9-11 Truth?- It Will Make You Think Twice

[bhups]

Was on google and found this very interesting video about 9-11 conspiracy, its quite long but well worth watching it. Before you make any judgements about 9-11 please watch this video i guarantee it will make you think twice.

The video then click watch video.

Edit=direct link to video here

Edited August 12, 2006 by bhups

[Si-man]

Should have put it in best of the internet, it's going to get closed

[bhups]

oops sorry, il add it there and if they want to close this they can.

[Si-man]

interesting so far

[Thurston]

This has already been posted up, a few months back, i remember watching it then.

Matt Hudson posted it up.

Linky

[JT!]

It's all BS anyway, at the end of the day thousands of people lost their lives.

It's just people picking at anything and make it look like it was the government that did it.

"We didn't land on the moon!" STFU!

Edited August 12, 2006 by JT!

[munkee]

Stuff like this really pisses me off. Its not being narrowminded on my part.. its being realistic. I never understand how people buy in to this stuff it has actually no factual back up.. its all one persons perspective making 1000's of links to the end tragedy. Half of the video is just pictures of internet sites and random typed words made to look like x rays of documents. I mean wtf... its the same as that columbine guy or whatever fahrenheit 9/11 dude.. what a complete retard. He's just extreme opposition against the government not some "impartial investigator".

[MadChikken]

Video's like that have been kicking round ever since 9/11, and like has been said most of it is bullshit consiracy theory. There are a few very dubious things in some of them though that make you wonder what the actual truth is....

Kinda like V for Vendetta if anybody's seen the film, the scary thing is thats basically whats happening in the USA right now, not in 10 years time!!!

Take it all with a pinch of salt though, people gotta vent somehow and overanalysing stuff like that doesnt help the situation

M@

[RicH_87]

How's it far fetched? i think the idea that 4 couples managed to take oven 4 planes with just a knife is slightly more far fetched. You don't die instantly from a stabbing, and in that situation you'd fight to the death, no matter what.

Plus think about how hard it is to actually fly a plane. It takes years and years of practice, and even qualified pilots aren't allowed to fly planes without 30 more hours of supervised flying. The fact they managed to APPARENTLY fly 3 planes into relitavly small targets with only simulator training is almost beyond a joke. One little mistake and the plane would flip out of the sky.

Also it's so blindingly obvious that what hit the pentagon was nothing like a plane, in size or shape, and the mysterious 4th plane that crashed in a feild left no debris at all? yeh that's entirely feasable.....

And remember that fact that the twin towers were and are, the only skyscrapers in history to 'fall' due to fire damage.

I don't know which videos are up there as i haven't clicked the links, but i've read up on 911 from both sides numerous times, and watched many videos, and there is a lot more evidence against it being what it has been portayed to be. It was deffinatly a terrorist attack, but it certainly wasn't Al Qaeda.

The government controls more than you think, or ever could think was possible.

[munkee]

And remember that fact that the twin towers were and are, the only skyscrapers in history to 'fall' due to fire damage.

Thats a bit of a misquote on your part. In a couple of videos i have seen it has been stated " the twin towers are the only two buildings in history to collapse due to fire"... at which point i turned them off.

The reason why the twin towers collapsed due to fire was to do with the fire proofing around the 4 centre steel columns which run up its centre. Fire proofing is typically sprayed on as a foam which then sets, it can also be painted on but the spray form gives fire protection for over 2 hours which is stated in building regs (bs:8110) for buildings of that height. However.. when the planes hit the building the explosions of the fuel tanks blew off the foam and partitioning around the columns. Whilst steel does take a long time to reach its deformation point it is inevitably going to happen due to the intensity of the burning (holes in buildings, people opening windows just vented the fire, air rushing in from the base of the building etc). We spent a good few lectures looking over what happened and in my opinion the buildings surpassed all of what was expected of it structurally. This wasnt the only cause, but it was one of the main reasons and why people above the fire were cut off due to the lift shafts and stairs etc.

I dont understand where you get the whole.. al qaeda didnt do it.. because they actually admitted to it publicly.

If you really want to have two sides of the story.. you mase well have this: http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html

Edited August 12, 2006 by Spacemunkee

[Fish-Finger-er]

its all debateable, unless you know the facts, you cant safely say anything, and the trouble is everywheres spurting out different facts.

heard the pentagon hit wasnt a plane, due to a planes ginormous size, read the facts, width of the hole, width of the plane, etc, yea, you think no way was that a plane. but then you see another video, and it states the dimensions of the fuselage/nose cone, etc (rather than the planes wingspan, as wings aparently broke up as it bounced across the lawn) and then everything fits.

as for the fact they couldnt fly those planes perfectly into the buildings the way they did, again, your probably right. but then if it was a computer, why would it make the error of bouncing across the pentagons lawn, also without going further into detail about programming planes autopilot, and fly by wire systems, nothing to say they couldnt of entered in fly by wire instructions from the plane.

other notable things include the passport found on the ground, shortly after the attack, wierd how the flames/jetfuel/explosion didnt damage them.

also, thing about hijackers being found alive, this proves they didnt do it, doesnt it, but then again, name similarites are nothing these days are they. theres a bloke down the road from me who is also K williams. we often have to swap mail with each other. if he went and disapeared off the face of the earth. and then i turned up, would they suddenly of found him, nope theyd of found someone with the same name. and thats in a 4,000 population town, let alone a 6 billion population world. also lets not forget identity theft, alias's etc,deliberately changing your name to deter the truth.

we cant be sure of anything, and dont really think its worth trying to comprehend, who, why and what caused acts like this, watch these programs for there value as a program, not an in depth look into the courses of world terrorism.

last couple of points on the subject. Osama bin laden, still alive? possibly, but whos to say he even exists.

actors get stunt doubles all the time, we never know the difference, not even in picture perfect widescreen cinemas. so how were meant to tell if it is osama from some shaky handicam footage is pretty far fetched. and even if it was pictures of him, ive got a few films at home, with high quality dubbing, done with a lot smaller budget than that of the us government. but then its perfectly reasonable for it to be genuine too.

[RicH_87]

Thats a bit of a misquote on your part. In a couple of videos i have seen it has been stated " the twin towers are the only two buildings in history to collapse due to fire"... at which point i turned them off.

The reason why the twin towers collapsed due to fire was to do with the fire proofing around the 4 centre steel columns which run up its centre. Fire proofing is typically sprayed on as a foam which then sets, it can also be painted on but the spray form gives fire protection for over 2 hours which is stated in building regs (bs:8110) for buildings of that height. However.. when the planes hit the building the explosions of the fuel tanks blew off the foam and partitioning around the columns. Whilst steel does take a long time to reach its deformation point it is inevitably going to happen due to the intensity of the burning (holes in buildings, people opening windows just vented the fire, air rushing in from the base of the building etc). We spent a good few lectures looking over what happened and in my opinion the buildings surpassed all of what was expected of it structurally. This wasnt the only cause, but it was one of the main reasons and why people above the fire were cut off due to the lift shafts and stairs etc.

I dont understand where you get the whole.. al qaeda didnt do it.. because they actually admitted to it publicly.

If you really want to have two sides of the story.. you mase well have this: http://ourworld.cs.com/mikegriffith1/refute.htm

http://english.pravda.ru/main/2002/09/10/36235.html

yeh...i saw that documentary as-well, like i said i've seen tons of stuff on 9/11.

Apprently the steel beams used in the twin towers only loose structural intergrity at something like 2000 degrees C when jet fuel only burns in air at a maximum of 1000 degrees C. So even if the jet fuel burned inside the building (which it didn't) it wouldn't of been enough to make the entire bulding fall down.

Plus, surely the top would of fallen sideways (towards where the plane entered) and destroyed the rest of the building as it went, but leaving a large percentage of the ground floors intact but crushed. Instead, the top fell stright downward and the building dissapeared below it.

(if you've ever played jenga, how often do the blocks all fall down in a neat pile?....not very if ever is the answer, they fall sideways and spread out all over the place, and the bottom is usually still there).

Its a fact that for the building to fall down one floor at a time it would take over 14 seconds. Both building fell in around 11. Therefore the floors didn't bang into each other, as one floor fell, the floor below it fell away, hence it all going down in a nice neat pile.

Just like the nice pile of money it brought in for everyone involved.

its all debateable, unless you know the facts, you cant safely say anything, and the trouble is everywheres spurting out different facts.

heard the pentagon hit wasnt a plane, due to a planes ginormous size, read the facts, width of the hole, width of the plane, etc, yea, you think no way was that a plane. but then you see another video, and it states the dimensions of the fuselage/nose cone, etc (rather than the planes wingspan, as wings aparently broke up as it bounced across the lawn) and then everything fits.

yeh, cos wings just magically 'break up' into invisible peices all the time. There were no wings, engines, anything on the outside of the pentagon at all, and engines almost always survive planes crashed relitavly intact. Plus the video they released over 2 years later showed the 'object' flying stright into the pentagon still above the ground. Also what about the various CCTV locations within a mile of the pentagon that were all conviscated by the fbi within minutes of the pentagon being hit?

last couple of points on the subject. Osama bin laden, still alive? possibly, but whos to say he even exists.

actors get stunt doubles all the time, we never know the difference, not even in picture perfect widescreen cinemas. so how were meant to tell if it is osama from some shaky handicam footage is pretty far fetched. and even if it was pictures of him, ive got a few films at home, with high quality dubbing, done with a lot smaller budget than that of the us government. but then its perfectly reasonable for it to be genuine too.

Of course Osama is alive, but they have long given up trying to capture him. If anything they love the fact they can blame everything on him.

Its like in the 60s when the US air force were developing new spy planes, they blamed all the sightings on UFO's becasue if people are looking for aliens, they aren't going to be looking for your brand new spy plane.

The stealth bomber was only discoverd becasue of an amature photographer who used to spend a night in the desert every month or so and photograph the sky when he heard any noise at all. If it wasn't for him, the stealh bomber would still be a secrat today.

If they caught osama, and then had to up the terror alert again becase people were feeling too safe, who would they blame it on then?

[MadChikken]

heard the pentagon hit wasnt a plane, due to a planes ginormous size, read the facts, width of the hole, width of the plane, etc, yea, you think no way was that a plane. but then you see another video, and it states the dimensions of the fuselage/nose cone, etc (rather than the planes wingspan, as wings aparently broke up as it bounced across the lawn) and then everything fits.

One problem with that, if u saw the pictures of the hole left in the pentagon and the outside....the grass was basically not touched!

That and the fact all the firemen coming out of the place wondering where all the debris from the "aircraft" was makes it all a little dubious.

One place mentioned that within minutes of the "aircraft" hitting the pentagon a secret service car pulled upto a petrol station in the flight path of the "aircraft" and took the cctv video. Funny how that was the most important thing to get when the sodding pentagon's on fire innit?????

Some of it I can understand why all the facts are so dodgy and dont add up, but there are a lot of pointless bits where people have tried to put 2 and 2 together and made 36!

You all see where the similarities to V for Vendetta come from....

Edit: Rich u beat me to the thing about the lawn outside the pentagon

Edited August 12, 2006 by MadChikken

[munkee]

Jet fuel burns hotter when theres air fueling the fire, it wasnt the fact that it burns its that it was being burned hotter due to the draft from the base of the building running up through to the top where everyone had the windows open. Literally stoking the fire. The floors fell in to a neat pile because it wasnt a case of the building crumbling apart the floors punched through the steel columns. Then litterally slid down on top of the one below. Due to the heat the connections etc holding the floor up couldnt take the weight of both floors and therefore punched through again down on to the next etc etc etc. There are plenty of sources to look at the analysis of the collapse

Edited August 12, 2006 by Spacemunkee

[munkee]

Of course Osama is alive, but they have long given up trying to capture him. If anything they love the fact they can blame everything on him.

Its like in the 60s when the US air force were developing new spy planes, they blamed all the sightings on UFO's becasue if people are looking for aliens, they aren't going to be looking for your brand new spy plane.

The stealth bomber was only discoverd becasue of an amature photographer who used to spend a night in the desert every month or so and photograph the sky when he heard any noise at all. If it wasn't for him, the stealh bomber would still be a secrat today.

If they caught osama, and then had to up the terror alert again becase people were feeling too safe, who would they blame it on then?

You talk as if once osama is killed or caught they everything will end. It wont.. not even a tiny bit be over. Everyone fighting terrorism currently has bigger issues to sort out than chase after one man and end him. Its not going to solve the bigger picture. Terrorist networks dont work like the age old "take out the ring leader" its just a huge f**k up with religion and jews. If it was left to me we'd bomb the f**k out of all the countries especially iran. What a complete bunch of trouble making f**k ups.

[RicH_87]

Then litterally slid down on top of the one below. Due to the heat the connections etc holding the floor up couldnt take the weight of both floors and therefore punched through again down on to the next etc etc etc. There are plenty of sources to look at the analysis of the collapse

thats what i'm saying, if that happened it would of taken over 14 seconds to collapse...they both took 11 seconds (i think it maye have been 10, but just assume i'm right).

All objects fall though air at the same rate (thats a fact obvioslsy), and for an object to fall from the height of the twin towers to the floor it would of taken around 11 seconds (something like 11.2 from memory). Therefore, the twin towers must of free fallen. I.e they were demolished, so as one floor fell down, the floor below it was blown out of the way.

[munkee]

thats what i'm saying, if that happened it would of taken over 14 seconds to collapse...they both took 11 seconds (i think it maye have been 10, but just assume i'm right).

All objects fall though air at the same rate (thats a fact obvioslsy), and for an object to fall from the height of the twin towers to the floor it would of taken around 11 seconds (something like 11.2 from memory). Therefore, the twin towers must of free fallen. I.e they were demolished, so as one floor fell down, the floor below it was blown out of the way.

Your talking about a building with 100's of floors though with an incredible amount of weight. There is nothign to say that internally the structure had already started to collapse. Either way i found this: http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/v...ose_frames.html these guys are trying to prove that it was fake or whatever but in doing that they proved my point. The top of the tower began to collapse, floors falling and on the last frame the floors hit where the plane struck. Big explosion.. collapsing begins. Internal failure at the roof where materials are lighter and generally not as well protected, also highly exposed to winds and fire.

Also http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/evidence/p...cs/wp_wtc29.jpg one whole floor lit up from the fires.

Edited August 12, 2006 by Spacemunkee

[RicH_87]

You talk as if once osama is killed or caught they everything will end. It wont.. not even a tiny bit be over. Everyone fighting terrorism currently has bigger issues to sort out than chase after one man and end him. Its not going to solve the bigger picture. Terrorist networks dont work like the age old "take out the ring leader" its just a huge f**k up with religion and jews. If it was left to me we'd bomb the f**k out of all the countries especially iran. What a complete bunch of trouble making f**k ups.

err, are you actually reading what i type?

i said that if they did catch osama, they would have one less person to blame 'terror' attacks on. THE POINT I AM MAKING IS THAT THE US GOVERNMENT IS DOING THE ATTACKS AND BLAMING THEM ON MUSLIMS/OSAMA/SADDAM etc.

That in turn gets the majority of the public behind them, and anti muslim so bush and his puppet masters can kill whoever they want, no questions asked.

I'm not saying muslims and middle east groups are innocent, far from it. Infact if anything they too have been sucked in and brainwashed into believing they have to attack the west for what they believe, but the majority of hype is unfounded, and just created in the media to scare people into being anti-muslim.

I am against all types of religion but i am also against the govenment having control over everything and the nation just sucking it all up unaware.

You say 'terrotist networks' who exacly are the terrorist? what exactly have they done directly to us to create 'terror'?? I haven't seen, or heard of any group of people coming over here and doing anything to us. WE STARTED IT ALL, it's all our govenments fault.

Put yourself in the muslims shoes for a second, they live their entire life by things like sharia law ok, They have strict rules and morals (more so than ou westerners). No where in their religion does it say, Hyjack a plane and kill innocent people. So imagine you live you life like than, then some random contry comes over and starts killing your leaders, bombing your city, calling you terrorists, insulting your religion. What would you do?

I for one would probably react in the same was many MINORITY's have done. I'd say to myself, if you're going to call us terrorists, thats exactly whats we'll be, becasue allah says i shouldn't let anyone insult my religion.

There is talk talk talk talk talk, about suicide bombers, massive plans to blow things up etc. Yet there is no outcome. And of the ones that are true (shoe bomber for example) they are all based in ENGLAND, what a suprise.

[Si-man]

Jet fuel burns hotter when theres air fueling the fire, it wasnt the fact that it burns its that it was being burned hotter due to the draft from the base of the building running up through to the top where everyone had the windows open. Literally stoking the fire. The floors fell in to a neat pile because it wasnt a case of the building crumbling apart the floors punched through the steel columns. Then litterally slid down on top of the one below. Due to the heat the connections etc holding the floor up couldnt take the weight of both floors and therefore punched through again down on to the next etc etc etc. There are plenty of sources to look at the analysis of the collapse

Did you watch that video??

You can clearly see mini explosions every few floors down.

The same manor is used to demolish buildings...

[RicH_87]

Oh an spacemunkee, you are basing all your collapsing theories on the assumption that the jet fuel burning inside the building. It clearly didn't.

When the planes hit the majority of jet fuel exploded outside the building.

the rest of it set furniture/paperwork on fire, but it would of all been burned up pretty quickly. The building burned for too long for it to have all been jet fuel, and fires based on paper and furnishings would only be around 600-800 degree C maximum, nowhere near enough to melt steel.

I haven't watched the videos in this thread, but one other video showed a skyscraper in spain that burned solidly for 3 days sometime after the 9/11 attacks. Everyone said, "oh the twin towers collapsed, this one will surley collapse as-well".....3 days later, the fire was out, and the building was still standing.

[munkee]

oh dear god im not going to let this get out of hand. ill agree to disagree.

[Si-man]

Lol, twins towers collapsing is abit strange, but the pentagon was deffinatly NOT hit by a passenger plane

It says about the passenger plane having 4, 6 tonne engines built from ti and steel, both of which will not just vapourize because of a little bit of heat from the fire, takes alot more heat to vaporize steel and Ti.

Also, that hole it left behind, a plane wouldn't have made that since the front end was made of carbon fibre and would have just shattered on impact.

It also said about a guy being thrown 100 foot backwards, only a shock wave from a rocket/ bomb would be able to cause that.

This is going to be a neverending thing now lol, arguments all around haha

[bhups]

Sorry my bad if this was going to cause such arguments i would not of posted it, sorry.

[Si-man]

Sorry my bad if this was going to cause such arguments i would not of posted it, sorry.

Nah dont be sorry, is good lol

Everyone needs a good rant now and again, makes you feel better lol

[adamtrials]

Plus think about how hard it is to actually fly a plane. It takes years and years of practice, and even qualified pilots aren't allowed to fly planes without 30 more hours of supervised flying. The fact they managed to APPARENTLY fly 3 planes into relitavly small targets with only simulator training is almost beyond a joke.

Wrong, it is easily possible to get enough of a grasp of flying with even a relatively simple simulator like the microsoft flight sim to be able to fly a plane competently enough to crash it into a building. I should imagine with the kinds of aircraft used it would be possible to get the plane to fly itself into the building with a simple knowlege of how to program the autopilots.

Planes really arent hard to fly, i have had 8 hours of flight training and am competent enough to be able to fly an aircraft on my own, and a friend of mine was allowed to fly solo after just 4 hours of training.

One little mistake and the plane would flip out of the sky.

No chance, it would take quite a few seconds for that aircraft to roll/ pitch to a dangerous attitude, easily long enough for even a complete muppet to be able to correct it. And that is ignoring the autopilots, which will stop that from happening automatically...

Just removing one myth...