Was 9-11 a government conspiracy?

Have you ever been on a plane? More specifically a commercial plane? Maybe my cell phone is defective (

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

), but it does not work in the middle of a flight.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Have I ever been on a plane. Yes, on many occasions.

I've seen people make/take calls on commercial planes in flight.

So maybe, you were just flying over an area with no coverage, hmmm?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Well forgive me. I'll tame my temper. If I insulted anyone, I truly apologize.

Know, please tell me where I was anti-semtic?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

http://ourworld-top.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/defense/1227842.html?page=1&c=y

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=13&articleID=000DA0E2-1E15-128A-9E1583414B7F0000

http://www.snopes.com/rumors/pentagon.htm

http://www.issues-answers.com/forum/index.php?topic=220.0

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blflight77w.htm

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/misinformation.html

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewNation.asp?Page=\Nation\archive\200410\NAT20041011a.html

 

didn't i say something similar and got banned for it?

 

http://usinfo.state.gov/media/Archive/2006/Jan/20-672210.html

 

Wow! What a wild bunch of silly speculation! Here's betting you cannot provide any reliable sources for any of it.

I'll take an easy one, just for starters. No one with any sense has ever claimed the steel melted . It was weakened, primarily because the fireproofing had been knocked off by the impact.

And both towers most definitely DID tilt somewhat before they finally collapsed.

 

the reason for this was because the doors leading to the roof had been locked
well before 9/11

 

Counter conspiracy theory theorists are so much kookier than who or what they attempt to explain away; that anyone would actually spend time to refute "4,000 Jews don't show up for work on 9/11" as (evidence for) a "conspiracy theory" sadly lends such idiotic notions (re: NOT "theories" at ALL) a sort of indirect credibility they didn't have before the "refutation."

It amounts to "raising the noise floor"- nothing more.

There are problems with the "official story" as outlined in the Kean Commission report, but that is not an endorsement of any "conspiracy theory."

...

Anyone who believes no further investigation is needed is just plain nuts.

Or a PNAC cheerleader...

Or both.

 

i doubt the validity of this.
the buildings surrounding wtc 1 and 2 were damaged
some extensively
wtc 7 collapsed and it wasn't even hit

 

why do you say this?

 

Why do you question it?

...

Someone who knew Ramzi Yousef probably got the idea for the 9/11 attacks from him before he was jailed for the "Bojinka" conspiracy in 1996-7; his Uncle (Khalid Shaikh Mohammed) wasn't wealthy enough or influential enough to have pulled off the attacks, and, Usama bin Laden is NOT wanted in connection with the 9/11 attacks... the only suspect (yet) charged is Zacarias Moussaoui.

The DOJ link lays out a nice little case against Moussaoui personally, but much of what it contains is sheer speculation and invention.

Up to and including the nifty intelligence moniker: "al Qaeda."

...


Do your absolute best to find a streaming or downloadable version of Adam Curtis' three-part documentary "The Power of Nightmares."

It pretty much lays out the agendas which have polarized the West and the Wahabbiists.

 

you do realize the plane that crashed into the tower was a 767
don't you?

 

steel starts to lose its strenght before it melts

edit
Steel often melts at around 1370 degrees C (2500°F).
http://education.jlab.org/qa/meltingpoint_01.html

Steel melts at about 1300 degrees Celsius (2400 Fahrenheit).
http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/chem99/chem99021.htm

Ebeltoft said steel loses half its strength when heated to temperatures of 700 to 1,000 degrees.
http://wildcat.arizona.edu/papers/95/17/01_9_m.html

 

For anyone reading through this thread:

There has been alot of misinformation put out about "pancake" collapses, and I want to clear the air about this issue and the WTC, or at least put the term in a historical context.

The WTC twin towers were not classic "pancake" collapses; "pancaking" is not even a valid failure mode because the principles which would lead one or more floors to cause an entire building to collapse mean that the building design (or materials) would be totally unsafe under typical loads, especially with regard to hydrocarbon fires.

For the bureaucrats at FEMA, the moniker "pancake collapse" was convenient, but all wrong for the twin towers (as it is for WTC 7 also). (Don't get me going about budget increases and NIST, or FEMA for that matter; each agency has some good apples and some rotten ones)

The term "pancake" was first used in the 1950's by the Army Corps of Engineers who were designing reinforced concrete buildings to withstand earthquakes and nuclear strikes. They noticed that typical concrete buildings when hit with sufficient seismic vibration were susceptible to collapse into a heap of floors, so the END RESULT looked like a stack of pancakes; all the floors neatly stacked one upon the other below it.

We saw no such symmetry of debris at ground zero of the WTC complex.

So, it wasn't a pancake collapse; no out-rigger type building could be, according to what I learned in the mid-1980's while studying architecture, since they were designed with internal stabilizers to resist vibration on four axes, including torsional or rotational forces.

...

Besides, the final nail in the coffin of the popularized "pancake theory" is the near free-fall durations of each of the three buildings; regardless of what "conspiracy theorists" use those facts to indicate... it doesn't mean there were bombs in the buildings (though some explosions were heard, felt, reported, and captured on audiovisual media they weren't "regular" enough to be a sequential controlled demolition), but what it does mean is that the collapse wasn't a sequential floor-by-floor event either, which has been popularized with certain media outlets, and counter-conspiracy websites.

The structural mass and forces which were resisting downward compression (and absorbing momentum during the collapses), by sharing the load between the core and the exterior panels, means that the towers should have only partially collapsed.

(There is some contention with the misleading moniker "Progressive Collapse" also, which was welcomed by the Neo-Cons' "echo chamber" and even mainstream media- but semantics are another discussion; there's a precedent for "pancake collapses" and the WTC wasn't one, however the term "progressive collapse" entered the lexicon fairly recently)

...

An uncomfortable summary is this:

Between the "bombs in the building" theories and the "lucky collapse theories" there's really no middle ground.

And no means of harmonizing both extremes.

The science behind the TT collapses (and WTC 7) has polarized the 9/11 debate ever since, and it will likely continue; hopefully resulting in a theory which satisfies all of the data we have, and whatever we will learn in the future.

The WTC collapses are still a mystery right now.

One of MANY surrounding the 9/11 attacks...

And the curious events afterwards.

...

I don't read much from the so-called conspiracy theorists, or their detractors, so you'll have to forgive me if any of this was covered by anyone else. Most of what I know about the TT and WTC 7 comes from FEMA and NIST's information and my own training and reasoning.


Greetings

 

you people whomconstantly deny conspiracy theory about 9/11 7/7 etc., cant you see the absurdity of your position?
you seem to have no grasp how the bully boys a the top work. their motives of power-over. you seem soooo naive and trusting in authority. easily manipulated. your freedoms are going cause of those sham 'terrorist' attacks and u dont seem to care....?

 

I second that Duendy, but what can one do?

:m:

 

And isn't it odd how Duendy trusts no one yet will believe anything that could be classed as "bad."

 

It's too early for ad hominem, isn't it?