Graham S1

Another program on Monday. "Path to 911".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctwo/listings...4224_59499_120

This might be interesting.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14718803/?GT1=8506

Wonder what thats about then? "Able Danger"? Fancy looking that one up Lee?

And thats why I've never blamed Bush for 911. The lead up happened during Clintons time.

MWF

The conspiracy theorists believe that the towers could not have fallen so fast under their own weight and believe that helps prove the theory that there were explosions helping the towers colapse.

Graham S1

.. or to expand on that a little, people in high positions whose loyalties really lie with other countries. Or religions.

Terry Tibbs

Fact or ficiton, doesn't matter.

Fact is there's a billion to 1 chance that, that building with 20-30% overall TOP level damage would have fallen in on itself. I would understand if the top fell down, but 70% undamaged building just falling RIGHT down on itself.. not likely.

Lee Reynolds

What steve said is right and still is what i was immplying Inocent people get killed during WAR...if it is strategy then its for a reason as it is WAR. America werent at WAR. They were just attacked by cowardly bastards who have declared war on them but hide in civi clothes and attack innocent people only. Why dont they go for the top boys instead of keep blowing up busses and trains and planes...

As for how they fell what a load of bollox. Of course they would fall under their own weight. Once one floor went that was it, that took another floor then those two took the next, and so on,each time gaining momentum and force....

Lee Reynolds

the fooking top didnt crush the WHOLE bottom 70% by itself, it took it out floor by floor each time gaining more and more power until eventually piling up on itself...why the fook thats hard to understand ill never know.

MWF

I dunno I think the problem is, despite peoples efforts, there's no comparison to draw. I mean find footage of another 500,000 ton 1 km high tower (I don't know the exact figs) that's been hit by a jet airliner at full speed. There's never been anything like it to compare it with and see if it clearly is impossible.

Other than that it just seems to be people on the Internet looking toward the ceiling pursing their lips and thinking "yeah I reckon that's not possible" and then finding some calculations and highly debatable footage which support their opinion.

Graham S1

nope.

Lee Reynolds

I think they just lead quite sad lives to come up with that crap in the first place

Freaks

Graham S1

called the "pancake collapse theory" yes?

just so you know NIST recently abandoned this "theory".

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm

MWF

LOL conspiracy theories tend to be full of 'factual' claims that later turn out to be fundementally wrong. The problem is people tend to repeat and pass on the claims without any question (because they want them to be true).

The classic example was the JFK 'conspiracy' where conspiracy theorists made claims that the shooter couldn't cock the shoot the rifle fast enough, turned out pretty much anyone could and promoted the magic bullet theory while ignoring the position of people in JFK's car.

The moonlanding conspiracies are riddled with them too.

aduz

why anybody is bothering discussing all these conspiracy thories is beyond me as its a bit late now as those people are dead end of

and if there is any kind of dodgy dealings in this whole mess we will never know the truth anyway

MWF

Well what I'm trying to say is that if they had happened twice then it would be more obvious to the layman (ie you and I) if anything was unusual.

I do understand that for a building to colapse it has to mash through itself which would slow it down and can see why the freefall issue crops up. But for me it just makes sense that we are talking about a huge mass way way taller than anything that's colapsed demolished before and a concrete/steel frame can barely slow that amount of momentum down at all. A bit like dropping a bowling ball on a box kite.

bexyboo1312

It is quite possible that there were bombs in that building as well, planted by terrorists. No one has ruled that out, it makes me really angry that people go round looking for theories all the time.

These stupid videos compare buildings that have been on fire & withstood falling - a fuckin fire caused by a spark hitting a curtain then spreadng is alot different to a massive jet plane with all that fuel hitting a building.

As said, it is not comparable as there is nothing else like it thankfully

Ok, some may say "why did they ram 2 planes in to it aswell" - many explanations but these sickos go for maximum impact on the public.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Exactly..... Fires raged in the top part of the building, where temperatures, from fires fuel'd by jet fuel, reached astromic levels, causing the steel structure of the building (at that point) to buckle. It was inevitable that under the intense heat and gaping holes in the buildings structure that part of it was to collapse.

But it wasn't 80% demolished by 20%. It was a few floors (well, all the floors above the fires/impact point) falling and hitting the next floor, which of course also fell, under the weight of 20-odd stories. This is not 20 stories taking out a further 80 or 90 stories, this is 20 stories taking out just ONE story. This then turns to 21 stories taking out another single story. Now it's 22 taking out again, another single story. See the pattern?

Listen to the audio and also the testimonies of the firefighters and other survivors in Stairwell B - are they fake and making it up when they say they heard each floor hit one by one?

So whilst 20 stories falling takes out one floor at a time, by the time you get to the bottom, it's actually 80% of the building taking out the remaining 20%.

You cannae argue with the laws of physics Jim

Finally, watch any video of a building being deliberately demolished - in nearly every singel case, there is a huge explosion (visual and audible) and a DELAY before the building begines to fall down. Now watch the video's, the countless video footage from all sorts of pro video, news video and camcorder footage, of the towers falling. I have seen it a lot and I can say I do not remember hearing a huge explosion or seeing a delay from it falling (obviously other than the delay from the point of impact to the point of falling.

Lee Reynolds

No your wrong Thrush its immpossible for it to collpase like that

PMSL at the pancake theory.

It fell by crushing each floor one by one. The floors were held up by steel trusses. Steel can only hold a certain amount of weight. What happens to it once it reaches its very limit? It bends? NO it just goes like jelly. I have seen a beam go under stress. Most people would think it would either bend double with all the weight or snap but it doesnt it just goes gloopy like jelly and crashes to the floor. So steel designed to carry one floor and everything/person on it has about 20 floors dropping on it...what happens next you work it out...oh yeah just before it lands G Bush presses a button and detonates a secret bomb

Lee Reynolds

BTW what they mean by the pancake theory not being supported is the inital failure causing the collapse. Once the collapse started there is no other way of it coming down on itself without taking it out one by one...otherwise it would have toppled...

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

Exactly Lee, thats my point. I see so many people/things on the net whatever, saying that a small portion of the bguilding couldn't have taken down the larger majority of the building, when in reality, it was the other way around. The weight of 20 floors falling (caused by the structural metal beams failing under the heat which was in the thousands of degree's) one the next floor. So if you look at it like that, then why is it not possible for 20 floors to take out one floor? Surely thats the physics you speak off? As the knock on effect carries on, you have multiplying number of floors (20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 40, 48, 59, 67, 78 - need I go on?) landing on a SINGLE floor. A floor with supports not designed to carry the weight of 45 (example) floors landing on it with the immense ammount of kinetic engery they are carrying.....

I don't see why some people are so blinkered

But hey, everyone loves a conspiracy theory right? Personally I don't, and I think that those who are blaming the whole 9/11 tragedy on a conspiracy theory are twats...

Lets look at this operation Northwood shall we.

This is alledgedly, and attempt to kill Americans, and was to be implented and thought up by Americans to justify a war on Cuba right?

Hmm, I am not so sure;

Now, you might notice I have highlighted certain important words there.

If you re-read that looking for these key words, it doesn't actually say that the American goverment actually intended to kill American civilian citizens, but rather to "stage" these attacks, and that the only people mentioned in actually being harmed were in fact Cubans - natives of the land they wanted to attack.

So really backs up the "A plan, that whilst never carried out, (it was approved all the way until to the top until JFK saw it ) was planned by Americans, to kill Americans, and blame it on Cuba." idea right?

And lastly, the bit about it being approved all the way to the top UNTILL JFK saw it. That means two things. 1) it didn't happen, and 2) JFK didn't let it happen.

We have seen many times through history that people who are not responsible to certain things regard them loosely and will "approve" things that might comprimise them, untill the one who has the real say, and is responsible for the welfare of the innocent stops proceedings.

Was this not also the case here aswell then?

MWF

I totally agree the mass and the speed of all those initial floors falling must have carried so much energy which only went to increase more and more.

Mr Brannen

That was just an awesome programme last night, very sad, I had a lump in my throat at times, you just want to be able to try and take it all in dont you but its just too much

What about the little black bloke in Tower two who was sent back up to his office, then the fookin 2nd plane flew straight through is window how the fuck is he still here

RSCossieGaz

iTrader: (6)

did watch this last nite was powerfull viewing and certainly brought it all home hard to believe it was 5 yrs ago now....seems like yesterday

RSCossieGaz

iTrader: (6)

OMG that clip is shocking

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

I know little about WTC7, other than official reports have stated fires were started by debris from WTC1 and 2, leading to a structural failure as a result of fire.

But why is it significant? Have other buildings in the world not ever collapsed due to fire, even tho they haven't had a plane fly into them?

Your comment about it amusing you by people saying about the twin towers having collapsed due to having planes in them and jet fuel etc - why is that amusing? I should think that is the cause of these two buildings to collapse, but that doesn't mean that other buildings can't collapse just because of "ordinary" fire. It has happened in the past you know!

And the Madrid Windsor Tower, did indeed collapse - the majority of floors collapsed outwards due to a fire starting on the 21st floor, spreading to every floor above the 2nd floor. It may well have been a better structurally designed building, so resisted the fires longer than WTC1 and 2, and the main thing that kept it up so long was it's centre core of solid concrete which resisted the fires. It's demise was mainly down to the fact it only had a passive fire prevention system and had no internal sprinklers, which is much like the WTC1 + 2 towers, whose sprinker systems were damaged resulting in malfunction.

And no, the Windsor Tower was not taller than WTC7, and nowhere near the height of the Twin Towers. The Windsor Tower was 106m high with 32 storey's. WTC7 was 52 storey's and 174m high, with the Twin Towers far higher at 417m tall (street to roof, not including the antenna) with 110 storey's.... So that argument is flawed really.....

Lee Reynolds

HOW LUCKY was that guy that watched the plane coming towards him? It got bigger and bigger so he got under his desk and it smacked right into the building above his head...and HE LIVED Holy fook...

Jade1

thats fucking horrible that made me get a chill down my spine.....i dunno what else to say to that tbh

Fastmaul

I stood about 100yds back from where that video was taken. That's where I was on that day.

Rich_w

You aren't wrong

Graham S1

Exactly. What the "Official Story" goons are trying to say, is that the jet fuel which supposedly went down the elevator shaft, managed to destroy every single joint between every single beam and core shaft. All 47 of them, on all 80 odd floors below where the plane hit.

Much like the 911 Comission Report then. I never see people quoting from that when they defend the Official Story.... EVER.

so it doesn't matter who killed them? we'll just keep waging endless wars until someone gets pissed of enough to nuke us, or set off a "dirty" bomb in a major city.

Then you are a rare breed. Most people think steel just "collapses", with no resistance.

It's also an easier way to convince people thats what caused the buildings to fall down. Lot's more questions would be asked if a plane didn't fly into them. Much like WTC7.

http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm
No, because the same 20 odd stories were in one piece a lot of the way down. The 20 storey block actually changed angle on the way down, and "straightened" itself up, breaking yet another law of physics. And it's actually far LESS than 20% if you take into account the whole building down to foundations.

And where did it fall from BTW? How far up? Did it fall straight down? How were the interior column joints on the other side of the core where the plane crashed destroyed? How were the interior column joints 40 floors down destroyed?

Like this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SXD3bAbZCow

Most of the video I've seen on the TV isn't of the minute(s) before the towers fell. If you watch "911 Eyewitness", then you will hear the explosions in the minutes leading up to it.

Well, thats the "Official" explanation. Or it was. Do you actually know anything about 911?

Which were connected to? Yes, the 47 interior columns. Although you won't find much mention of them by NIST or Popular Mechanics, or any official story defenders.

There are so many things wrong with that paragraph.

Same here.

Thanks. Up until now I thought you were an alright chap, from your posts, and videos and that. But now I realise. You are just another twat.

OK, you have a point there. But did you just ignore the rest of it? Things they were planning to do? And people from countries all over the world killed. So they weren't all Americans.

But they still have no qualms about wiping out other countries innocents right?

But no one else had a problem with it.




And thats why it's a hard subject to think anythings wrong. Because it is so emotional. And thats what they're playing on. Rare is it a reply to one of my threads contains actual quotes from the 911 Comssion reports, or any calculations, just insults, guesswork, and pisstaking. People WANT the Official Story to be true.

So you know so much about WTC 1 & 2 then? Find me a picture of it being built


As a general rule... no. Try find me some.

Err no again... partial collapse. The crane on top of the building was still standing. Part of one side collapsed.

About 23 hours longer! White hot flames too.

foreigneRS

if it isn't based on practical experience, it is just a theory. it's only when a theory is proven with a scientific experiment that it can become scientific knowledge that can be applied elsewhere.

it's like these days most parts of a vehicle ared designed on a CAD station and the strength of the part is estimated by computer software. but it's only through refinement of the software by experimentation (why do you think that crash testing still needs to be done?) that the theories tha the software is based on get closer to the facts.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

All I am saying is it's fairly simple. If there is a fire at a high point in the building with about 2 floors or so above it, and as a result the structural integrity of that portion of the building is comprimised - comprimised enough for the structure to fail, then 20 floors are gonna fall down. They are gonna land on the next floor. Surely the joists and beams holding that floor up aren't strong enough to hold up 20 floors that have just smashed down ontop of it right? So naturally the supports to THAT floor will alos give. So surely the NEXT floor will not be strong enough to hold up the 21 floors that just smashed ontop of it, and those supports will fail, and then the NEXT floor will not be able to support 22 floors shamshing down on top of it, etc etc etc.... Is that not possible then?

I don't know cos I haven't had a chance to watch that yet, so I don't know what is in it, but I was talking about the firefighters interviews and such like where they said they were in the building and all off a sudden they began to hear and feel the building collapse, and could hear each floor smashing into the next.

The programme this thread is related too showed the minutes leading upto the collapsing of the towers, and I heard nothing untoward..... But then, I guess the conspiracy *could* extend to these programmes aswell and they could have been edited out right?

Then again if you agree with that, then you also have to realise that it is entire possible that noises can be put IN to programmes (called over dubbing) in order to persieve something as being there when it wasn't, so that then cancels out that arguement lol.....

I don't follow - please enlighten me.

I may be wrong, but I think you, personally, just called me a twat. Now I am pretty sure I didn't specifically call you a twat, personally, by name, so I expect an apology there.

No I didn't ignore it, but you were talking about the American governmet intentionally planning to kill their own kind in order to frame Cuba so they could go to war. Thats the bit I was concentrating on. Sure they were also intending to kill people from other countries. But thats simply plain old war - happens everyday all over the world.

I'm not saying it's right - personally I think war is NEVER right, but war is people from one country killing people from other countries (eg, the Brits killing Germans in WW2), but I thought you were highlighting the fact that Americans were intentionally planning to kill their own kind in order to frame Cub so they could go to war? Not worrying about one bunch of idiots killing a bunch of idiots from another country?

Again, as explained, this happens everyday, in many many situations. In any Government there is a top-dog who has the final say. Now this top dog is responsible for EVERYTHING, so he has to account for all that with any desicions(sp) made. Below him are many smaller dogs who are only responsible for one or two things. To these people (typically power hungry mofo's with half the IQ they need to run the country IMO) to them, the only thing that matters is getting what they need to satisfy their own responsibility. So that might mean they personally don't have a problem sacrificing lives of their own nation. But the top-dog has to worry bout that as he is responsible, and thus said no.

Also remember this happens everyday in our current world. Do you not think that the honcho's in our government are sacrificing the lives of our soldiers by sending them to a war that doesn't concern us in order to achieve/obtain something that ins't rightfully ours anyway? Is this, in many respects, a similar thing? On a different scale maybe, but similar all the same.....

I never said that did I? I don't know a lot about what happened with WTC7 as there isn't as much information about it as there is WTC1&2, and as such, I know MORE about WTC1&2 than I do about WTC7. Thats simple childs logic. Stop trying to read between the lines when there is nothing there to read. It's not making you look smart.

I wouldn't know where to start looking, but I think in the history of the world there has to be some - stands to reason. But as said, I wouldn't know where to start looking, but if you can show where it says there HAVEN'T been any, that'll do for me...


Again, reading my words wrongly. I said the MAJORITY collapsed, not it totally collapsed. And I am only re-iterating what I read, so if you tell me thats wrong, what do you base your intel on? Things you read? So if the things I read are wrong, surely there is a small chance the the things you read could also be wrong?

Again, cancels that argument out I think......

Graham S1

just taking your last point... as I'm helping cooking dinner at the mo... are we arguing over a percentage here? what would you call the majority?

and I will apologise for calling you a twat.... but you did brand me in the "twat" category by your sentence. maybe could have put a "(don't mean you BTW) or something? thats why I try to avoid insulting people much on these threads. It's not needed or necessary.

mmmm.. cashew chicken curry and sag aloo calls. try finding some buildings collapsed from fire. there must be whole websites dedicated to buidlings falling. this is the internet after all.

Thrush

iTrader: (1)

I was only going by the info foundon this site pal;

http://www.mace.manchester.ac.uk/pro...es/default.htm

Graham S1

ok, with regards to Northwoods, with just a couple of minutes I went to the first link I saw, and found this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods
So they would kill Americans. Are we now going to make the distinction between Military and Civilians. Do Miliatry people deserve to get blown up, anymore than civilians?

For a more up to date version, simply replace "Cubans" with "Muslims"

Also found this on that site you referred (which I'll come back to later)



Totally collapsed? Thats what the page says? Destroyed maybe, but not collapsed.

Dinner is nearly ready.

Dannn

God forbid if the America evers get any Nukes..............shit they already have them......and are they only country ever to use them......not once but twice....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atomic_...a_and_Nagasaki

...and fuck the war on terror as its generating more terror.

Just out of interest does anyone here get upset when they see on the news all the people (incl. woman and children) killed in Iraq (and recently Lebonon) due to terrorist acts and war.........mind you fuck them, UK and US blood is worth much more.

foreigneRS

getting information from wikipedia is definitely dodgy - anyone can write anything in there

Terry Tibbs

Gets checked by professional moderators.