Loose Change.

[crazyarab 6]

No plane hit it, but as explained already... the JET FUEL fires caused the most damage, and WTC 7 got them as well, they've identified a critical column on the 13th floor which failed, all it took was one column and bam, same thing happens. Try taking out a critical column in the skytower whilst raging fires weaken all the structural steel. Same would happen.

I dunno man...

Look at the map overview and keep in mind this is not the f**king Chch square we are talking about... these are MASSIVE buildings and streets.

They are expecting us to believe that fuel from a jet plane hitting WTC 1 traveled literally a block over building 5 and 6 while ignited and penetrating a vital column burning for less than a few hours completely collapsed on itself in perfect demolition fashion.

Oh and this was the first steel building in history before or since 9/11 to ever collapse from a fire.

There was even voice recordings of "pull it" going around however that could have been tampered with of course.

I admit, I am not qualified to make the judgement here but my simple mind just does not stomach all that, especially when there are soooooo many other questions surrounding the whole event.

Edited September 14, 2009 by crazyarab

[Guest FrantiC]

I just watched this which is the supposid reason to support the claim that the jet fuel fire caused the towers to collapse.

I'm watching Zeitgeist at the moment, interesting watch.. Just went through the part where they had named 19 people as hijackers, none of their names were found on the plane boarding lists. In fact NO arab names were found on any of the hijack planes to have boarded.

[1rotty 40]

3. How could the WTC towers have collapsed without a controlled demolition since no steel-frame, high-rise buildings have ever before or since been brought down due to fires? Temperatures due to fire don't get hot enough for buildings to collapse.

The collapse of the WTC towers was not caused either by a conventional building fire or even solely by the concurrent multi-floor fires that day. Instead, NIST concluded that the WTC towers collapsed because: (1) the impact of the planes severed and damaged support columns, dislodged fireproofing insulation coating the steel floor trusses and steel columns, and widely dispersed jet fuel over multiple floors; and (2) the subsequent unusually large, jet-fuel ignited multi-floor fires weakened the now susceptible structural steel. No building in the United States has ever been subjected to the massive structural damage and concurrent multi-floor fires that the towers experienced on Sept. 11, 2001.

There was an excellent doco on TV some time back on this very report.

Conspiracy? I dont believe a word of it.

Edited September 14, 2009 by 1rotty

[huff3r 347]

It might be the first steel building to collapse from fire, but a jet-fuel fuelled fire burns considerably hotter than you're average wooden walls and furniture fire!

Thats why they use jet-fuel to power jets... it has an extreme amount of chemical potential energy

[Guest FrantiC]

I was a non-believer, but seriously watch Zeitgeist this is a GOOD movie.

WTC7 footage looks EXACTLY like a planned demolition does, It fell hours after the WTC 1 and 2 did, there were only 1 or 2 minor floor fires, yet the building randomly crumbled to pieces. In the 911 comission report, they failed to even MENTION WTC7 in their explanations to everything.

Also the pentagon they said the "jet fuel" supposedly vapourized the plane and everything, but the giant engines were made of titanium and steel weighing tonnes and tonnes, there is no was scientifically possible it could have vapourized on impact.

[Wom 0]

according to wikipedia

"On September 11, 2001, 7 WTC was damaged by debris when the nearby North Tower of the WTC collapsed. The debris also ignited fires, which continued to burn throughout the afternoon on lower floors of the building, with a lack of water to fight the fires. The building collapsed completely at 5:20 p.m., when a critical column on the 13th floor buckled and triggered structural failure throughout."

also, in regards to the Pentagon ... if the US Government (and that's a big if, I really do not believe there is any conspiracy here) did do all this, then why fire a missile at the Pentagon?

Surely they'd have enough "ammo" to go to war in the Middle East with just the trade centre being destroyed?

Has any thought that maybe is was all done by a bunch of pissed of Muslims?

[huff3r 347]

+1

[kiwi535 538]

I was a non-believer, but seriously watch Zeitgeist this is a GOOD movie.

WTC7 footage looks EXACTLY like a planned demolition does, It fell hours after the WTC 1 and 2 did, there were only 1 or 2 minor floor fires, yet the building randomly crumbled to pieces. In the 911 comission report, they failed to even MENTION WTC7 in their explanations to everything.

Also the pentagon they said the "jet fuel" supposedly vapourized the plane and everything, but the giant engines were made of titanium and steel weighing tonnes and tonnes, there is no was scientifically possible it could have vapourized on impact.

have you got any idea of the ammount of energy a plane that weights in the region of 30 tons going hundreds of kilometers an hour has to dissipate when it hits the ground or a building..surely you have seen pictures of plane crashes,there is ussually very little left of the plane that is recogniseable,,,they arent very solid you know........

[Guest FrantiC]

have you got any idea of the ammount of energy a plane that weights in the region of 30 tons going hundreds of kilometers an hour has to dissipate when it hits the ground or a building..surely you have seen pictures of plane crashes,there is ussually very little left of the plane that is recogniseable,,,they arent very solid you know........

Look at photos though, usually you will see some form of WRECKAGE, an engine, panels, anything that resembles what WAS plane. How does 30 tonnes of steel, titanium etc just dissapear?

Look at photos of the pentagon crash, there is a mere 60foot collapsed section in the building which apparently was caused by a 757 spanning 175 feet, leaving NO plane wreckage.

Why would the FBI confiscate 51 surveillance videos of the pentagon attack from regions around the pentagon? And refuse to release any footage?

[huff3r 347]

Perhaps that footage could well have compromised national security? Either by showing an integral weakness in the defense of the pentagon, or otherwise.

This is the pentagon we're talking about, they'd prefer the least footage of the security/structure of the building as possible, wouldn't you?

[Guest FrantiC]

A weakness? Why would they care about a weakness, obviously flying a plane into a building is going to cause abit of damage. Either it was a plane , or a missile. They released ONE video which is some lame 5fps shot of what appears to be more like a missile than a airplane.

All they had to do was show abit of footage of a plane in coming and that would put everything to rest.

Edited September 14, 2009 by Mike

[Mike 1]

Might be a dumb question but can someone point out why they'd level WTC 7? Its a nothing building compared to the Twin Towers. Just doesn't make sense, particually when it would just raise so many questions. I mean, the cover up would already be difficult enough, we're only talking thousands of people to silence

No plane hit WTC 7 yet it still fell in exactly the same fashion as WTC 1 & 2?

Fire's a real bitch. Especially when there's no water to put it out. The fire proofing was only rated for 3 hours. Not that long in the scheme of things

Edited September 14, 2009 by Mike

[huff3r 347]

They are the FBI. Why would they even care about these conspiracy theories? Releasing footage would be a complete u-turn for them, and even if they have no reason not to release it, they are a proud organisation. They aren't gonna turn round and say "ok, here you go, we give in, here's some footage of an incident which embarassed our national security and killed 100s of people"

[Guest FrantiC]

Does it not seem weird that on the EXACT same day 9/11, there were training exercises going on based around a hijack attempt vs the twin towers? The usual protocol would mean that within 10 minutes of a suspected hijack would have numerous jet fighters in the air locating these planes. It took 80 minutes for these jet fighters to even lift off.

Fair comment on the withholding of video though, but I still think it is very dodgy say the least how there is no damage at all but the mass hole in the pentagon and rubble.

Also there is alot of other things suggesting it was a fraud, such as the sinking of some sub or ship (forgot already) to spark the war against Vietnam which killed 1200 odd, which years after was spilt out as a fraud, lie by former government officials. This also happened in the start of WW1 and in WW2, which the U.S sent a ship into german controlled waters, got torpedoed and pushed through the support to join the war.

If you think about it, it's a great reason to push alot of people into believing something the government wants to do. Such as the "war against terrorism". Since 9/11 the U.S military budget has increased over 100billion a year. Numerous policies pushed through government, such as your house can be searched through without a warrant, arrested while witholding for what charges, no lawyer, tortured, by just being SUSPECTED terrorist.

Then you go to the british attacks on the train stations. Is it not even more of a coincidence, there were TRAINING excercises going on, that exact same day, at the EXACT same train stations at the SAME time?? Note that this happened on the 9/11 attacks too, were alot of confusion to if the attacks were actually happening real world or still in the excercise drill for emergency services. Cover up?

[Cale 36]

I would love to ask where the researchers and theorists get all their information from. How do we know that what all these conspiracists say is not made up?

[Guest FrantiC]

I would love to ask where the researchers and theorists get all their information from. How do we know that what all these conspiracists say is not made up?

That is a good point indeed.

[AN E30 Fan 1]

there is ussually very little left of the plane that is recogniseable,,,they arent very solid you know........

Hes right, was out at Auckland Airport Hangars a few weeks ago the guy was tell me that the outside shell of metal is no thicker than the thickness of metal on a beer can.

[dickhead 0]

I would love to ask where the researchers and theorists get all their information from. How do we know that what all these conspiracists say is not made up?

most of the theorys dont need their own facts, they just point out the obvious faults with the official version. I mean if they just came out and said, "the pricks somehow got bombs into the towers and shot our beloved invincible pentagon and flight93 with a rocket" everything would be fine.

there are a huge number of "facts" that don't check out in the official version. there needs to be an independant investigation with nothing witheld or ignored. Theres no way anyone could call any official investigation conclusive. Its like getting Joe Karam to investigate the Bain murders, or the army investigating who is to blame when a bridge they build collapses

[bravo 35]

Also there is alot of other things suggesting it was a fraud, such as the sinking of some sub or ship (forgot already) to spark the war against Vietnam which killed 1200 odd, which years after was spilt out as a fraud, lie by former government officials. This also happened in the start of WW1 and in WW2, which the U.S sent a ship into german controlled waters, got torpedoed and pushed through the support to join the war.

BTW, the WWI was Germany, Hitler etc. WWII was initially the Japs - Pearl Harbour remember??

[Grant 4]

This thread gives me many laughs.

I love all the armchair experts.

Cheers

Grant

[westy 614]

Everyone loves a good conspiracy particularly when it involves the US govt.

I blame the X files.

[Guest FrantiC]

Lol I was posting stuff pretty much straight from Zeitgeist. I actually think it's pretty interesting, I honestly (as I said the first time I posted in this thread) i couldn't care less, but after watching the conspiracy videos which try to show the U.S government is behind it, it definitley makes you think.

[yng_750 247]

as to the comment of where does 30 tonnes of steel etc go

either it atomised or it was in the building when it collapsed

planes can vaporise

[Guest FrantiC]

Did you read the description?

So what happens when a jet plane smashes into a hardened concrete barrier? It turns into little bitty pieces but not before it does a number on the concrete barrier.

The walls of the Pentagon are made of thick concrete but not as thick as the wall you see in the vid. The thing that we need to pay attention to is the interaction of the wings with the concrete barrier.

Notice that they clearly impact the barrier and cut a deep groove into the concrete. In other words, the damage to the barrier matches the silhouette of the jet. That is important. You can't have a 20 foot hole where a 150 ft plane supposedly crash into the Pentagon. That is impossible.

Even if the plane vaporized completely on impact, which is unlikely, the hole would have to be as big as the plane itself. Think of a bullet hitting a piece of plywood. Would the resulting hole be smaller than the bullet iself?

Also , that jet plane is going 500MPH..

Edited September 14, 2009 by FrantiC

[yng_750 247]

Did you read the description?

Also , that jet plane is going 500MPH..

the whole is small becuase only the main fuselage has enough mass to smash through a heavily fortified building notice the damage on the side of the building where the wing hit

also the destruction of the plane wont change much between 500mph and 300mph especially seeing as the 747 carries much more inertia