So you have no actual good, reliable sources then?
Cos I know if I had argument ending proof, I'd be playing that card asap. Would certainly be quicker than the last couple of hours you've spent discussing it here.
Conspiracy Files: The Third Tower
- Thread starter mark66
- Start date
Cos I know if I had argument ending proof, I'd be playing that card asap. Would certainly be quicker than the last couple of hours you've spent discussing it here.
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 15 Mar 2004
- Posts
- 28,140
- Location
- Liverpool
Mostly grey really. It appears quite repetitive and boring.
Associate
- Joined
- 21 Nov 2006
- Posts
- 285
Of course he doesn't, he would have simply showed them rather than constantly saying "I'm not going to do it for you". In most of his posts he has made things up, like saying the plane hit exactly straight on. Making up that somehow 2 floors cannot protect you from the heat, when a simple google search would find you these images showing how hot floor 82 could be while floor 78 is fine.
Despite his claims it is obvious he has read very little material on the subject, and refuses to find/read material even as he's about to post something that requires backing up if not to look foolish.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,083
- Location
- Leeds/Cyprus
UnusualSuspect, a friend's brother is an engineer (graduated from Leeds 2 years before I got here) and went on to do a masters in fire safety/fire-proofing constructions, and he's now a consultant for construction firms, and he told me pretty much everything AcidHell2 is telling you - over MSN WHILE I WAS WATCHING THE TOWERS BURN ON CNN! He actually said he expected the 2nd tower to collapse first due to the plane hitting it further down its structureminutes before it actually did!
Burning jet fuel might not melt steel but it's more than enough to soften it sufficiently for the building to collapse, and since metal actually conducts heat quite well the tower's structure was weakened more-or-less uniformly, not just at the point of impact or the bits that were on fire, leading to the pancake-effect collapse.
Please people, let the conspiracy theories die.
Burning jet fuel might not melt steel but it's more than enough to soften it sufficiently for the building to collapse, and since metal actually conducts heat quite well the tower's structure was weakened more-or-less uniformly, not just at the point of impact or the bits that were on fire, leading to the pancake-effect collapse.
Please people, let the conspiracy theories die.
Soooooooo......
220 odd posts mostly saying that the US government couldn't have possibly done it, but not a single one offering an opinion of who really was behind it all if it wasn't them.
So some beardy bloke in a cave half-way across the world outwitted the entire US intelligence services to pull it off?
220 odd posts mostly saying that the US government couldn't have possibly done it, but not a single one offering an opinion of who really was behind it all if it wasn't them.
So some beardy bloke in a cave half-way across the world outwitted the entire US intelligence services to pull it off?
Don't know what you mean by outwitted? Security on internal flights was relatively loose at the time wasn't it? The difficult part would seem to be gaining control of the plane.
Speculating on who else could possibly have done it would make even less sense than suggestiong it was an inside job.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,083
- Location
- Leeds/Cyprus
There's plenty of footage of the impact where the planes are clearly shown to be quite slanted on impact. Those things have a huge wingspan, which, as uknowist pointed out, was enough to spread the impact site spread over 7 stories. Furthermre, THE PLANE DID NOT COLLAPSE FROM THE IMPACT! Planes are made from lightweight aluminium, it might have snapped a few girders (largely due to the stresses created on them by other parts of the building deforming on the aircract's impact rather than from the plane itself) but there was no way the fuselage would have created enough damage to cause it to collapse: aluminium is too soft and light to shatter steel, regardless of the speed of impact - it was the fire weakening the metal which caused the collapse!
As explained multiple times in this thread the fire was not hot enough to melt steel, only to weaken it sufficiently to precipitate collapse.
Oh, surely. Sarcasm aside though, I have an issue with the way you're ignoring evidence and substituting them with your own speculation. Surely you can't know how big the holes made by the wingtips were, where in the large area of the 78th floor they were located, and whether they were vertically aligned with the supposed waterfall of "molten steel" on the 80th floor so as to allow it to pour through to the 78th? (which incidentally could not have been steel, as we have seen that jet fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel - maybe it was aluminium as unknowist said, maybe whoever told the NYT this was mistaken about it being molten metal at all, as, after all, he was obviously in a situation very much resembling hell during a nuclear holocaust and cannot have been expected to make accurate observations). Surely you don't know what temperatures the human body can withstand (specifically when wearing protective gear as those firefighters were)? Surely you don't know what the temperature was on the 80th floor (overall, not just the spot-temperature of the fires in it), how much heat-insulation there was in-between floors, and what the temperature would have been on the 78th? Surely your speculations, while logical, are not backed by any evidence at all and are based on nothing but you picking holes in the stories you've read without cross-referencing your thoughts with scientific data to see whether your concerns are valid?
I've pretty much only read the last 80 odd posts in this thread, but I honestly don't think it was Bin Laden at all... doesn't anyone else believe that it could have been the Saudi's? I mean it makes much more sense surely?
Why not? I read the basic idea in the thriller published years before. It's quite an obvious way to make a very effective suicide attack on an accessible building. A very heavy object travelling at very high speeds and loaded up with a lot of extremely flammable liquid is an effective way to attack a building. There are a lot of planes in the air around NYC, hijacking a plane was quite easy and the standard response was based on expecting hijackers to try to trade the passengers' lives for specific demands such as the release of prisoners. The WTC twin towers were an easy target to hit with a plane, too.
What some people are claiming the USA government is far harder - arranging for some other people to do the plane attack, arranging for invisible demolition teams to invisibly set up controlled demolitions (which is impossible anyway) and then covering it all up.
lol i remember reading(cant remember if it was on this forum) someone thinking that the conspiracy theory was a conpsiracy theory made up by the goverment to stop the public realising how many flaws occured(if that makes sense)
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Feb 2004
- Posts
- 1,083
- Location
- Leeds/Cyprus
Wasn't that South Park?
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 3,251
Can anyone tell me if the show is worth watching? As I Sky +'d it and cba trying to find out if it is or not with some of the bickering 
Caporegime
- Joined
- 28 Jun 2007
- Posts
- 52,812
- Location
- Tamworth, UK
Not really, no.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 3,251
Cheers! shall just delete it when I get back then 
of course not, i actually think the exact opposite, but to think that anybody is capable or competent enough to carry out such an act and then to keep it secret is, frankly, moronic - in fact it is insane, and shares more in common with a psychotic episode than with the facts.
Firstly they probably didn't have much water seeing as the mains was out, secondly if the fire was due to burning fuel it would have been burning extremely hot so you'd have needed a lot of water or more likely a special foam to do anything.
Also are you familiar with the fact that heat rises? Fires spread up not down.
It sounds like you're trying to make out that fuelled jet planes crashing into the buildings just set fire to a couple of desks!!!
lol i remember reading(cant remember if it was on this forum) someone thinking that the conspiracy theory was a conpsiracy theory made up by the goverment to stop the public realising how many flaws occured(if that makes sense)
Might be onto something.
If the US government were behind it somehow the people that probably help them cover it up the most are all the conspiracy theorists! There are so many completely ridicules theories that people keep repeating even when they can be proved to be total rubbish. Because of this if anyone were to find proof of something suspicious they will now never be taken seriously.I was slightly suspicious of building 7 until I saw the damage photos and read the official reports.
I don't believe there were any bombs in the buildings and I certainly don't believe that anything but a passenger plane hit the pentagon. However there is a cover up surrounding the events just look into the following issues:
Sibel Edmond's
Able Danger
The fact that nobody involved in the 9/11 commission was put under oath.
The fact Bush and Chaney refused to be questioned separately for the commission and only agreed if what they said was kept secret and could not be published.
The head of Pakistani Intelligence General Mahmoud who wired money to the hijackers before 9/11 was in Washington the morning of the attacks and was discreetly dismissed after the events.
The Anthrax attack using military grade spores which followed 9/11 and somehow has never been repeated by the terrorists. A lot of FBI agents investigating 9/11 were moved onto this case and never returned to investigating 9/11.
The countless warnings from other countries which were ignored. Then after the event nobody was fired or demoted for missing obvious signs an attack was imminent.
I could go on and on.....if your interested please visit this site which footnotes all source material and explains just whythe Bush administration tried to block any formal investigation of 9/11:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
I don't believe there were any bombs in the buildings and I certainly don't believe that anything but a passenger plane hit the pentagon. However there is a cover up surrounding the events just look into the following issues:
Sibel Edmond's
Able Danger
The fact that nobody involved in the 9/11 commission was put under oath.
The fact Bush and Chaney refused to be questioned separately for the commission and only agreed if what they said was kept secret and could not be published.
The head of Pakistani Intelligence General Mahmoud who wired money to the hijackers before 9/11 was in Washington the morning of the attacks and was discreetly dismissed after the events.
The Anthrax attack using military grade spores which followed 9/11 and somehow has never been repeated by the terrorists. A lot of FBI agents investigating 9/11 were moved onto this case and never returned to investigating 9/11.
The countless warnings from other countries which were ignored. Then after the event nobody was fired or demoted for missing obvious signs an attack was imminent.
I could go on and on.....if your interested please visit this site which footnotes all source material and explains just whythe Bush administration tried to block any formal investigation of 9/11:
http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=911_project
Last edited: