9/11 conspiracies. Really, they still exist?

Recommended Videos

Canadamus Prime

Robot in Disguise
Jun 17, 2009
14,334
0
0
Bigeyez said:
canadamus_prime said:
You cannot convince me that those towers were that easy to destroy (relatively). Surely they were constructed better then that. Besides if you compare it to a game of Jenga, if the in Jenga the piece is removed that invariably causes that tower to fall, the whole tower doesn't fall, just the part that was above the piece that was removed. Following that logic, if (and that's a big 'if') the planes had caused serious enough damage, the most I would've expected to happen was that the upper floors would've fallen off and crashed on to the street below.
Now all I wanted to to say was that it was suspicious. I do have a conspiracy theory of my own that I've been respectfully keeping to myself, but if you REALLY want to hear it...
Did you really just compare the structures of the twin towers to jenga.....I don't know whether to laugh or cry...

Fuck it Im out of this thread. All the facts have been presented across the previous 4 pages. If anyone still believes this was a conspiracy then nothing will change their delusional minds.

/wrists
Well obviously the Twin Towers are lot more complex then then a Jenga tower, but the principles the same.

I repeat, I haven't said anything about any conspiracies about who did what to whom why or how. I don't want to get into it because I don't have the energy for it, I've already wasted more energy then I wanted to on this thread.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
mspencer82 said:
Private Custard said:
The simple fact remains that no matter what angle the plane supposedly hit the pentgon, said plane has wings that would have damaged the exterior of the building.

You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, you'll never alter fact........planes have wings.
And when a coyote falls off a cliff while chasing after a roadrunner it makes a neat little coyote-shaped crater. You may say that it's impossible, that the crater wouldn't have the exact outline of its body, but you'll never alter fact.....coyotes have ears.
An argument is won when people resort to silly replies. I'll consider myself the victor!
 

chris89

New member
Sep 5, 2009
66
0
0
They will never end, as theirs lots for everything. Even for the 7/7 bombings in london in 2005 theirs a lot for that.

The only bit's i look on in doubt is United 93 as i believe that would have been shotdown, and what ever hit the pentagon, due to the damaged that was caused. Also the Twin Towers were built to survive a Impact from an Boeing 707, not a Boeing 767.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
mspencer82 said:
Private Custard said:
mspencer82 said:
Private Custard said:
The simple fact remains that no matter what angle the plane supposedly hit the pentgon, said plane has wings that would have damaged the exterior of the building.

You can argue with me until you're blue in the face, you'll never alter fact........planes have wings.
And when a coyote falls off a cliff while chasing after a roadrunner it makes a neat little coyote-shaped crater. You may say that it's impossible, that the crater wouldn't have the exact outline of its body, but you'll never alter fact.....coyotes have ears.
An argument is won when people resort to silly replies. I'll consider myself the victor!
You go ahead and do that, but you'll still be horribly wrong.

I used that 'silly reply' to point out the fallacy in your Pentagon theory. A wing can break off a plane, it happens. Just because a plane hits a building doesn't mean there's going to be a plane-shaped hole, only an idiot would think that. The Pentagon is a pretty sturdy building; maybe if it was made out of paper mache there would have been a bigger hole, but the hole that was made is pretty consistent with a plane.

Also, do you honestly believe that a missile would have caused less damage than a plane?
So you're seriously saying that the wing of a plane weighing 115,000kg and travelling at +400mph will just break off without damaging the building itself? Do you have any idea what a ridiculous suggestion that is?

Besides, if it broke off, where's the wing? It sure as hell wasn't on the Pentagons lawn, which was still putting-green perfect!
 

falcon1985

New member
Aug 29, 2009
240
0
0
Take a look at this, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/El_Al_Flight_1862, the top right picture shows where a Boeing 747 rammed an appartment building. A 747 only left that much, and the pantagon is a much stronger building then any appartment building will ever be...
 

Aardvark Soup

New member
Jul 22, 2008
1,058
0
0
The problems with conspiracy theorists is that when they've learned of a new theory they seek out all the evidence or (false or not) that confirms whatever they think and ignore everything else. My advice would be to look sceptically at the whole situation and don't believe every random nutjob with a website that has no knowledge on the topics he talks about.
 

Private Custard

New member
Dec 30, 2007
1,920
0
0
mspencer82 said:
Private Custard said:
So you're seriously saying that the wing of a plane weighing 115,000kg will just break off without damaging the building itself? Do you have any idea what a ridiculous suggestion that is?

Besides, if it broke off, where's the wing? It sure as hell wasn't on the Pentagons lawn, which was still putting-green perfect!
You're a structural engineer now are you? Oh I forgot, everyone who watches Loose Change automatically becomes an expert.

Speaking of experts, if everything went down like it did in your little fantasy, why didn't experts come forward and say there's no way it could have happened the way the government says it did? Sure there's one or two crackpots who go along with the conspiracy, but if the Loose Change idiots can find the 'inconsistencies' in the story than why hasn't every expert on the planet?

I'll trust the real experts, thanks.
I don't need to be a structural engineer, and neither do you.

Don't know whether you forgot or not, but on that very same day, we all saw what an airliner actually does to a building when it hits.
 

Nickolai77

New member
Apr 3, 2009
2,843
0
0
Laughing Man said:
What's the deal with people quoting the burning temp of jet fuel vs the melting point of steel? Steel does not have melt to become weak, you only need a fraction of the melting temp to compromise the integrity of the steel.
I am glad someone said this. As steel gets hotter, it becomes weaker, and thus unable to hold the weight it bears, so it breaks and the structure collapses.

Independent experts have anaylised the situation and i am more inclined to believe what they say (e.g- the people from the Popular Mechanics magazine) than a bunch of ordinary people from the internet who are far from qualified.
Show me your degrees in structural engineering, physics and aeronautical engineering and then maybe i'll listen to you.

Conspiracy theories also make the painful assumption that the government is actually competent.
 

falcon1985

New member
Aug 29, 2009
240
0
0
Nickolai77 said:
Laughing Man said:
What's the deal with people quoting the burning temp of jet fuel vs the melting point of steel? Steel does not have melt to become weak, you only need a fraction of the melting temp to compromise the integrity of the steel.
I am glad someone said this. As steel gets hotter, it becomes weaker, and thus unable to hold the weight it bears, so it breaks and the structure collapses.

Independent experts have anaylised the situation and i am more inclined to believe what they say (e.g- the people from the Popular Mechanics magazine) than a bunch of ordinary people from the internet who are far from qualified.
Show me your degrees in structural engineering, physics and aeronautical engineering and then maybe i'll listen to you.
I studied to be an aircraft engineer for 4 years before going to work for KLM, but since i agree with what you just said, that's sort of a useless point.

Let me just say for the record i get sick and tired of ANYONE without any actual knowlege of aviation making claims and wild theories about crashes, and then get pissed of because no one believes their crackpot theories. The twin towers collapsed because two fucking 767 with a full fuel load plowed into them. The pentagon WAS hit by another 767, and there were NO FUCKING EXPLOSIVES IN THE FUCKING TOWERS!
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Well the thing is that there have been conspirices since day #1. Ranging from the fact that someone in Europe was responsible to try and set in motion a domino effect which would weaken the American Economy and given them a chance to rise to the world's pre-eminant economic power. Oddly enough a lot of the things proposed in that theory seem to be happening on a similar time table, and nobody is pointing fingers at the EU. On a lot of levels the EU had the most to gain directly, and China had less to gain but still ultimatly benefits from the incident.

I am NOT saying I believe that, just that there are plenty of them out there with varying degress of direct or indirect evidence.

It should also be noted that given what happened with Bill Clinton there are TONS of left wingers who want to create a similar situation for a Republican president. This is one of the reasons why Bush got dragged through the mud so badly, both where he deserved it, and where he really didn't. People were screaming "treason! impeachment! war crimes!" because at least the first two were thrown in Clinton's direction despite his towering popularity.

The idea that George Bush somehow inflicted this atrocity to justify a war really had no logic behind it. Strictly speaking he has no real need to "avenge his father". Sure we wanted to push into Iraq and finish him, but we left the region victorious and totally undefeated, having done more or less what we said we would. Besides Saddam spent roughly the next decade giving us more ammunition than we'd ever need to justify going in there and killing him. This is one of the reasons why I for one don't care that we went after Iraq. It was long past due no matter how we justified it internationally. Nations like France were so deep in bed with the Iraqis through things like the "Oil For Food" exploits that nobody else was going to do it.

Likewise our first moves were very logical. We went to the Taliban before we did anything and asked them for Osama Bin Ladin. The Taliban at least on paper being our allies since we put them in power. We did this despite all the people partying in the streets at our misfortune throughout the entire region (which is incidently when my hatred solidified into the black pit of pure vengeful evil it is now).

Bush really didn't gain any benefit from it until we went into Iraq and instead of leveling the place, decided to start an ongoing police action so he could pass out rebuilding contracts to his buddies in exchange for kickbacks... and really doing 9/11 for this is really pushing it, I mean you can exploit goverment contracts anytime if you really want to. This is just over the top because of the military issues. This whole part of things being MY major strike against Bush.

We didn't even grab any oil fields like people were screaming about. Heck I'm one of the guys who thinks we SHOULD have done that and it would have been common sense.

The bottom line is that like many 9/11 conspiricy theories one of the big problems is any kind of reasonable motive for the perpetrator.
 

grimsprice

New member
Jun 28, 2009
3,090
0
0
hotacidbath said:
Even I think it's bullshit and I believe in aliens and bigfoot.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha. Thank you for that. I don't know how many times i'm going to spam Popular Mechanics on this one. Tell me they are biased or under government control. Tell me they're in on the conspiracy.

[HEADING=1]Popular Mechanics bitches![/HEADING]

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4
 

NeutralDrow

New member
Mar 23, 2009
9,097
0
0
Private Custard said:
I strongly believe that an airliner did not hit the Pentagon.







When American Airlines Flight 77 hit the Pentagon's exterior wall, Ring E, it created a hole approximately 75 ft. wide, according to the ASCE Pentagon Building Performance Report. The exterior facade collapsed about 20 minutes after impact, but ASCE based its measurements of the original hole on the number of first-floor support columns that were destroyed or damaged. Computer simulations confirmed the findings.

Why wasn't the hole as wide as a 757's 124-ft.-10-in. wingspan? A crashing jet doesn't punch a cartoon-like outline of itself into a reinforced concrete building, says ASCE team member Mete Sozen, a professor of structural engineering at Purdue University. In this case, one wing hit the ground; the other was sheared off by the force of the impact with the Pentagon's load-bearing columns, explains Sozen, who specializes in the behavior of concrete buildings. What was left of the plane flowed into the structure in a state closer to a liquid than a solid mass. "If you expected the entire wing to cut into the building," Sozen tells PM, "it didn't happen."

The tidy hole in Ring C was 12 ft. wide ? not 16 ft. ASCE concludes it was made by the jet's landing gear, not by the fuselage.
 

chris89

New member
Sep 5, 2009
66
0
0
I think the reason why people disbelieve what hit the Pentagon is the CCTV footage that was taken away. And if im correct doesn't it have SAM sites near the building due to it's importance?
 

Kriptonite

New member
Jul 3, 2009
1,049
0
0
Does it really matter what you believe(I'm saying this to anyone)? Weather or not you think it was(n't) a conspiracy, it won't make a difference, [HEADING=1]IT HAS ALREADY HAPPENED![/HEADING]
 

2012 Wont Happen

New member
Aug 12, 2009
4,286
0
0
Ibanez887 said:
Its just something that needs to die (no pun, if any, intended)
People need to realize that if it was a terrorist attack (not saying it isnt), then we have some right to hunt down whoever did that
If its not (again, not saying is was planned), then we dont have a right to be overseas
We would have the right to try Osama Bin Ladin for his crimes and execute him. We do NOT have the right to invade ANY country and kill innocents as a result. Certainly we had no right to invade Iraq, which was a totally unrelated country.