Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

24 Hard Facts About 9/11 That Cannot Be Debunked

Options
2»

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭IT-Guy


    weisses wrote: »
    Where did I state that part

    Read your post again, no.27. The nist quote there mentions no debris impact from wtc2, it was debris from wtc1 that caused the damage



    weisses wrote: »
    From the report .. I bolded the important part




    sooo How many buildings in the world collapsed the way building 7 did due to fire alone ?

    You still think the circumstances surrounding wtc7's collapse should mean the collapse of every tall building with a fully functional water sprinkler system and beams - with fire retardant material still intact- exposed to fire for 7 hours. Show me any other structural fire in those circumstances built to the 1968 fire code and I'll show you a collapsed building. Again the mention of free fall speed, do you think the building was deliberately demolished using explosives?


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭weisses


    Calibos wrote: »
    Its sad really. The desire to feel special, to feel like an insider, to feel like you are 'in the know' unlike all the 'sheeple'.

    Theres a lot of fcuked up **** that goes on in the world. There are real conspiracies.

    This ain't one. Just like 99% of the others that CT'ers latch onto. The real conspirators love you guys because you give all CT's a bad name

    Thank you so much for these caring and warm words ... Only issue is that regarding 9/11 there are facts not adding up with the official story and that makes it an interesting debate ...


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭weisses


    IT-Guy wrote: »
    Read your post again, no.27. The nist quote there mentions no debris impact from wtc2, it was debris from wtc1 that caused the damage

    Either way it had no impact on the collapse

    IT-Guy wrote: »
    You still think the circumstances surrounding wtc7's collapse should mean the collapse of every tall building with a fully functional water sprinkler system and beams - with fire retardant material removed due to damage - exposed to fire for 7 hours. Show me any other structural fire in those circumstances built to the 1968 fire code and I'll show you a collapsed building. Again the mention of free fall speed, do you think the building was deliberately demolished using explosives?


    Problem is that the fires got extinguished by themselves (north side) so not the whole building was exposed to fire for 7 hours

    If you see what is needed for a building to reach a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration then you must laugh at the official office fire story. I don't know what brought it down, If i knew I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. There are plenty of examples of high rises fully engulfed in flames for a much longer period and these buildings are still there today ... Only 3 examples of a collapse as described above and all three happened on 9/11


  • Registered Users Posts: 514 ✭✭✭IT-Guy


    weisses wrote: »
    Either way it had no impact on the collapse





    Problem is that the fires got extinguished by themselves (north side) so not the whole building was exposed to fire for 7 hours

    If you see what is needed for a building to reach a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration then you must laugh at the official office fire story. I don't know what brought it down, If i knew I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. There are plenty of examples of high rises fully engulfed in flames for a much longer period and these buildings are still there today ... Only 3 examples of a collapse as described above and all three happened on 9/11

    So the only thing that can be gleaned from our little exchange is that 1968 fire code requirements aren't as stringent as today's. I still don't know what you're arguing for here, you don't believe fire was capable of taking the building down and you don't think it was demolished using explosives? So what happened? Did it just get tired and decide to have a rest? :P


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    It needs a space suit, so I'm told. But then, nnewspaper headlines/articles are readily searchable.

    Did you figure it all out yourself?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    weisses wrote: »
    Either way it had no impact on the collapse





    Problem is that the fires got extinguished by themselves (north side) so not the whole building was exposed to fire for 7 hours

    If you see what is needed for a building to reach a symmetrical collapse at free fall acceleration then you must laugh at the official office fire story. I don't know what brought it down, If i knew I wouldn't be having this discussion with you. There are plenty of examples of high rises fully engulfed in flames for a much longer period and these buildings are still there today ... Only 3 examples of a collapse as described above and all three happened on 9/11

    It probably was explosives and the planes were just a distraction.

    Makes sense to me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 9,450 ✭✭✭weisses


    IT-Guy wrote: »
    So the only thing that can be gleaned from our little exchange is that 1968 fire code requirements aren't as stringent as today's. I still don't know what you're arguing for here, you don't believe fire was capable of taking the building down and you don't it was demolished using explosives? So what happened? Did it just get tired and decide to have a rest? :P

    I don't think that the fire in building 7 was severe enough to bring down the building

    And I don't know how they brought it down

    I get tired as well and have a rest only thing is it doesn't happen at free fall acceleration :D


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    The US government is no match for you and your mammy.

    Indeed. She's not a woman you piss off without a solid exit strategy... Anyway:

    Iraq.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

    Lybia.
    http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

    Granted, the media outlets arent to most people's taste but they were the results that arrived first. Many many more outlets ran articles, pretty much word for word. Only difference being, some included the diamond aspect, some didn't.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    Indeed. She's not a woman you piss off without a solid exit strategy... Anyway:

    Iraq.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

    Lybia.
    http://rt.com/news/economy-oil-gold-libya/

    Granted, the media outlets arent to most people's taste but they were the results that arrived first. Many many more outlets ran articles, pretty much word for word. Only difference being, some included the diamond aspect, some didn't.

    So to over throw Saddam they decided to fly some planes into skyscrapers.

    They should of made the hijackers Iraqi too not Saudi's, they prob got confused.

    They should of just planted some WOMD for the inspectors to find would of been a little bit easier.

    They also should of planted some WOMD after invading Iraq to justify the invasion, they prob forgot.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    So to over throw Saddam they decided to fly some planes into skyscrapers.

    They should of just planted some WOMD for the inspectors to find would of been a little bit easier.

    They also should of planted some WOMD after invading Iraq to justify the invasion, they prob forgot.

    They didn't fly the planes ito buildings.
    It was a legitimate enemy operation. They simply let it happen. Afghanistan was a sensible starting point for them. A country destroyed by its now ruling taliban would be easy to set up shop in and branch out from.

    Iraq was easy because of that. Emotions were high and claiming another country was supporting Al Quaida/Holding WMDs, after the events of 9/11 wasn't going to arouse much scrutiny. In fact, it got all the support they needed.
    Europe didnt assist the US fully for that reason. France in particular didn't assist at all. Likely still bitter over Nixon withholding their gold in the 70s. Please stand by while I find an interesting video of a generals interview.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    U.S General Wesley Clark.

    It's been a lot more than five years, granted. Good plans rarely survive contact.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    They didn't fly the planes ito buildings.
    It was a legitimate enemy operation. They simply let it happen. Afghanistan was a sensible starting point for them. A country destroyed by its now ruling taliban would be easy to set up shop in and branch out from.

    Iraq was easy because of that. Emotions were high and claiming another country was supporting Al Quaida/Holding WMDs, after the events of 9/11 wasn't going to arouse much scrutiny. In fact, it got all the support they needed.
    Europe didnt assist the US fully for that reason. France in particular didn't assist at all. Please stand by while I find an interesting video of a generals interview.

    and after all that effort they forgot to plant the WOMD.

    School boy mistake.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    and after all that effort they forgot to plant the WOMD.

    School boy mistake.

    One they could afford to "make". After all, who was going to question them? It had nothing to do with WMDs, nothing to do with oil (they'll never recoup the cost of their invasion on Iraqs oil alone) and everything to preventing a chain reaction of countries with high resources/trade taking note and dumping their dollar stashes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,565 ✭✭✭enfant terrible


    One they could afford to "make". After all, who was going to question them? It had nothing to do with WMDs, nothing to do with oil (they'll never recoup the cost of their invasion on Iraqs oil alone) and everything to preventing a chain reaction of countries with high resources/trade taking note and dumping their dollar stashes.

    Probably because if they found WOMD,the conspiracy theorist would say they planted the WOMD :pac:


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    Probably because if they found WOMD,the conspiracy theorist would say they planted the WOMD :pac:

    If they had them, it's because they were sold 'em.
    Iraq have gone from enemy to freind to enemy to freind and back again, as has been seen fit by various administrations.
    http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_support_for_Iraq_during_the_Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_war


  • Registered Users Posts: 237 ✭✭Scruffy19


    Watched this Documentary a few times and got others to watch it and they changed there views on what happened that day!

    https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=structural+WTC7&espv=2&biw=1280&bih=617&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=ptgWVc7dDMbzat3EgegI&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ#imgdii=_&imgrc=elZGEWiLDgVbyM%253A%3B9iIh07_OqLnBhM%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fmore911.files.wordpress.com%252F2012%252F10%252Fwtc-7-typical-floor-plan.jpg%3Bhttps%253A%252F%252Fmore911.wordpress.com%252Fplans%252F%3B1078%3B596

    Look at this photograph above! In order for that building to fall you are saying more than half of the beams would have to give way due to fire damage? If you think that then maybe your in the wrong job :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,737 ✭✭✭✭degrassinoel


    Multiple infractions and bans in this thread already - new posters to the CT's forum need to read the CT's charter before posting here.

    Also, if you believe someone else has broken the charter, don't respond - report the post and we'll deal with it accordingly. Otherwise the topic gets derailed.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10 AFreeIrishman


    9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
    The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
    Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
    You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
    The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
    Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadist scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
    The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

    Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10 AFreeIrishman


    9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
    The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
    Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
    You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
    The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
    Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadistic scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
    The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

    Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,277 ✭✭✭DamagedTrax


    9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
    The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
    Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
    You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
    The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
    Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadistic scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
    The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

    Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.

    yeah but the official report says different. the ink is dry, nothing more to see. move along now ;)


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,575 ✭✭✭Reg'stoy


    9/11 was a government created 'Pearl Harbour'. They wanted to rile the US people up and put them in the right mindset for a war. A few facts that negate the government's crap;
    The twin towers were specifically designed to withstand a plane strike, that BS story about burning fuel is ridiculous because; Physics..
    Two towers struck by planes do not drop in an obviously controlled fall. The drop could not have been tidier, relatively speaking.
    You can SEE the damn demo charges going off just before the drop...!!!
    The sloppy PR job of letting the whole world know it was coming, having over a dozen countries contacting them to tell them it was coming, but then acting completely dumbfounded when it came..
    Telling the people that a bunch of terrorists in a cave set all this up, so let's attack a nation that, while run by a sadistic scumbag dictator, has NOTHING to do with said terrorists. (Saddam Hussein had no known ties to Islamic militant groups, as he mistrusted them)
    The invasion orders for Afghanistan were on the presidents desk two days before 9/11...

    Feel free to look the facts up, but do it without bias.. See the logical truth for what it it.

    This is where all CT's fall down, the fact that to carry out the conspiracy; 100's if not 1000's of individuals would need to be involved. The 1000's of people who worked in the towers would have to ignore the dozens of workmen planting the explosives needed to follow your claim.

    What was the fall back position if one of the two planes had failed to reach it's target, after one collapsed and the other failed too would they have sneaked back in to remove the incriminating evidence.

    Was there explosives planted somewhere, be it the white house or elsewhere considering one plane did indeed not reach it target.

    Why not just hit the white house, imagine the uproar and outrage and the victory for the makie up terrorist group. They should have sent all four planes against this incredibly high profile target.

    What PR job are you talking about, how many threats both real and imagined are made against targets in the states, as a certain british woman was told "we have just to be lucky once, you need to be lucky all the time".

    As for plans being on the desk 2 days before the attack, what plans exactly, specific ones to planes hitting the twin towers or what. I would imagine 100's if not 1000's of military plans exist for 1000's of scenario's.
    There are major incident plans for most eventualities here in Ireland, if a plane crashes at Dublin Airport or if Sellafield were to go into meltdown a major incident plan would come into effect. Are we to assume that because a plan exists in response to an incident, that that incident was therefore preplanned.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,988 ✭✭✭enno99


    Reg'stoy wrote: »


    Why not just hit the white house, imagine the uproar and outrage and the victory for the makie up terrorist group. They should have sent all four planes against this incredibly high profile target.

    All that planning by the great terrorist mastermind and he couldn't think of that
    Rather remiss of Mr Bin Laden I think


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,934 ✭✭✭Renegade Mechanic


    It's difficult to pinpoint exactly, without looking like a tinfoil hat collector. But there's no denying, at least, that the Americans have form. Look up "Operation Northwoods".


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,473 ✭✭✭Wacker The Attacker


    Its difficult not to question the whole thing.

    Personally I don't believe that it was completely set up by the government but its very easy to see why people would think that. I believe that a large number of people were criminally negligent for (a) allowing the attacks to happen in the first place and (b) not limiting their extent once they did. Rumour has it that Russian, German, British and Israeli intelligence had forewarned the CIA as to the likelihood of an impending attack before 911 and these warnings were ignored.

    Also the way the fighter jet scrambling situation was handled was less than awe inspiring too.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 142 ✭✭tafkach


    Personally I don't believe that it was completely set up by the government but its very easy to see why people would think that.

    I think the biggest mistake that a lot of 9/11 truthers make is to feel obliged to provide all of the answers from start to finish as to how 9/11 was planned and who it was planned by. The burden of proof is not on people asking questions about 9/11, the burden of proof was on the 9/11 Commission to come up with the answers.


Advertisement