9/11 The Truth!

sci0x · 16-10-2003 11:48PM

Ok lets look at another site 9/11 Timeline. It explains more clearly the events of 9/11. Its shows the facts. You choose if you want to believe them.

daveg · 17-10-2003 07:55AM

Originally posted by aidan_dunne
I have to agree with GoneShootin on this one. It's an interesting read and raises a lot of "believable" points but I think it's bull as well.

By the way, about those pictures showing the "F-15" flying past the WTC. Looks like a typical dodgy, blurry, Photoshopped UFO picture to me!

It was aliens! The aliens did it, I tells ya!

The F15 pics are a total fake. It looks totally out of proportion. The F15 is 63 feet long. It looks was longer in the pic beside the twin towers.

Besides I think we have all seen footage of the second plane crashing into the second tower. I have never seen nor heard the F15. It's not exaclty a quiet jet.

vibe666 · 17-10-2003 09:06AM

did nobody see the thing on the discovery channel about why the towers collapsed?

there was fireproofing on the steel structure to prevent them from collapsing due to fire weakening the steel, but when it was put on they not only did a pretty bad job of it but the rust proofing that was supposed to go underneath was very poorly applied, and a lot of areas of fireproofing fell off due to rust beneath it on the steel.

this wasshown by a guy who was brought in a couple of years before 9/11 to survey the site and had said at the time it was a complete mess and wouldn't stand up to a serious fire.

incidentally the towers were designed to withstand being hit by a passenger jet, as it was in the original build spec. not for terrorist attacks, but they had taken into account the possibility of a low flying jet in fog unable to see the towers, but had only guessed at a low speed impact, not the high speed ones that happened.

it was very interesting, and would give you a lot more genuine information about the whole episode than some half baked conspiracy theory. of course it only goes into the why they collapsed part of it, not the why it happened and who was responsible, so it's not the full story.

will have to have a look at that link anyway when I get the chance.

daveg · 17-10-2003 09:27AM

Originally posted by vibe666
did nobody see the thing on the discovery channel about why the towers collapsed?

there was fireproofing on the steel structure to prevent them from collapsing due to fire weakening the steel, but when it was put on they not only did a pretty bad job of it but the rust proofing that was supposed to go underneath was very poorly applied, and a lot of areas of fireproofing fell off due to rust beneath it on the steel.

this wasshown by a guy who was brought in a couple of years before 9/11 to survey the site and had said at the time it was a complete mess and wouldn't stand up to a serious fire.

incidentally the towers were designed to withstand being hit by a passenger jet, as it was in the original build spec. not for terrorist attacks, but they had taken into account the possibility of a low flying jet in fog unable to see the towers, but had only guessed at a low speed impact, not the high speed ones that happened.

it was very interesting, and would give you a lot more genuine information about the whole episode than some half baked conspiracy theory. of course it only goes into the why they collapsed part of it, not the why it happened and who was responsible, so it's not the full story.

will have to have a look at that link anyway when I get the chance.

I saw that program. Was excellent. As you said it was designed to take the imapct of a smaller plane/lower speed/less fuel. Dont know if anything would withstand a fully loaded airliner at full speed.

Dustaz · 17-10-2003 10:29AM

Originally posted by sci0x
You dont realise how well the government is at keeping this under wraps. This has been on the net for ages but nobody talks or it seems like to talk about these things. There are plenty of other sources on the net saying the same thing but ppl are too fooled by the government and the media to believe.

(c)amp

blondie83 · 17-10-2003 10:44AM

Is it just me or can anyone else not find that page standdown.net - I clicked on the link and it won't come up! I am asking because it would be very interesting had someone removed the whole page.

I couldn't open it either, I tried a few times but it doesn't work. Anyone got any parts of it they could post up so we could read it?

mr_angry · 17-10-2003 10:56AM

What browser are you guys using? I'm on Netscape 7.1, and it works fine...

yossarin · 17-10-2003 11:03AM

You dont realise how well the government is at keeping this under wraps.

<paraphrased terry pratchet>
Its amazing that people will believe that a government, given its absolute failure to do anything else effectivly, is totaly effective at covering things up
</paraphrased terry pratchet>

depechemode · 17-10-2003 11:07AM

Originally posted by daveg
I saw that program. Was excellent. As you said it was designed to take the imapct of a smaller plane/lower speed/less fuel. Dont know if anything would withstand a fully loaded airliner at full speed.

I believe it was built to withstand a fully fueled 707-340 carrying 23,000 gallons of fuel with a cruise speed of 607 mph, the slightly larger 767-200's that were used which were carrying 10,000 gallons of fuel with a cruise speed of 530 mph. Where did you get smaller plane/ lower speed/ less fuel from?

The jet fuel burns rapidly and the fires caused by this would only have lasted a few minutes, the rest of the time the fires were fueled as would an ordinary office fire
p.s. no steel high-rise structure has ever collapsed due to fire, hydrocarbon fuel burns at a max of 700 C. the evidence suggest the wtc fire did not even approach this temp due to oxygen starvation (hence the black smoke, did you see any windows shattering due to these extremes in temperature that could melt the steel? I didn't! What about the outer steel structure glowing red hot? Nope!) but remained at about 250 C, the melting point of steel? over 1500 C yet pools of molten steel discovered under the rubble, where did this extra heat come from?

What really puzzles me is the fact the entire building fell in little over the time taken for a free falling object to fall under gravity, what happened to the undamaged steel super-structure below the fire which could normally hold the wieght above with ease, why does it put up the same resistance as thin air, would it not have been more likely for the upper levels, if they were to fall, to fall in a manner to meet least resistance ie outwards and not the manner in which they encountered maximum resistance, falling through a hundred levels of steel superstructure?

I'm no engineer but these points raised here give an engineering viewpoint and don't go into the murky detail of why someone would set this up! It deserves some consideration!!!
http://911research.wtc7.net

Beëlzebooze · 17-10-2003 11:24AM

If it was a orchestrated affair, why use four aircraft?

Two would have been enough, and certainly if enough "evidence" was planted in the alleged terrorists homes or appartments.

Also the planes could have been shot down, if the ATC had recieved some fundementalist rhetoric over the air. the message of terrorism would still have been clear.

It is way too elaborate and complex for a conspiracy. Too many people would have to be involved, it would leak somewhere along the line.

Stark · 17-10-2003 01:04PM

like it's leaking now?

mr_angry · 17-10-2003 01:10PM

If they were planting evidence, you'd think they would have gone for something a little more concrete?

The missing passengers still freak me out. Could they have been CIA agents?

Capt'n Midnight · 17-10-2003 01:28PM

Conjecture is not the same as circumstantial evidence.
And supposing is not the same as leaking..

Also that about the F15's only doing a fraction of their speed..
Top speed for an F15 is at high altitude with most of the fuel burnt and in a clean config (no missiles) - at low altitude in urban areas there is a ban on supersonic flight, further limiting the speed.

And that bit about hydrocarbons only burning at 700c... I've a parafin (similar to aviation fuel) blowtorch at home. Have a look at materials used in Jet engines and thier temperatures.. Also steel looses most of it's structural strength well below it's melting point (burning wood actually is one of the materials that retains it's strength longest in intense heat !) Also in a building that size there are lots of combustable substances...

BTW: I still think the Titanic was not sunk in 1912 , it was not ready in time - so they swapped it when her sister ship came in for repair. Captain Smith had previously rammed a liner into something and yet they still let him sail... Overall it was an insurance job..

ColinM · 17-10-2003 01:34PM

Dustaz, silent bob, and other sceptics - don't think you are so clever by dismissing this by saying it's on the Internet, so it's probably just some crank mouthing off. Read it, take it on board, knock it about a bit internally for a while and see how it holds up to scrutiny after you do your own research.

One of you made reference to the fact that many of his supporting links, like the one to the FAA standard intercept procedure was to a link on his own website. That link goes to a page on his own website alright, but that page contains a list of links to the FAA.gov website - so it is not the case, at least for this section, that he is backing up his own arguments with his own documentation.

Borzoi, who chooses to dismiss all of this without reading it because he doesn't care, deserves to live in a world where his future is created by others.

Remember folks, if you are either gullible or a sceptic, you will always have a skew on the truth. The hardest thing to do is to hold the rudder straight, but you should endeavour to do so.

And above all, be paranoid - it might just save your life one day!

Anyone even remotely interested in this topic and the subsequent use of the September 11th 2001 tradgedy that was made by the NeoCons to advance the aims of the Project for the New American Century should make sure they have read the article (also long) linked to below:

http://www.theboywhocriediraq.com/

17-10-2003 02:17PM

The most obvious flaw I can see in the theory, is that it would be almost impossible to keep this a secret. It would have to come out at some time. The sheer amount of people involved would be in the hundreds, if not thousands, and for all these people to knowingly kill so many people seems a bit unbelievable to me.

Perhaps they purposely ignored strong evidence that such an attack was bound to happen - of which many claims came out after 9/11 but were basically ignored - in order to turn the American people towards their policies. However, if that were true, then they couldn't have figured out what was about to happen in terms of economic downturn, and all the damage it has done to US credibility.

I personally believe that the MAIN reason that the US hit iraq when it did, was the iraqi oil currency switch in November 2000. See the main reason that America(even though it was an insane poverty level) is able to spend so much money on things such as war, aid, space travel etc is the fact that ALL OPEC countries trade their oil in the dollar. This means that huge countries, such as Japan, need to keep huge reserves of US currency in order to buy this oil. This mightn't seem like much of a threat, HOWEVER the thing is that it costs America practically NOTHING to print this money up, but if Japan wants it, they have to pay for it - thus giving America something for nothing.

Some other countires are seriously considering changing their oil currency to the euro, such as iran, venezuela, and russia. Ofc iran is in the "axis of evil", the US wants chavez out, and they can just hope that russia doesn't make the switch. Russia has talked of making such a switch in the past, but of course this swith wouldn't come free to Europe. They would obviously want inclusion in the Euro, in order to benefit from the boost it would give all euro-zone countries.

I believe that such a change could come in the near future, thus making the EU a practical super-power, and almost ruining America, due to not only their lack of income from the $, but also their need to buy in a helluva lot of euros in order to fill their currency reserves for use in buying oil!

EDIT: fixed date typo

Sposs · 17-10-2003 02:22PM

Good Points there Ultilty i hadn't relieased the Iraq had changed Currency from the Dollar , explains a lot.

BuffyBot · 17-10-2003 03:05PM

Frankly my opinion of this is that its paranoid conspiracy theory crossed with bias and flavoured with people trying to find an explanation in something that was a terrible tragedy (rationalisation is something everyone will try to do after an event of such huge proportions).

I suspect the real truth will never be known - the argument is logical but some of the premises are shaky - making me suspect this isn't near the true explanation either.

Pompey Magnus · 17-10-2003 03:08PM

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight

And that bit about hydrocarbons only burning at 700c... I've a parafin (similar to aviation fuel) blowtorch at home. Have a look at materials used in Jet engines and thier temperatures.. Also steel looses most of it's structural strength well below it's melting point (burning wood actually is one of the materials that retains it's strength longest in intense heat !) Also in a building that size there are lots of combustable substances...

From The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)....

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900 C (1,500-1,700 F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600 C (1,100 F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments)."

(Lets not forget the evidence suggesting the fire was oxygen starved and only reached 250 C,
-at 700C glowing steel visible in daylight-NO,
-at 600 C extensive window breakage- again NO....... etc!)

Taking the possibility that it was the first few minutes of the intensest heat with the rapid burn off of jet fuel that caused the inevitable collapse of the towers then it's also worth noting that due to steel being an excellent conductor of heat and the areas affected being part of a wider steel superstructure, as the temperature decreased later on, the steels would have regained considerable strength.(the softening of steel is reversible!)

Also when they do collapse the debris never disintegrates into dust and the collapse remains localised to the area experiencing the extreme temperatures!
"The kind of low-carbon steel used in buildings and automobiles bends rather than shatters. If part of a structure is compromized by extreme temperatures, it may bend in that region, concievably causing a large part of the structure to sag or even topple. But it will not crumble into pieces."

I must admit to never having really considered this topic before but now that I have there are some things which I really just find suspicious. Its possible that this is a dead end conbspiracy theory but it's also possible that there could be something behind it and until a logical explanation for these seeming inconsistencies is produced I will tend to view the US hierarchy with suspicion (hey, they view Camp X-ray prisoners as guilty until proven otherwise, I'm only following their lead)!

Capt'n Midnight · 17-10-2003 04:05PM

http://www.sciencefairs.bc.ca/regions/gvrsf/2002/m16e.html

The average flame temperature for the jet-burner is 3477°C.
The average flame temperature for the oxyacetylene torch is 1217°C.
The average flame temperature for the fire is 797°C.

(I think it's higher than 797 - cos larger fire - more radiation, less cooling.)

Note: it's not the support beams under compression that went - it was the TRUSS under tension that failed first - the Safety load factors are a lot lower so forget about the temperature needed to weaken to 20% (also lots of extra weight on the floors due to collapse and other debris - ie straight away twice the load on the floor just below impact.)

Have a good look at http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/collapse2.html

Gmodified · 17-10-2003 05:40PM

Well, if you look at the video again, impact puts the windows out on other side of the building. I would expect that air passing through the hole would contribute to the process and give the same affect as a blow torch.
I have seen real fire where burning
-sofa
-two single beds/ 1 double bed with mattress
- some other rubbish
managed to heat up floor support beam to the point that concrete floor slab dropped and floor in the room above looked like a big satellite dish. It wasn't very heavy floor

Fire happened in the small archway of the big apartment block. you can imagine it as hole in the building with air access from both sides but on ground level instead somewhere in the sky

Ok, steel softening is reversible but under the load may easily go beyond the point where starts to flow, sometimes under own weigh(once temp doesn't drop suddenly)

Hobbes · 17-10-2003 07:27PM

Originally posted by Capt'n Midnight
at low altitude in urban areas there is a ban on supersonic flight, further limiting the speed.

Not on the day they weren't banned from low flying. I recall the news saying that a bomb had gone off in a supermarket nearby the pentagon, it had later turned out that it was low flying jets travelling at supersonic speed.

TBH I reckon the US military shot down one of the jets or was in the process to. The military even admitted to that the order had been given on the day.

There was also a report of an explosion near the tower before it collapsed. Personally I think it was the noise of the floors collapsing like dominos was making it. Or who knows, maybe the building had a failsafe to blow the inside in such an event so that the tower didn't fall sideways (stick that in conspiracy pipe and smoke it).

There are a sh!t load of unanswered questions, like for example why did Bush sit on his ass for so long when he was told the towers were hit? (See http://www.thememoryhole.org for the footage).

As for cell phones, I dont know how the new ones work but I do know at one time a normal mobile phone would not work if you flew over new york. The phone would register on too many base stations and fail to connect. (I remember it from a article about building a system in NYC to deal with the problem).

Perhaps they purposely ignored strong evidence that such an attack was bound to happen - of which many claims came out after 9/11 but were basically ignored - in order to turn the American people towards their policies. However, if that were true, then they couldn't have figured out what was about to happen in terms of economic downturn, and all the damage it has done to US credibility.

The econmic turndown was predicted to happen long before Sept. Basically the airlines where hurting before it as well. If it had not have happened the situation the world is currently in would of come slower.

They knew an attack was going to take place (See memoryhole.org for footage of that too). I doubt very much they knew exactly what was going to happen. I quite like Bushes reply when asked did he know (sic) "Had I of known exactly what was going to happen I would of done everything to stop it". Very open ended sentance instead of a denial.

If I was to take an educated guess (based on actual evidence), the CIA knew planes were going to be hijacked, tried to make a killing at the stock market over it and probably use as a reason to invade Afganistan (as it was planned to attack it around then). Then when the towers were hit they knew people would be hung by the balls being even remotely attached in knowing.

You also might want to read this..
http://www.cooperativeresearch.net/timeline/main/essayaninterestingday.html

The_Bullman · 17-10-2003 07:41PM

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't fighter aircraft need to be refueled immediately after take off. They expend most of their fuel actually getting off the ground. If this is the case the times and speeds he quoted mightn't be just as accurate. It might take a while to refuel in midair before they can actually intercept.

Somebody was asking why the steel broke into pieces. Maybe it's because it wasn't actually made from one huge piece. The steel would have to be rivetted together and these points would be the first to break.

Even saying that, there is something extreemly strange about the whole day. Too many inconsistencies imo

17-10-2003 08:17PM

Refuel after take-off? My gawd - these are the same fighter jets that can travel HUNDREDS of miles into enemy territory in order to complete missions.

Sauron · 17-10-2003 08:42PM

Quite an interesting read...quite compelling. It really made me think...really just can't trust the Bush admin...:ninja:

17-10-2003 08:51PM

Originally posted by Hobbes
The econmic turndown was predicted to happen long before Sept. Basically the airlines where hurting before it as well. If it had not have happened the situation the world is currently in would of come slower.

Yes they may have known about this economic downturn long in advance, however they must never have known how badly it would happen after such an attack - i.e. leading to the probable ousting of G.W. in 2004.

That is to say, it's not like the world is in some horrible economic downturn where everyone is dying of hunger or anything like that, but rather it seems like a much bigger economic drop due to the huge bull market we were coming off in the late nineties.

Hobbes · 17-10-2003 09:30PM

What makes you think GW Bush is going in 2004? :rolleyes:

I'm betting on one of the senarios.

1) Bush declares himself dictator
2) Something tragic happens that keeps Bush in power (hmm dirty nuke where all the opposing side is wiped. 2 birds 1 stone).
3) Rigs the election again.

ShriekingSheet · 17-10-2003 09:45PM

Very easy to get caught up in this IMO

It all seems so possible

I don't have wide spectrum of knowledge/information I feel is needed to go either way on this.

Very very interesting

(someguy) · 17-10-2003 11:17PM

Osama bin laden isn't real, he's just the ultimate scapegoat

Sand · 18-10-2003 11:12AM

I weep for our future.

18-10-2003 11:39AM

Originally posted by Hobbes
What makes you think GW Bush is going in 2004? :rolleyes:

I'm betting on one of the senarios.

1) Bush declares himself dictator
2) Something tragic happens that keeps Bush in power (hmm dirty nuke where all the opposing side is wiped. 2 birds 1 stone).
3) Rigs the election again.

dude you're beliefs are totally fúcked up. No way is GW Bush going back into office in 2004. Has there ever been a president as hated as him?

9/11 The Truth!

Comments