? But for all we know, the CIA have their own trusted black-ops bomb squad, so lets roll with that for now.

So they plot to slam planes into high profile buildings in order to kill several thousand tax-paying Americans. They stage a hijacking, and fly two large passenger planes laden with aviation fuel into two massive buildings(*).

At what point in the proceedings does it become necessary to also rig the buildings with explosives? What are we gaining here? Do they think that a pair of huge aircraft aren't going to be sufficient to bring the building down? Do they believe that it's critical that the buildings fall otherwise no-one will care, that the world won't take notice? Is there any reason why, if they believed the planes alone would be insufficient, they didn't pack the planes full of extra explosives which would've been a much simpler task (and easier to explain if discovered) than a controlled explosion? Oh, and of course, the elephant of the room is, if you want to do a controlled demolition, why not just blame that on the terrorists as well?

This is where the whole thing falls down (so to speak) for me. All other things aside, there's absolutely no point to anyone taking the massive risk and effort which would be required to rig the building when you've got a pair of bloody great 767s at your disposal.

(* - and incidentally, what about the other two planes, did they fly one into the floor intentionally? What's that all about?)

This topic was covered in the film "Zeitgeist" has anyone watched it?

Also discusses Christian religion and Christ being about the worship of the sun....

radoggair - Member

snowball effect does occur but not at freefall speed

Neither building fell at freefall speed- it's a really easy thing to discount, debris clear of the building is visibly outrunning the collapse. Really not sure how this one's got so accepted tbh.

so WT7 wasn't hit by a plane, had a few office fires, then completely collapses. Sounds plausible.

I think part of the problem is that many Americans want to believe in conspiracy theories because they have been brought up to deeply dislike and distrust the their government.