Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Register Log in

So was 9/11 an inside job or not? (merged)



Triggaaar

Triggaaar

Well-known member
Oct 24, 2005
50,201
Goldstone
Wrong-Direction said:
Remember when everyone thought Jimmy Savile was a really great guy?
Click to expand...
No. I don't remember that.

We're not saying that governments don't lie to us. They do. Do I trust everything they say - no. Do I put it past one or even a few people to murder a few thousand people - no, not really. But there would be a lot of people needed to rig 9/11 with explosives, the way it has been suggested, and it is pretty unlikely you'd get that many people to be in on it (the murder of thousands of Americans), without anyone blowing the whistle before it happened.

I simply look at the evidence provided by the conspiracy theorists and it doesn't stack up.

If the government did want to do 9/11 as an inside job, all they had to do was help a couple of terrorists fly passenger jets into the twin towers. Regardless of what would happen to the towers from then on, thousands would have died (as we sadly saw from Grenfell, it's not easy to save people from a burning tower). That's all they had to do. No need to rig explosives everywhere, no need to involve hundreds of people in a cover up. If it was an insurance job, that would also have been enough. Suggestions that the towers were rigged with explosives are just dumb.
 
Last edited:








Silverhatch

Silverhatch

Well-known member
Feb 23, 2009
4,313
Preston Park
Commander said:
and a dirty great ****ing jet liner flying into them at 500mph?

I never understand all this "They were designed to stay up" argument. I'm pretty sure the architect never tested flying a passenger jet into them. The i360 is designed to go up and down every day, doesn't mean that's what happens in practice.
Click to expand...

From Richard A Muller - American Physicist

Impact

As the airplane entered the World Trade Center building, it was torn apart, and the 60 tons of fuel, stored mostly in the wings, was released. Such fuel is highly explosive when mixed with air, but the mixing is not easy to accomplish. Only part of the fuel exploded. (Technically, it was not an explosion, but a conflagration. That's why the sound was muffled.) Most of the force of the explosion blew out several floors of the World Trade Center. The explosion passed around most of the columns, leaving them in place. (The only columns taken out immediately were probably those hit by the plane directly.) Much of the airplane passed through the building and emerged on the other side. This may be why debris from the airplane (including the passport of one terrorist) was found; it was not trapped in the building itself.

The buildings survived the impact. As you look at the films, note how little the upper parts of the buildings move. The antenna on the North Tower hardly shook. The upper part of the building remained vertical. Even the windows didn't break. Neither the impact, nor the subsequent explosion, destroyed the building.

The Fire and the collapse

The steel columns were covered with insulation, and were designed to maintain their strength for 2 to 3 hours of burning. However, the material that burned was not office furnature and paper documents. The wings, with their fuel load, probably remained in the building, where they provided fuel for the subsequent burning. The fierce burning that took place over the next hour was slowly fed by the fuel leaking out of the remains of the tanks.

At high temperatures, steel will melt. At much lower temperatures, it weakens. The jet fuel created a holocaust far hotter than planned for in the building. When the columns weakened, they became vulnerable to buckling. When buckling takes place, it takes place quickly. When one column buckles, it puts more weight on the others, and they buckle too. The columns for an entire floor (maybe for several floors) buckled at one time. The upper floors then slammed into the lower floors. The impact multiplied the force on these lower floors, and they buckled. The process continued as each lower floor continued to buckle in turn. In a few seconds, the entire building had collapsed.

Did the terrorists know this would happen. No. This was a new mode for the collapse of a tall building that was completely unanticipated. I can't rule out that some engineer, sometime, didn't write a memo pointing out this failure mode, but it was not well known. If it were, the building would not have had 300 firemen in the building at the time of collapse.

It is the fire that eventually caused the buildings to collapse. It was not the impact of the plane; it was not the explosion.
 


S

scamander

New member
Aug 9, 2011
596
Papa Lazarou said:
Maybe they were all on one of the other planes?

And the people that knew about THAT were on ANOTHER plane...

And the people that knew about THAT were etc
Click to expand...

Conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 are numerous, I tend to think of them sitting on a slide scale of probability. Just because you think one or two are probable it doesn't mean you buy into the really extreme ones or indeed all of them. For the really incredulous ones you would need a cast of hundreds in on it. For the less incredulous ones you need only a few decision makers making specific choices.

As per the podcast I referred to earlier, the political motivation for an attack on Iraq was huge. I'm not interested in the temperature of steel etc which seems to go to topic in 9/11 threads. But look at the figures behind and around Bush, they were itching to get into Iraq for numerous reasons. If you think govts wouldn't be interested in allowing an attack or lying about one to set a political agenda check out Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, both on wiki.

I really cannot recommend the podcast by The Last Podcast from the Left. They aren't conspiracy nuts and shoot down more or less every conspiracy theory there is, however, the dissection of the political figures around Bush at the time is terrifying. Bush seems to have been a puppet figure controlled them the entire time.
 






Commander

Commander

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Apr 28, 2004
12,923
London
Silverhatch said:
From Richard A Muller - American Physicist

Impact

As the airplane entered the World Trade Center building, it was torn apart, and the 60 tons of fuel, stored mostly in the wings, was released. Such fuel is highly explosive when mixed with air, but the mixing is not easy to accomplish. Only part of the fuel exploded. (Technically, it was not an explosion, but a conflagration. That's why the sound was muffled.) Most of the force of the explosion blew out several floors of the World Trade Center. The explosion passed around most of the columns, leaving them in place. (The only columns taken out immediately were probably those hit by the plane directly.) Much of the airplane passed through the building and emerged on the other side. This may be why debris from the airplane (including the passport of one terrorist) was found; it was not trapped in the building itself.

The buildings survived the impact. As you look at the films, note how little the upper parts of the buildings move. The antenna on the North Tower hardly shook. The upper part of the building remained vertical. Even the windows didn't break. Neither the impact, nor the subsequent explosion, destroyed the building.

The Fire and the collapse

The steel columns were covered with insulation, and were designed to maintain their strength for 2 to 3 hours of burning. However, the material that burned was not office furnature and paper documents. The wings, with their fuel load, probably remained in the building, where they provided fuel for the subsequent burning. The fierce burning that took place over the next hour was slowly fed by the fuel leaking out of the remains of the tanks.

At high temperatures, steel will melt. At much lower temperatures, it weakens. The jet fuel created a holocaust far hotter than planned for in the building. When the columns weakened, they became vulnerable to buckling. When buckling takes place, it takes place quickly. When one column buckles, it puts more weight on the others, and they buckle too. The columns for an entire floor (maybe for several floors) buckled at one time. The upper floors then slammed into the lower floors. The impact multiplied the force on these lower floors, and they buckled. The process continued as each lower floor continued to buckle in turn. In a few seconds, the entire building had collapsed.

Did the terrorists know this would happen. No. This was a new mode for the collapse of a tall building that was completely unanticipated. I can't rule out that some engineer, sometime, didn't write a memo pointing out this failure mode, but it was not well known. If it were, the building would not have had 300 firemen in the building at the time of collapse.

It is the fire that eventually caused the buildings to collapse. It was not the impact of the plane; it was not the explosion.
Click to expand...

Yeah. A much hotter fire than designed for, caused by a dirty great ****ing jet liner flying into them at 500mph.
 


Megazone

Megazone

On his last warning
Jan 28, 2015
8,679
Northern Hemisphere.
This is the man (Charlie Veitch) who convinced me 9/11 wasn't an inside job:



If you're not sure wether to trust Charlie Veitch evidence on 9/11, watch this video:



Could this official BBC evidence that 9/11 wasn't an inside job, actually be complete lies played out by media puppets? Clearly not!
 
Last edited:






Hillian1

Hillian1

( . ) ( . )
Jul 15, 2010
15,364
Struggling for breath at the top of the stairs
Commander said:
and a dirty great ****ing jet liner flying into them at 500mph?

I never understand all this "They were designed to stay up" argument. I'm pretty sure the architect never tested flying a passenger jet into them. The i360 is designed to go up and down every day, doesn't mean that's what happens in practice.
Click to expand...

The Twin Towers were designed to withstand an impact by a large plane. They designed like this because in 1945 (I think) The Empire State Building was hit by an Air Force B25 Mitchel Bomber in dense fog.

Although a fully laden Airliner flying at full chat was probably not what they had in mind.
 


symyjym

symyjym

Banned
Nov 2, 2009
13,138
Brighton / Hove actually
scamander said:
Conspiracy theories concerning 9/11 are numerous, I tend to think of them sitting on a slide scale of probability. Just because you think one or two are probable it doesn't mean you buy into the really extreme ones or indeed all of them. For the really incredulous ones you would need a cast of hundreds in on it. For the less incredulous ones you need only a few decision makers making specific choices.

As per the podcast I referred to earlier, the political motivation for an attack on Iraq was huge. I'm not interested in the temperature of steel etc which seems to go to topic in 9/11 threads. But look at the figures behind and around Bush, they were itching to get into Iraq for numerous reasons. If you think govts wouldn't be interested in allowing an attack or lying about one to set a political agenda check out Operation Northwoods and the Gulf of Tonkin incident, both on wiki.

I really cannot recommend the podcast by The Last Podcast from the Left. They aren't conspiracy nuts and shoot down more or less every conspiracy theory there is, however, the dissection of the political figures around Bush at the time is terrifying. Bush seems to have been a puppet figure controlled them the entire time.
Click to expand...

Yes Bush wanted to go to Iraq but that is the problem because 9/11 forced him to go to Afghanistan first. It was an inconvenient distraction to him. He clearly didn't need 9/11 to go to war in Iraq and was going to do it with Blair under the WMD's excuse anyway. He may have attached 9/11 to Saddam retrospectively to gain American support but 9/11 was of no use to him.

They went into Afghanistan as a token gesture and started in Iraq before they had even finished.
 




GreersElbow

GreersElbow

New member
Jan 5, 2012
4,870
A Northern Outpost
colinz said:
Just saying that those who believe in the official conspiracy because of what they saw on the Tele, are the same as those who believe the Towers were brought down and dustified by some exotic weaponry, as a result of analysing what they saw on the Tele.
Click to expand...

"Just saying that those who believe in the official conspiracy"

What..?
 


S

scamander

New member
Aug 9, 2011
596
from what I heard on the podcast Bush wasn't that interested - it was Rumsfeld, Cheney and co who had an array of personal and business interests in the war(s).
 






The Clamp

The Clamp

Well-known member
NSC Patron
Jan 11, 2016
24,529
West is BEST
Well, the OP seems absolutely certain it was a little inside job. That's good enough for me. The question now is , just what are WE gonna do about this? I'm just not convinced breaking this news on a football forum is gonna get things resolved. I might make a banner.
 


N

NogansRun

Member
Aug 8, 2016
53
Commander said:
Perfect, we have someone who is actually qualified to answer these questions then. What are the 'near impossible manouevres' out of interest? How much skill would it take to fly a plane into the WTC if you knew what you were doing?
Click to expand...
ghly

I'm talking about the Pentagon here, not the WTC. At the Pentagon, the alleged hijacker, who three weeks before 9/11 had failed a chaperoned test flight in a small Cessna aircraft, managed to operate the infinitely more complicated controls of a Boeing 767 and according to air traffic control data, after somehow navigating his way to Washington DC, executed an incredibly precise diving turn at a rate of 360 degrees/minute while descending at 3,500 ft/min at a speed in excess of 400mph. He then managed to level out this turn at ground level and fly for one mile at 20 feet off the ground, travelling at over 400mph (which in any event is physically impossible for a large aircraft) and straight into the Pentagon. These are the 'near impossible' manouevres I am referring to.

People can believe what they like and choose to ignore or accept whatever they like, I have never flown large aircraft such as a 767, but I am convinced that the official story on this does not stack up and I can assure you that there are many, many pilots who are of the same view.
 


LlcoolJ

LlcoolJ

Mama said knock you out.
Oct 14, 2009
12,982
Sheffield
The Clamp said:
Well, the OP seems absolutely certain it was a little inside job. That's good enough for me. The question now is , just what are WE gonna do about this? I'm just not convinced breaking this news on a football forum is gonna get things resolved. I might make a banner.
Click to expand...

Make sure you tweet a picture of your banner. That should do it.
 






Baldseagull

Baldseagull

Well-known member
Jan 26, 2012
10,957
Crawley
Hillian1 said:
The Twin Towers were designed to withstand an impact by a large plane. They designed like this because in 1945 (I think) The Empire State Building was hit by an Air Force B25 Mitchel Bomber in dense fog.

Although a fully laden Airliner flying at full chat was probably not what they had in mind.
Click to expand...

The Titanic was designed not to sink.
 




You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports


Top
Link Here