9/11 Conspiracy Thread (There can be only one!)

Our religious redneck retard revivalists have used 9/11 as if it were made to order for them. They have used it as an excuse to target political enemies. They have used it as an excuse to compromise human rights.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

What the hell are you talking about?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

two towers - physically possible?

haven't studied physics, so i'm hoping there's some people that have or do, after hearing claims that they couldn't have been brought down just by the planes. i'm not interested in conspiracy theories, politics etc., just whether two planes could have caused the towers to go down the way they did. cheers.

 

Well, if you ask the majority of engineers, fire officials, scientists, architects, etc., the answer is yes. The only definitive way to find out for sure is to build a bunch of replica towers like the WTC's, loaded with office supplies and the whole shebang, and then start crashing planes into them.

 

Nope, it was aliens. I think this has been discussed on every internet forum by now, and here more than 3 or 4 times.

 

Shhhhh, we Bork-kind aren't quite ready to reveal our presence to the world just yet. If you must know, one of our ships over-compensated for relativistic time shift and ended up launching a premature strike. Rest assured, we found the errant pilot and tore his limbs off (all 6 of them!), then left him helpless in the wild to be slowly consumed by Groqtak, the 100 000 pound bone eating slug.

 

Yeah, MattMarr predicted that several years ago, they're in league with the Illuminazis I think.

 

Can an airplane crashing into a building cause structural damage and collapse? Of course that is possible. To just state the obvious, the airplanes did hit the towers and they did collapse. It is reasonable to assume that one caused the other. It's a real life experiment. Buildings aren't as solid as they appear to be, modern buildings aren't castles, they are relatively lightweight structures of steel with glass facings and in this case a concrete core.

 

first bold section: yeah but whether or not it was the planes in conjunction with explosives, or some other kind of structural sabotage, is why i'm interested. i would think terrorists capable of hijacking four planes could plant some explosives anyway, i'm not proposing anything radical. the logic behind your argument is kinda dumb, if you saw a man kick the building just before it fell, did that cause it?

second bold section: planes gotta be pretty light to fly, would have thought they would tear apart rather than do a lot of damage. fire must have been pretty hot to melt/weaken metal and concrete sufficiently. the building's gotta cope with tremors, wind etc. would think its capable of dealing with some stress.

 

Well, you said in your original post that you haven't studied physics - and your statements here make that more than obvious.

They handled the stress just fine, but they weren't designed to handle the tons of burning jet fuel. The planes were fully loaded (had just taken off for cross-country flights) with fuel. And add to that something else that you probably don't know about either - the chimney effect. The flames caused a TREMENDOUS in-draft of air that caused the fire to reach MUCH higher temperatures than normal.

And I'll again emphasize something that was said earlier - the steel did NOT! melt. It was weakened to the point that it cold no longer bear the weight of the structure above it.

 

Actually they did just that only with a computer simulation and showed what happened when the planes hit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cddIgb1nGJ8

http://www.purdue.edu/UNS/html4ever/020910.Sozen.Pentagon.html

http://www.journalof911studies.com/...ollapse_Jones_Thermite_World_Trade_Center.pdf

 

Computer studies will never beat real-life replication.

Get a-buildin'.

 

Your first act as President will be to do just that I guess , if that's a priority with your agenda.:shrug:

 

My question has always been, why would the towers collapse straight down upon themselves. The fire weakened the structure at say, the 60th and 80th floors, but there is still a lot of good structure below that. It seems like for the towers to collapse straight down, they would be taking the path of most resistance. It would make more sense to me if the top parts of the buildings had toppled to one side.

 

As soon as the top part of the building started to collapse, the momentum of all that weight was unstoppable, no building is designed to withstand another building falling from even 1 foot.

Is it also possible that there was a bomb or something? Yes, that is also possible, but there is no evidence for it. Is it necessary to explain the building's collapse? No.

 

And you are one of the geniuses who keeps trying to convince people that a building can fall neatly into its own footprint this way.

 

Gravity pulls things downward, not sideways.