0

oh, it's real alright. but the conspiracy theorists say it's not Al Qaeda that did it but Bush...
They also claim the CIA was responsible for 7/7 as well as the Madrid bombings (why the CIA would bomb a train in Madrid that caused a pro-US government to loose the elections the next day was never explained).

And yes, the idiots are blaming Bush for pretty much everything bad that ever happened to the world.
Katrina? Bush caused that storm
Bush caused the tsunami in the IO (yes, I've heard it claimed)
etc. etc.

haha.. people need a scapegoat, I suppose..

Yes, that JFK scare was typical overreaction.
Someone taking pictures of aircraft and airport buildings who has a map of the airport at home gets arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist.
Thousands of people worldwide do that as a hobby...
I've maps of literally hundreds of airports all around the world and will go there to take photos if and when I am in the area.
It's just a hobby kids, in fact with us around it's a lot harder for a terrorist to do anything as he'd get lynched before he could get that weapon readied for use...

It depends what race you are. If a white dude is taking pictures with a map of the airport then it's fine. However, if it's someone with a dark complexion (Arab), then they are immediately escorted to Guantanamo Bay.

0

Given that, in recent history, most attacks on America have been from people who fit that description, I would have to say it isn't an unreasonable choice to hold someone fitting that description under suspicion. Don't go overboard, though. Without further proof, there is no valid reason to go into "OMG he gots a camera he's gunna kill us all!" levels of panic.

0

Secondly, the towers were unlike most other skyscrapers as most of the weight was bearing on the sides. They were never designed to withstand a catastrophic side impact like a jet taking out half the walls, and this is why it was very weakened.

Actually they were designed to withstand a jet crashing into the side of it just never anything that big. I think it was built to withstand the force of a 747 or a 767 i forget whatever the smaller plane is.

I also would have thought that if the beams were really as weak as you guys say they were then i think the towers would have been more likely to buckle at the top rather then just collapse as evenly as that.

If you acctually go through and read this document and other they acctually bring up some very interesting points and arguments.

I think maybe there is more to these attacks then we have been told about but i do not think that it was planned by the bush administration.

I do think that there is a rather convenient lack of debry from the other two planes that crashed.

0

Yea, I've heard the same thing.. but the plane was larger than what the building could withstand, and the fact that it was pretty much full of fuel did not help matters at all..

Oh, come on.. I highly doubt that there is a 9/11 conspiracy at all.. the points they bring up are absolutely ridiculous..

0

What points in particular do you mean.

There were also other arguments made such as the Maximum burning temperature for Jet fuel is nowhere near enough for it to have melted the beams as well as the majorty of that would have been burned up upon impact. It seems to me as if the entire structure would have to be heated to that point in order to cause the building to fall in such a way.

Then you also have things like building 7 which collapsed on the same day with no damage what so ever done to it by a plane and the media coverage of it was small if not non existant. The Doco Loose change said that the motive behind building 7 was there was massive amount of Gold underneath that building which only a small percent has been recovered. Im not sure if i believe thats the motive behind the attacks but i find it very strange that building did collapse.

There are other things that i found odd about the other 2 planes as well. For example take the plane that crashed into the field. If you compare pictures of that crash site to pictures of a similar plane crash from russia there is far more debry (bits of twisted metal,Jet engines etc.) than the american one. I wont even go into the one that crashed into the pentagon because there is not enough evidence(released to the public) to prove either side of that one.

Im not saying that i was a conspiracy and that any one party carried out this attack. I think however there are alot of things that the general public were not made aware of for whatever reason and i think that its because of these things that people think it is a conspiracy. I think its just a part of human nature, when there are inconsistancies or things that can not be explained we look for and come up with our own ways to explain them.

No matter what actually happend on that day i think the fact remains that alot of people died and alot of people lost family members that day and my prayers still go out to those people.

0

Actually they were designed to withstand a jet crashing into the side of it just never anything that big. I think it was built to withstand the force of a 747 or a 767 i forget whatever the smaller plane is.

The towers woithstood the forces of the crashes just fine. But the fire sprinkler system did not.

I also would have thought that if the beams were really as weak as you guys say they were then i think the towers would have been more likely to buckle at the top rather then just collapse as evenly as that.

This was due to the heat from the fire. It turned the steel in the cross beams to iron at 780 C. Because all of the vertical structure members were on the outside, they didn't heat up as much. They were exposed to outside air, which cooled them.

Then, all it took was the cross beams of ONE floor breaking loose from the vertical supports. It then fell on the floor below it. That was too much for the cross beams of that floor, so it broke loose too. This caused a cascade effect of too much weight on the cross beams all the way to the groiund.

If you acctually go through and read this document and other they acctually bring up some very interesting points and arguments.

I think maybe there is more to these attacks then we have been told about but i do not think that it was planned by the bush administration.

There was more. The terrorists thought that by destroying that building, they could destroy all world trade (which they hate). They didn't realize that "World Trade Center" was just the name of an office building. They were attacking world trade, not the tallest building.

I do think that there is a rather convenient lack of debry from the other two planes that crashed.

Do you mean "debris"?

Most of the materials the planes were made of were consumed in the fires. Airplanes are made of light materials, because we want the planes to go up. And we do know that all three planes crashed into the buildings as claimed, because we have video of all three crashes, taken by civilians or security systems on the ground.

0

What points in particular do you mean.

There were also other arguments made such as the Maximum burning temperature for Jet fuel is nowhere near enough for it to have melted the beams as well as the majorty of that would have been burned up upon impact. It seems to me as if the entire structure would have to be heated to that point in order to cause the building to fall in such a way.

Like I said earlier, the beams didn't have to melt. They just had to be annealed from steel back into soft iron, which occurs at 780 C. Soft iron crossbeams were too weak to hold up the floor.

One thing contributing to the disasters was that the planes destroyed the fire sprinkler systems when they hit.

Then you also have things like building 7 which collapsed on the same day with no damage what so ever done to it by a plane and the media coverage of it was small if not non existant. The Doco Loose change said that the motive behind building 7 was there was massive amount of Gold underneath that building which only a small percent has been recovered. Im not sure if i believe thats the motive behind the attacks but i find it very strange that building did collapse.

Building 7 was damaged and caught on fire when the tower next to it collapsed. The tower collapses also cut off the water supply to that building, so its fire sprinkler system also didn't work. Since firefighters were unable to enter the area due to the dust, the building burned until it collapsed.

There are other things that i found odd about the other 2 planes as well. For example take the plane that crashed into the field. If you compare pictures of that crash site to pictures of a similar plane crash from russia there is far more debry (bits of twisted metal,Jet engines etc.) than the american one. I wont even go into the one that crashed into the pentagon because there is not enough evidence(released to the public) to prove either side of that one.

The debris was compressed together in the Pennsylvania crash, because the plane was deliberately aimed almost straight down when it hit. Some of the debris was driven into the ground. In a horizontal crash (the pilot is trying to save the plane), pieces break off and are scattered over a large area as the plane bounces and drags along the ground.

In the Pentagon crash, only the tail was left outside the building. The rest of the debris was inside, or in the center courtyard (where we can't see it, because it is a classified area).

0

Have you read the book "Report From Ground Zero" Its written by a firefighter who was on the scene. Its diary entries and recollections from him and his comrades of 11/9.

He goes into detail about the wightbearing, stairs, asbestos and beam expansion as well as about the gold

0

The original link gave me a 404 not found error but I saw Christina's video which had the really creepy music. (It's almost midnight here so it sounds creepy to me. lol) It was interesting. It wasn't very biased, it just seemed like it was presenting the information, unless it doctored the film.

0

The original link gave me a 404 not found error but I saw Christina's video which had the really creepy music. (It's almost midnight here so it sounds creepy to me. lol)

Haha.. I know. Lol

This topic has been dead for over six months. Start a new discussion instead.
Have something to contribute to this discussion? Please be thoughtful, detailed and courteous, and be sure to adhere to our posting rules.