This is a discussion on September 11 - A conspiracy :: with poll within the Debate forums, part of the Evolution : RaGEZONE category; FBI Blunders and the First World Trade Center Bombing
See "Secret tape recordings".
Who Bombed The World Trade Center? Fbi ...
Stop flaming... all you've done thus far is another "Peart". You call those who oppose your opinion ignorant, and say their arguments don't count because they don't agree with you... it's so childish.
If what you say was accepted on common knowledge, or fact, then there wouldn't be so many people such as myself, finding doubt in what Government's version of the truth. The very consensus of the population is against you on what is common knowledge, and what is not.
magnum, i will give you 1 warning and 1 warning only
you seem like an intelligent individual and i assume you will need no more than this
if you are to come on here and post and expect to be taken seriously i would like you to do several things
1. stop flaming
2. stop flame baiting
3. please continue to post your opinion on the subject in hand but do stay on subject
4. back up your claims, provide a body of evidence
if your goal is to simply come on here, rant you own personal opinion (which is all oyu have done so far) without actually taking the time to back it up and help inform other users here then you can jolly well fuck right off and leave
if you can post references, links, videos etc so everyone here can view it and form a balanced and informed opinion of their own that would be super
i would love to read not only your rantings but id also love to see where you get your information from and take the time to read it myself
i am currently of the opinion that 9.11 was an inside job with all the information ive had access to over the past few years however i wasnt there when whoever was responsible set all of this up so i cannot be 100% certain, if you could post links or even references id love to read or listen to evidence from your side of the fence
aye to me the evidence that says it was an internal affair as opposed to a random terrorist attack
<b>now im not saying there were no pissed off muslims flying those plains into the towers but why did they collapse like a controlled collapse?</b>They all fell rather neatly, what do you suppose the odds of this happening by chance are? what do you suppose the odds of this happening to 2 equally massive buildings? what do you suppose the odds of this happening to 2 equally huge buildings on the same day? It bears not to think about
not to mention building 7 or the pentagon, look at the whole event objectively. you have to be some kind of idiot to blindly call that this was a terror attack from outside the states
of course it was a terror attack it was just orchestrated by people who needed to rally enough mindless fools together to easily go to war
Im replying to the part in bold
And too anyone else that says it shoudn't of collapsed
My theory is when i watched it on the news that day looking at the exact point of were it collapse's
It collapse's Exactly were the plane strikes because it's the weakest part of the building after the Impact
It collapse in on it's self for example
the Building had a weak half Unsurrported spot what was being damaged by the second due too the Jet fuel burning at a tempreture of 600C or whatver it is As someone else sed the Steel weaken's by 50%
meaning the building gave way were the steel was the weakest causing Both of the tower's to collapse but not asuch collapse the top part "fell off" but didn't fall asuch as Landed on the bottom half of it's self and the wait of all the steel and other stuff Crushed the Bottom bit Pillaring down.
Indeed, as I understand it the part of the building above the impact point practically collapsed into the remainder of the building, spurring what is to me a very plausable 'pancake' collapse from the top.
As you can see in this picture, the top portion collapsed in a very uneven manner which suggests to me that the various "weak points" were not uniform, but rather sporadic. Thus I conclude that the few points in which supports were damaged enough to collapse gradually became numerous enough that they did so, and the remainder of the upper structure simply could not cope on its own. Not all supports had to fail at once, rather only a certain number of them needed to break before the impact point could no longer bear the weight of the top portion, causing the uneven collapse seen above. You'll even notice that the top portion is 'leaning' toward the impact point of the plane, which is likely to be where most of the weak spots were located.
It seems to me this was not a simple case of the entire structure failing at once, but more of a "straw that broke the camels back" scenario.
Indeed, as I understand it the part of the building above the impact point practically collapsed into the remainder of the building, spurring what is to me a very plausable 'pancake' collapse from the top.
As you can see in this picture, the top portion collapsed in a very uneven manner which suggests to me that the various "weak points" were not uniform, but rather sporadic. Thus I conclude that the few points in which supports were damaged enough to collapse gradually became numerous enough that they did so, and the remainder of the upper structure simply could not cope on its own. Not all supports had to fail at once, rather only a certain number of them needed to break before the impact point could no longer bear the weight of the top portion, causing the uneven collapse seen above. You'll even notice that the top portion is 'leaning' toward the impact point of the plane, which is likely to be where most of the weak spots were located.
It seems to me this was not a simple case of the entire structure failing at once, but more of a "straw that broke the camels back" scenario.
Thanks for Sort of backing up my theory :)
Which Concludes the collapsing thing i think
Also extending on giz's counter-evidence on V's comment...
They design building to collapse downward not outward... they don't want to take out the entire city if the building goes down by accident.
Of course there is still going to be damage to the surround area close to the buildings, but atleast the city (with the exeption of the buildings) is still mostly unharmed.
Here is an image to show what I mean:
Red shows how a building if it collapsed to the side would take out the rest of the city.
Green shows how a building collapsing strait down would damage the surrounding area, but would save the rest of the city.
Here are two other views. Note the huge size of the debris that flew at least 400 feet sideways through the air from WTC1 (north tower) in contrast with the relatively large steam shovels and cranes:
The big idea is, of course, that it takes explosives to create such sideways drift. The gravity of free fall pulls down but not (in this example) to the west!
V, for the images: its most likely a ridged metal... have u ever taken a dry stick and snapped it? it generally leaves a decent looking edge on it, while a soft fresh stick would twist and peel.
Ridged materials tend to break more stiffly creating large cut-like shapes... while a softer material like aluminum would twist and mangle...
For the first quote: if there was no fire, then how was there smoke?
also nuking the WTC? thats a very very unlikely theory b/c a nuclear bomb wouldn't do so little damage.
For radiation... Radiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Radiation is given off from almost everywhere... including intense heat... a big fire in the WTC would explain the radiation
You get exposed to radiation by siting next to your computer... there are even theories that cell-phones give off enough radiation to cause long term brain damage.
For an earthquake:
There is very little if any earthquake activity in New York...
Earthquakes tend to happen at fault lines:
there are no fault lines near new york. It doesn't mean that its impossible for new york to have an earthquake, but the chance of an earthquake occurring during the attack are so slim that i probally have a better chance of winning the lottery ^^
It is tons of steal+iron+concrete+and other debris falling from the tallest buildings in the world... its gonna shake the ground...
the steel was all so uniform though, i find it hard to believe they were all so similar after having snapped randomly
the ground shaking was not in relation to an earthquake but in reference to the supposed bombs exploding before and during the collapses
the radiation thing is new to me and i must admit i know very little about it right now, i am aware that everything gives of radiation, i wonder if the level was within expected boundaries though?
So as if planes and demolition charges weren't enough, the government decided to nuke the towers as well? I must say it's funny how such a 'blinding' light went completely unnoticed by both the commentator and the general public, but then again its also funny how this footage exists in the first place seeing as all electronic equipment in a significant radius would have been knocked out by the resulting EMP if a nuke did go off.
But honestly, did the government just not think they had enough stuff to cover up already without adding nukes to the equation? I think reason is the best counter to this one.
There was a documentary on George W. Bush and Osama Bin Ladin's relationship where they were really close friends with another. However, something happened between them --some say Bush created an idea which bin Ladin thought it was ridiculous. As a result Bin Ladin ran away deep within those mountains. After the 911, the American sent their troops to hunt down the terrorist or Bin Ladin to be exact. The question is why are they still in there? For Oil? or what?
As it's a publication from a university I will take it as a good enough source.
Nuclear explosions of all types -from underground to high altitudes -are accompanied by an EMP, although the intensity and duration of the pulse and the area over which it is effective vary considerably with the location of the burst point. The strongest electric fields are produced near the burst by explosions at or near the earth's
surface.
I think that pretty much debunks anything nuclear related.
Every bit of matter in the universe gives of radiation, not just fire. Intense heating of the object increases the wavelength and amount given off, but existing is enough for it to give off radiation. Saying something is nuclear because it gives off radiation is flawed concept.
Another link that shows everything gives off radiation.
I seriously don't get when people have to make up such absurd theory's. It just detract from the argument of whether or not the US government staged it or not. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if half of the stupider ideas came from the government themselves ready to be debunked by people with half a brain cell to take focus off the real theory that actually have some weight behind them.
People don't like to be meddled with.
We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk.
We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right.
We're meddlesome.
As it's a publication from a university I will take it as a good enough source.
I think that pretty much debunks anything nuclear related.
Every bit of matter in the universe gives of radiation, not just fire. Intense heating of the object increases the wavelength and amount given off, but existing is enough for it to give off radiation. Saying something is nuclear because it gives off radiation is flawed concept.
Another link that shows everything gives off radiation.
I seriously don't get when people have to make up such absurd theory's. It just detract from the argument of whether or not the US government staged it or not. Personally I wouldn't be surprised if half of the stupider ideas came from the government themselves ready to be debunked by people with half a brain cell to take focus off the real theory that actually have some weight behind them.
Ok were now ruling out the nuclear bomb theory and that the collapsing counter-theory is the most likly
Btw V just got Rofl pwnt as you came up with the radiation and nuclear bomb and the collapsing Lol
the steel was all so uniform though, i find it hard to believe they were all so similar after having snapped randomly
the ground shaking was not in relation to an earthquake but in reference to the supposed bombs exploding before and during the collapses
the radiation thing is new to me and i must admit i know very little about it right now, i am aware that everything gives of radiation, i wonder if the level was within expected boundaries though?
I have to agree with the steel beams being strangely similar, but keep in mind that if anything where to cut those large beams, you would have most likely noticed the machine cutting them.
Also keep in mind, each of the beams experienced similar stress from the WTC collapse (they are right next to each other so thats easy to assume) ... Since they all had similar conditions for breaking, its likely that they would all have similar patterns during collapse.
The ground shaking was not b/c of a bomb but like I said b4, the tons of debris falling from the tallest buildings in the world.
If the radiation was lethal or harmful enough, I think there would have been more information on it on the news during 9/11. Obviously the radiation was so minimal that it was hardly worth mentioning.
There was no bomb, this shows that the planes would create enough damage to collapse atleast one floor. Then that would create a chain reaction collapsing the floors below it. It created excess pressure on the lower floors that the support could not handle. So those floors collapsed and it continued to collapse the floors below.
There is no doubt that the planes caused the collapse... i think the more debatable part is who was the one responsible for that attacks and why they did it rather than how they did it.
Ok starting from number 2 this would be the picture if you could see after the plane had hit Backing my story is the evidence
"American Airlines Flight 11, a Boeing 767-200[8] wide-body aircraft, crashed into the northern side of the North Tower of the World Trade Center (WTC) at 8:46:30 a.m. local time (Eastern Daylight Time, 12:46:30 UTC), hitting at the 94-98th floors
United Airlines Flight 175, a Boeing 767-200,[10] crashed into the 78-85th floors of the South Tower at 9:02:59 a.m. local time (13:02:59 UTC), an event covered live by television broadcasters and amateur filmers from around the world who had their cameras trained on the buildings after the earlier crash."
Showing that around 7+ floor's were baiscally destroyed plsut he on going fire
Which then leads to 4 showing were the Weakness would be increasing in the
Structure what then goes to 1 showing the weight from the top would be pushing down weaking the structure even more that then goes to 5 showing that the weaking
Structure would be weaker as the weight from the floor above would put more pressure Making it so that the rest of the building would have more to surrport as alot of the surrports of the damaged Sections of the building was ruined.
The too 3 As a picture of 1 of the towers leaning one side which concludes this
Three buildings in the World Trade Center Complex collapsed due to structural failure on the day of the attack. The south tower (2 WTC) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175. The north tower (1 WTC) collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes. A third building, 7 World Trade Center (7 WTC) collapsed at 5:20 p.m. as a result of debris damage from 1 WTC and subsequent fire
Strucural failure - Structural failure refers to loss of the load-carrying capacity of a component or member within a structure or of the structure itself. Structural failure is initiated when the material is stressed to its strength limit, thus causing fracture or excessive deformations. The ultimate failure strength of the material, component or system is its maximum load-bearing capacity. When this limit is reached, damage to the material has been done, and its load-bearing capacity is reduced permanently, significantly and quickly. In a well-designed system, a localized failure should not cause immediate or even progressive collapse of the entire structure. Ultimate failure strength is one of the limit states that must be accounted for in structural engineering and structural design.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by V 
