9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

BlackBlade · 07-09-2011 05:23PM

alastair wrote: »

I've seen more than my fill of this nonsense over the years. In relation to your molten beam - no-one but tin-foil merchants propose that was caused by the events of 9/11/. It's one of many beams that were cut with plasma cutters in the days and weeks following 9/11. No thermite (or trermites) involved at any point, no melting steel as a consequence of fires in the building/rubble.

so why did it fall?

do yourself a favor watch the vid!;)

Oafley Jones · 07-09-2011 05:25PM

I do love the Southpark truther episode..

Cartman: They aren't going to find out who did it, but they will make up a scapegoat, send him to detention, and make us all believe it. It will be 9/11 all over again.

Kyle: Will you shut up about 9/11!

Cartman: Kyle, why are you so afraid of the truth?

Kyle: Because anybody who thinks 9/11 is a conspiracy is a retard!

Cartman: Oh really, well did you know that over 1/4th of the people in America think that 9/11 was a conspiracy? Are you saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards?

Kyle: Yes, I am saying that 1/4th of Americans are retards.

Stan: At least 1/4th.

Kyle: Let's take a test sample. There's 4 of us, you're a retard. That's 1/4th.

alastair · 07-09-2011 05:28PM

BlackBlade wrote: »

so why did it fall?

do yourself a favor watch the vid!;)

Why not actually read the NIST report and engage with the science of the collapse, rather than miss the point with kooks and their youtube theories?

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 05:37PM

BlackBlade wrote: »

just watch the vid dude! :rolleyes:

I'm not sure why you quoted me twice with totally different responses but anyway, will the video tell me that the buildings were empty shells? That being the only thing that would make a statement like "a steel and concrete building burning??? ye right!" make sense......

Gamer Bhoy 89 · 07-09-2011 05:37PM

too creepy, i'm watchin 9/11 conspiricies on tv and they just asked "inside job or terrorist attack" just as i saw this thread. ahhh weird!

EDIT: As for the question, which i might aswell answer now lol, defo Terror attack, Al Qaeda get jiggy with sh!t like this it's sick. not cool!

Orando Broom · 07-09-2011 05:39PM

Deleted User wrote: »

actual events on that day 100% terrorist attacks,
building 7 fell as a result of damage sustained from the other two towers falling, buildings often collapse hours after an earthquake has taken place, the collapse of the two towers having an earthquake like effect on buildings 7's foundations and internal structure, then add the fires to the equation...

was there internal knowledge of an upcoming attack by certain elements, i believe so, you only have to look at how America has acted all over the middle east since 9/11 to see why... axis of evil/war on terror/WMD's... total boll1x, now its Libya's turn

cannot seem to understand why people find the idea of false flag attacks so ludicrous, just look back at history and even the recent financial meltdown..

Eggy Baby! wrote: »

IMO, it was a terror attack done with the indifference of the government; it was far too convenient to have happened the way we are told it happened. Plus, the Americans have orchestrated this kind of thing several times before in history.

Jaysus lads the very best of good old fashioned hubris was a huge factor in the success of 9/11 fro a terrorist viewpoint. The American civil service (the CIA, FBI, TSA and State Department and a raft of other agencies) thought they had their finger on the pulse with keeping terror off their shores.

There were more gaps in their systems that you could scarcely believe. Just look at a much more benign example of the systemic failures in the US; look at Irish workers in the USA, undocumented, unfettered getting away with bloody murder! I knew lads whose paycheque was made out to Hulk Hogan and other daft absurd names, no checks or inquiries just cashed cheque after cheque, no problems. I knew guys routinely getting off drunk driving charges because of their undocumented nature.

America was ripe for attack because one hand simply did not nor wanted the other hand to know what it was doing. It thought after 1993 they had it all sorted out. Al Queda used America's hubris and unshakable faith in their systems against them and it worked. Gross negligence all the way but it was indifference and uncoordination that paved the way not some grand conspiracy which simply could not have been pulled off by the American civil Service on their best day!

alastair · 07-09-2011 05:44PM

Orando Broom wrote: »

I knew guys routinely getting off drunk driving charges because of their undocumented nature.

In fairness - drink driving is pretty much ignored across the board in US law enforcement. Jim McDaid could rest easy there.

Orando Broom · 07-09-2011 05:45PM

alastair wrote: »

In fairness - drink driving is pretty much ignored across the board in US law enforcement. Jim McDaid could rest easy there.

The point I was making that undocumented workers were not afraid of any repercussions by stepping outside the law. It was just one example of that, one that people might have been familiar with.

07-09-2011 06:03PM

Orando Broom wrote: »

Jaysus lads the very best of good old fashioned hubris was a huge factor in the success of 9/11 fro a terrorist viewpoint. The American civil service (the CIA, FBI, TSA and State Department and a raft of other agencies) thought they had their finger on the pulse with keeping terror off their shores.

There were more gaps in their systems that you could scarcely believe. Just look at a much more benign example of the systemic failures in the US; look at Irish workers in the USA, undocumented, unfettered getting away with bloody murder! I knew lads whose paycheque was made out to Hulk Hogan and other daft absurd names, no checks or inquiries just cashed cheque after cheque, no problems. I knew guys routinely getting off drunk driving charges because of their undocumented nature.

America was ripe for attack because one hand simply did not nor wanted the other hand to know what it was doing. It thought after 1993 they had it all sorted out. Al Queda used America's hubris and unshakable faith in their systems against them and it worked. Gross negligence all the way but it was indifference and uncoordination that paved the way not some grand conspiracy which simply could not have been pulled off by the American civil Service on their best day!

i agree with your point but if you were to ask me if i believed certain people were capable of/guilty of allowing a false flag attack occur my answer would still be yes, its a twisted country in a lot of ways with a long history of sinister acts both at home and abroad

Richard tea · 07-09-2011 06:10PM

I think its important to get Ed Asner thoughts on the whole situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

ScumLord · 07-09-2011 06:42PM

BlackBlade wrote: »

Eh no your wrong, steel is shaped by heating it in a blast furnace, fire alone wont melt any more than a beer can!

First of all try throwing a beer can into your fire, they do burn to nothing in any old fire.

Secondly you can shape steel in a hot fire it's how they made swords for thousands of years. You do need a blast furnace for major work but you can weaken the metal enough to shape it in fire.

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 06:46PM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

So because the planes next to it collapsed, a building in the vicinity that wasnt hit by any plane should collapse neatly like a Vegas building been demolished?

In Larry Silverstein's own words:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WYdAJQV100

To "pull" a building in construction speak is to demolish it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

The most important question asked in this video IMO is "why would Silerstein go on tv and tell everyone about his billion dollar insurance scam"? Is it not more likely that it's a quote taken out of context than that he made such a mind bogglingly stupid slip of the tongue?

An interesting video about tricks of the trade in video editing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH_9QcMCkvg

niallo27 · 07-09-2011 06:51PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=43F54hR0NW8

The most important question asked in this video IMO is "why would Silerstein go on tv and tell everyone about his billion dollar insurance scam"? Is it not more likely that it's a quote made out of context than that he made such a mind bogglingly stupid slip of the tongue?

An interesting video about tricks of the trade in video editing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH_9QcMCkvg

You right he said he made a mistake and when he said the word pull he meant to pull the firefighters out of there, but there were no firefighters in there for hours beforehand, two stations reported that WTC 7 had fallen before they did, is this not a bit odd to you.

niallo27 · 07-09-2011 06:52PM

Richard tea wrote: »

I think its important to get Ed Asner thoughts on the whole situation

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Interesting video, does make you wonder

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 06:56PM

niallo27 wrote: »

You right he said he made a mistake and when he said the word pull he meant to pull the firefighters out of there, but there were no firefighters in there for hours beforehand, two stations reported that WTC 7 had fallen before they did, is this not a bit odd to you.

I've heard both of those claims but there are a few issues with them:

With the first one, who says? And how does that fit in with what he says at the start of the video about them "not being sure they were going to be able to contain the fire"? Of course they'd be having trouble containing it if they'd pulled out hours beforehand!

And the second one seems like a mistake even more mind bogglingly stupid than going on tv and admitting to demolishing the buildings. Are they suggesting that the BBC etc were in on the conspiracy or just that these people who were able to pull off such a massive conspiracy were simultaneously so f*cking thick that they reported that the buildings had collapsed when a cursory glance out the window would have shown that their bombs hadn't gone off yet?

niallo27 · 07-09-2011 07:14PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

I've heard both of those claims but there are a few issues with them:

With the first one, who says? And how does that fit in with what he says at the start of the video about them "not being sure they were going to be able to contain the fire"? Of course they'd be having trouble containing it if they'd pulled out hours beforehand!

And the second one seems like a mistake even more mind bogglingly stupid than going on tv and admitting to demolishing the buildings. Are they suggesting that the BBC etc were in on the conspiracy or just that these people who were able to pull off such a massive conspiracy were simultaneously so f*cking thick that they reported that the buildings had collapsed when a cursory glance out the window would have shown that their bombs hadn't gone off yet?

Did you watch the video posted on the last page, does it raise any doubts with you, the falling debris started 10 fires in WTC 7 but no fires in any other building, why was there no independent inquiry.

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 07:21PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Did you watch the video posted on the last page, does it raise any doubts with you, the falling debris started 10 fires in WTC 7 but no fires in any other building, why was there no independent inquiry.

No I didn't watch it, I have better things to do than watch conspiracy videos that invariably just make stuff up such as the idea that "pull it" is an industry term for a controlled demolition.

Did either of my two questions raise any doubts with you? Did the first one make you consider the possibility that the claim that the fire fighters had pulled out hours beforehand doesn't make any sense in the context of them saying they were "havig trouble containing the fire"? How could they be having trouble containing something that they were making no attempt to contain, having been pulled out hours beforehand?

BlackBlade · 07-09-2011 07:28PM

ScumLord wrote: »

First of all try throwing a beer can into your fire, they do burn to nothing in any old fire.

Secondly you can shape steel in a hot fire it's how they made swords for thousands of years. You do need a blast furnace for major work but you can weaken the metal enough to shape it in fire.

ha ha first of all learn how to read!
as I said you wont burn More than a beer can in a fire (it will burn but anything thicker wont, just to explain it for ye)

secondly a sword isnt 4" thick steel!
you would want some size bloody hammer to shape that!

so many people on this forum dont use the ole brain before they spurt at all do they :rolleyes:

niallo27 · 07-09-2011 07:32PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

No I didn't watch it, I have better things to do than watch conspiracy videos that invariably just make stuff up such as the idea that "pull it" is an industry term for a controlled demolition.

Did either of my two questions raise any doubts with you? Did the first one make you consider the possibility that the claim that the fire fighters had pulled out hours beforehand doesn't make any sense in the context of them saying they were "havig trouble containing the fire"? How could they be having trouble containing something that they were making no attempt to contain, having been pulled out hours beforehand?

You should watch it, it's not your usual conspiracy video, it just asks more questions than anything, of Course your questions raise doubts, it makes sense what you are saying, I just have a few doubts.

I would prefer an independent inquiry than an government funded one.

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 07:38PM

niallo27 wrote: »

You should watch it, it's not your usual conspiracy video, it just asks more questions than anything, of Course your questions raise doubts, it makes sense what you are saying, I just have a few doubts.

I would prefer an independent inquiry than an government funded one.

OK I'll give it a chance but I'm turning it off at the first stupid thing I see. Which video are you talking about?

niallo27 · 07-09-2011 07:40PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

OK I'll give it a chance but I'm turning it off at the first stupid thing I see. Which video are you talking about?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 07:45PM

niallo27 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw

Sorry mate, I didn't even get past the description: "Join actor, Ed Asner and Architect Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers as they narrate an unfolding story that decimates the official account ("collapse due to normal office fires") of this 47 story high-rise which was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration for a third of its fall."

As the video that's already been posted explains, it collapsed from the inside out and it took a lot longer than 7 seconds. The collapse of the outer wall seen in most videos was the last stage after all the internal supports had collapsed

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 07:51PM

BlackBlade wrote: »

secondly a sword isnt 4" thick steel!
you would want some size bloody hammer to shape that!

Would the weight of ten stories (I think it was) of a building be enough to shape it do you think? It would at least count as "some size bloody hammer" to me anyway

niallo27 · 07-09-2011 07:55PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry mate, I didn't even get past the description: "Join actor, Ed Asner and Architect Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers as they narrate an unfolding story that decimates the official account ("collapse due to normal office fires") of this 47 story high-rise which was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration for a third of its fall."

As the video that's already been posted explains, it collapsed from the inside out and it took a lot longer than 7 seconds. The collapse of the outer wall seen in most videos was the last stage after all the internal supports had collapsed

Oh well, I never said it was perfect and that I believed everything in it, it just raised some doubts with me.

BlackBlade · 07-09-2011 08:02PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Sorry mate, I didn't even get past the description: "Join actor, Ed Asner and Architect Richard Gage, AIA and Architects and Engineers as they narrate an unfolding story that decimates the official account ("collapse due to normal office fires") of this 47 story high-rise which was destroyed on the afternoon of 9/11 in record time: top to bottom in under 7 seconds - and at free-fall acceleration for a third of its fall."

As the video that's already been posted explains, it collapsed from the inside out and it took a lot longer than 7 seconds. The collapse of the outer wall seen in most videos was the last stage after all the internal supports had collapsed

well if you wont even look at the what other people have to say well that makes anything you have to say have absolutely no credibility on the subject!
sure if ye close your eye long enough it will all go away wont it :rolleyes:

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Would the weight of ten stories (I think it was) of a building be enough to shape it do you think? It would at least count as "some size bloody hammer" to me anyway

Eh no it wouldnt!
a hammer has kinetic energy an burning building doesnt!
have you watched the above video?
might do ye good!

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 08:09PM

niallo27 wrote: »

Oh well, I never said it was perfect and that I believed everything in it, it just raised some doubts with me.

Fair enough. I'm kind of ashamed to admit this but I was taken in by the whole 9/11 conspiracy thing for a while. It wasn't even looking at the evidence of 9/11 that made me change my mind on it, it was something else entirely. During the campaign on the Lisbon treaty so many people were coming out with the most ridiculous conspiracy theories involving all levels of government throughout the EU and the world all apparently conspiring against Ireland so they could force abortion on us for some reason or steal our fish or something like that.

Unlike with 9/11 it was very easy to check the facts behind these claims and find out that they were all nonsense but I found that no matter how much evidence was presented to the people who believed these theories they wouldn't budge. In a way it was understandable because there were deceptively professional looking websites pretending to be simple information sites on the EU but they were filled with lies. It was easy to be taken in by them if you weren't careful and once someone's mind is set on an idea it's almost impossible to make them change it.

That was the first time I really saw the ridiculousness of the idea of massive conspiracy theories like 9/11 and I started to see the same pattern of silly thinking hooking people into believing all manner of nonsense from 9/11 truthers to moon hoaxers to homoeopaths to creationists to people who seem to think that the Irish government like to sit in ivory towers stroking white cats cackling evilly while they decide to close hospitals and cut welfare simply to hurt people and not at all because lack of resources had forced them to do it.

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 08:13PM

BlackBlade wrote: »

Eh no it wouldnt!
a hammer has kinetic energy an burning building doesnt!
have you watched the above video?
might do ye good!

Ten stories of a building may not have kinetic energy but it has a whole lot of gravitational potential energy, which can be converted to kinetic energy.

Imagine I put a bowling ball (or something much heavier) on top of a tripod with thin legs made of plastic and then held a lighter to one of the legs. Do you think that the bowling ball would not have any effect on how long it takes the leg to buckle, since it only has potential energy and no kinetic?

BlackBlade · 07-09-2011 08:17PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

Ten stories of a building may not have kinetic energy but it has a whole lot of gravitational potential energy, which can be converted to kinetic energy.

Imagine I put a bowling ball (or something much heavier) on top of a tripod with thin legs made of plastic and then held a lighter to one of the legs. Do you think that the bowling ball would not have any effect on how long it takes the leg to buckle, since it only has potential energy and no kinetic?

Well if was a tripod that was designed to hold up a bowling ball for at least 100 years then eh no!

what bearing has 2 random objects got to this ffs lol...

Sam Vimes · 07-09-2011 08:21PM

BlackBlade wrote: »

Well if was a tripod that was designed to hold up a bowling ball for at least 100 years then eh no!

what bearing has 2 random objects got to this ffs lol...

What are you talking about? I said imagine I was holding a lighter to the tripod leg to make it melt. How long the tripod was "designed" to hold the ball doesn't make any difference if I've just melted one of the legs ffs.

The question is: given that the tripod is going to collapse either way because I'm melting the leg, would it fall exactly as fast with the bowling ball weighing down on it as without? This is a question about compressive strength btw

BlackBlade · 07-09-2011 08:35PM

Sam Vimes wrote: »

What are you talking about? I said imagine I was holding a lighter to the tripod leg to make it melt. How long the tripod was "designed" to hold the ball doesn't make any difference if I've just melted one of the legs ffs.

compressive strength btw

well as I answered ye mate!
imagine it was suppose to hold the weight even while hot!

If the tripod was designed to withstand heat while bearing the load then no it wont collapse!

the point your completely missing is that the buildings that collapsed after a little fire (and it is a little fire on the scale of the structure) infact were designed to stay up after any scale of fire!

so unless somebody had something in the building that would burn hot enough to damage the HUGE steel the thing was made from it should never have come down!
comprende?

9/11: Inside Job or Terror Attack?

Comments