9/11 anniversary, where were you when it happened and was it a conspiracy?

Sunnyisland · 15-09-2013 08:33AM

I was on the beach in Spain,walked up to the beach bar and there was quite a few people looking at the small tv, I just thought it was a plane crash, going on up to the town not long after and seeing the tv again realizing that another plane had crashed into another tower, I knew that it was worse than original thought and there would be hell to pay...

mufflets2 · 15-09-2013 08:52AM

As far as I am concerned the real conspiracy surrounding 9/11 is the subsequent cover up of reasons why Al-Qaeda said they did it

1, That the US supports the Illegal antics of Israel and illegally supplies them with arms.

2, That the US supports evil dictatorships across the middle east (particularly in Saudia Arabia) as well as their military bases there.

ask any Americans and they will tell you its because "they hate freedom" or "they want to spread extremism"

why oh why do people not ask questions.

niallo27 · 15-09-2013 09:58AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

A plane flew into the building, the building fell down. I'd imagine the onus is on you to prove otherwise..

Other stuff survived the fligh 93 crash 'a wedding ring and other jewelry, photos, credit cards, purses and their contents, shoes, a wallet and currency, are among seven boxes of identified personal effects salvaged from the site.' If they can survive then so can a passport.

No plane flew into WTC 7 which he is talking about. A complete collapse of the building was very odd.
As for the passport, yes it could have survived but didnt fly right into the hands of a new york cop.

Canis Lupus · 15-09-2013 11:02AM

niallo27 wrote: »

No plane flew into WTC 7 which he is talking about. A complete collapse of the building was very odd.
As for the passport, yes it could have survived but didnt fly right into the hands of a new york cop.

Oh right, sorry. It was on fire, failed structurally and collapsed.

The passport was handed to a police officer.

Look I 'understand' the conspiracy but for me I prefer the straightforward answer, I don't see why anyone has to go looking for, frankly, outrageous suggestions for what happened on the day.

niallo27 · 15-09-2013 11:20AM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Oh right, sorry. It was on fire, failed structurally and collapsed.

The passport was handed to a police officer.

Look I 'understand' the conspiracy but for me I prefer the straightforward answer, I don't see why anyone has to go looking for, frankly, outrageous suggestions for what happened on the day.

A building to fall from fire only is not a straightforward answer though, its very rare. I dont see what is wrong with asking a few questions. A lot of people died that day and they deserve more answers.

Canis Lupus · 15-09-2013 12:34PM

niallo27 wrote: »

A building to fall from fire only is not a straightforward answer though, its very rare. I dont see what is wrong with asking a few questions. A lot of people died that day and they deserve more answers.

Just because something is rare doesn't mean it can't happen, at least every couple of weeks someone beats the odds of winning the lotto (euromillions is 1 in 116,531,800). Now of course, that also means that there is a minute possibility that this was an 'inside job' however presented side by side there are two options:

A: a building severely damaged by impact debris and suffering a raging fire suffers structural failure and collapses.

B: a building is brought down with a controlled explosion conducted by or in collusion with government/rich people.

I really cannot for the life of me see why option B is considered a possibility out of all the explanations that could be more feasible people settle on that. It's ridiculous frankly.

niallo27 · 15-09-2013 12:58PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Just because something is rare doesn't mean it can't happen, at least every couple of weeks someone beats the odds of winning the lotto (euromillions is 1 in 116,531,800). Now of course, that also means that there is a minute possibility that this was an 'inside job' however presented side by side there are two options:

A: a building severely damaged by impact debris and suffering a raging fire suffers structural failure and collapses.

B: a building is brought down with a controlled explosion conducted by or in collusion with government/rich people.

I really cannot for the life of me see why option B is considered a possibility out of all the explanations that could be more feasible people settle on that. It's ridiculous frankly.

I never said it was an inside job, i just think its very odd, you said in your earlier post it was the straighforward answer that the building fell from fire damage and now you are saying its very rare, no other buildings that werent hit by planes suffered a complete collapse that day even building underneath the towers. WTC 7 was a bit away from the towers so a complete collapse was very very odd.

darkpagandeath · 15-09-2013 05:56PM

Deleted User wrote: »

And in all the confusion and chaos, someone picked up a passport and realised it belonged to a hijacker? How does that possibly happen?

There were other personal effect’s found at the other crash sites but people gloss over that as it's not supporting there omg a passport found on the street after the plane crashed. And how would planting the passport add anything more to the story ? They still identified the guys from cctv and background checks. What possible reason would they have to plant a passport ? it’s a coincidence just like hey those lotto numbers contain my birthday that's not some worldwide conspiracy either or is it ?

darkpagandeath · 15-09-2013 06:52PM

MonaPizza wrote: »

And the jacket/jeans/bag that it was inside? A human is immolated inside an aircraft yet a passport survives such an event? You certainly have a stretch of faith in the impossible.

Tell you what...take an old copy book....stick it inside an old handbag. Stick all that in an old car....douse that car with petrol and then ram it into a building. Detonate the whole thing and tell me the old hand bag is vapourised but the copy book is fine and you've just found it without a singe :pac:

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/12/20/national/20LETT.html

So that was a plant also ?

Christ the Redeemer · 15-09-2013 07:44PM

19 people planning and carrying out a terrorist attack is a conspiracy. Yes.

--Kaiser-- · 15-09-2013 08:26PM

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't need an engineering degree to know that Building 7 was a controlled demolition.. Sure 20 minutes before it dropped, the news were reporting that it had happened.

You know it was a controlled demolition yet the many qualified people that spent 3 years and 16 million dollars drafting the NIST report on the matter came to no such conclusion. Think about your statement and how very pathetically stupid it is

IvaBigWun · 15-09-2013 08:44PM

Did real planes hit the twin towers? Yes. Anyone who thinks otherwise isnt a conspiracy nut, they're just nuts.

There was however many faked "amateur" videos that have since been exposed.

Like this

darkpagandeath · 15-09-2013 08:45PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You know it was a controlled demolition yet the many qualified people that spent 3 years and 16 million dollars drafting the NIST report on the matter came to no such conclusion. Think about your statement and how very pathetically stupid it is

Yeah im guessing that buildings that tall and containing that much material thousands and thousands of tons you have to be mad if you think the wind would blow it sideways. Pretty sure it would just fall the way gravity pushes it and that is down. And since the plane’s hit them pretty high up the collapse happened pretty uniform from high up. fair enough if they hit somewhere near the bottom there could have been some sideways movement but that's not what happened.

niallo27 · 15-09-2013 09:34PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You know it was a controlled demolition yet the many qualified people that spent 3 years and 16 million dollars drafting the NIST report on the matter came to no such conclusion. Think about your statement and how very pathetically stupid it is

The biggest attack on amercian soil. 3000 or so killed and all they spend is 16 million on an investigation. They spent more on the Clinton investigation. It's a pretty big insult to the amercian people but of course if you question what happened your a nutjob.

--Kaiser-- · 15-09-2013 09:45PM

niallo27 wrote: »

The biggest attack on amercian soil. 3000 or so killed and all they spend is 16 million on an investigation. They spent more on the Clinton investigation. It's a pretty big insult to the amercian people but of course if you question what happened your a nutjob.

You can question all you want. I'm just more inclined to take heed of a group of qualified engineers than some drooling, tin-foil hatted CT loon who has no real knowledge of anything beyond watching some ridiculously overblown and hysterically incorrect Youtube 'documentaries'

niallo27 · 15-09-2013 09:55PM

--Kaiser-- wrote: »

You can question all you want. I'm just more inclined to take heed of a group of qualified engineers than some drooling, tin-foil hatted CT loon who has no real knowledge of anything beyond watching some ridiculously overblown and hysterically incorrect Youtube 'documentaries'

I can't question it though. No one is allowed to. I wanna see them videos of the pentagon being hit. What's the big secret. You shouldn't always just believe what your told. I don't think it was an inside job myself but I do think the amercian government could have stopped the attacks.

darkpagandeath · 15-09-2013 10:05PM

This is getting beyond a joke .. you lot have had it explain to you with fact based arguments on how it was not a conspiracy. And all you can reply with is but why but why was this or that ... Pretty sure there is a forum for this nonsense and its not AH. Why not discuss this with the like minded people you need to agree with your conspiracy theory's there. Now im going back to Prep for the eventual zombie apocalypse god day.

JonathanAnon · 15-09-2013 10:06PM

I really hate the way all 9/11 discussions end up in a binary discussion, one side representing the "conspiracy theory" and the other representing essentially the Government version of the story... Some of the conspiracy side stuff is nonsense, and some of the Government story is nonsense...

But I think that everybody who has an opinion on 9/11 should watch this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6klAK5ewkhw

If you take the conjecture, "conspiracy" theories, politics, etc etc out of the argument... and see Daniel Ganser's point of view (he's the guy in the presentation above).. He is trying to write the history books, for future generations to learn about what exactly happened on 9/11 and the subsequent wars, but has difficulty piecing the bits together based on the information from Government sources..

I can imagine it is a similar problem to the one faced by historians attempting to write the history of the JFK assassination.

Hulk Hands · 15-09-2013 10:10PM

Canis Lupus wrote: »

Just because something is rare doesn't mean it can't happen, at least every couple of weeks someone beats the odds of winning the lotto (euromillions is 1 in 116,531,800). Now of course, that also means that there is a minute possibility that this was an 'inside job' however presented side by side there are two options:

A: a building severely damaged by impact debris and suffering a raging fire suffers structural failure and collapses.

B: a building is brought down with a controlled explosion conducted by or in collusion with government/rich people.

I really cannot for the life of me see why option B is considered a possibility out of all the explanations that could be more feasible people settle on that. It's ridiculous frankly.

But that's not just it. That's one strange thing that happened with WTC7, that in NIST own words, 'office fires' downed a building for the first time in history. I could accept that happening. However, there's also:

How did the building all fell in one movement, symmetrical on both sides and collapsing in the middle similar to that of controlled demolition. The precious NIST report states that the damage was caused in only one corner of the building. If it was in one corner, wouldn't the building fall partially, or at least quicker on that side?

NIST says states that the building fell from the pancake effect. NIST also admitted that the building fell at free-fall speed for a significant portion of it's fall. A building can only fall at free-fall speed if the resisitance is removed. Surely the 'pancake effect' and resistance would go hand in hand? That is just ridiculous.

Lastly, residue only found in explosives and not found in fires (jet fuel or otherwise) was found at the site. NIST didn't test for explosives, because they felt there wasn't a reason to. Surely an in-depth report to one of the biggest events in history should check for everything? Is it not worth checking even to disprove the theory? The fact that they didn't even check alone shows how the report wasn't thorough at all and can't be trusted.

Hulk Hands · 15-09-2013 10:13PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

This is getting beyond a joke .. you lot have had it explain to you with fact based arguments on how it was not a conspiracy. And all you can reply with is but why but why was this or that ... Pretty sure there is a forum for this nonsense and its not AH. Why not discuss this with the like minded people you need to agree with your conspiracy theory's there. Now im going back to Prep for the eventual zombie apocalypse god day.

Where exactly? Quote them. I'll happily apologize if you do.

Jonny7 · 15-09-2013 10:13PM

JonathanAnon wrote: »

some of the Government story is nonsense...

"Government story?" You make it sound like there weren't thousands of witnesses (or millions if you count in television viewers) and that the only source of information was the government

darkpagandeath · 15-09-2013 10:17PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

But that's not just it. That's one strange thing that happened with WTC7, that in NIST own words, 'office fires' downed a building for the first time in history. I could accept that happening. However, there's also:

How did the building all fell in one movement, symmetrical on both sides and collapsing in the middle similar to that of controlled demolition. The precious NIST report states that the damage was caused in only one corner of the building. If it was in one corner, wouldn't the building fall partially, or at least quicker on that side?

NIST says states that the building fell from the pancake effect. NIST also admitted that the building fell at free-fall speed for a significant portion of it's fall. A building can only fall at free-fall speed if the resisitance is removed. Surely the 'pancake effect' and resistance would go hand in hand? That is just ridiculous.

Lastly, residue only found in explosives and not found in fires (jet fuel or otherwise) was found at the site. NIST didn't test for explosives, because they felt there wasn't a reason to. Surely an in-depth report to one of the biggest events in history should check for everything? Is it not worth checking even to disprove the theory? The fact that they didn't even check alone shows how the report wasn't thorough at all and can't be trusted.

Building was made from steal and concrete not polystyrene. There could have been and extremely powerful lower pressure suction effect created by thousands of tons of material falling. Ever see a feather fall in a vacuum ? Pretty sure if for example you could lift and oil tanker that high in the air im guessing it’s only going 1 way and thats down and not floating side to side.

and replace free fall speed with terminal velocity

Jonny7 · 15-09-2013 10:25PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

But that's not just it. That's one strange thing that happened with WTC7, that in NIST own words, 'office fires' downed a building for the first time in history. I could accept that happening. However, there's also:

It's probably the first time in history a building has burnt unchecked for 7 or 8 hours after being severely damaged by heavy debris from a nearby collapse.

Of course, if you want to present the theory that it was a controlled demolition - I would be very interested in examining all the supporting evidence.

Vivienne23 · 15-09-2013 10:25PM

I was in gran canaria on my 1st foreign holiday with some friends , two weeks we were there and I was strung out from drinking and money fading fast , we were afraid of our lives we would be left there with all the flight restrictions !

Conspiracy I don't think so ,

If your into 9/11 and all that stuff I suggest you watch this film about the 92/93 bombings its spine chilling its called path to paradise !

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=VdYMFb86Aqs&desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DVdYMFb86Aqs

Hulk Hands · 15-09-2013 10:29PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Building was made from steal and concrete not polystyrene. There could have been and extremely powerful lower pressure suction effect created by thousands of tons of material falling. Ever see a feather fall in a vacuum ? Pretty sure if for example you could lift and oil tanker that high in the air im guessing it’s only going 1 way and thats down and not floating side to side.

Yes a tanker would fall at freefall speed. Because it has no resistance. The building clearly had resistance....the building!! The fire was didnt occur on every floor and the entire buidling didn't weaken at once. Where the structural damage occured, the fall begun, where it wouldve met resistance. It didnt meet resistance as it fell at free fall speed, confirmed by the NIST report. This is of course presuming that fires weakened a skyscraper so much that it fell, for the first time ever. People mentioning trusting the opinion of engineers on the NIST report. The only reason the 'architects and engineers for 9/11 truth' exists is because of this report and its inaccuracies. WTC7 wasn't even that big of a story to the theorists before this report. Now, to people like me who have a hard time believing the government did teh whole operation this but can't understand the WTC7 collapse, it has become the whole story.

Hulk Hands · 15-09-2013 10:31PM

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's probably the first time in history a building has burnt unchecked for 7 or 8 hours after being severely damaged by heavy debris from a nearby collapse.

Of course, if you want to present the theory that it was a controlled demolition - I would be very interested in examining all the supporting evidence.

Watch the video I posted on the previous page. The one with the qualified engineers and architects whose validity can apparently be proven (i'll admit I haven't taken the hours to check).

MarkY91 · 15-09-2013 10:33PM

i was on holiday in sunshine house in ballbrigan..never heard of the twin towers until then..i was 9

darkpagandeath · 15-09-2013 10:40PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Yes a tanker would fall at freefall speed. Because it has no resistance. The building clearly had resistance....the building!! The fire was didnt occur on every floor and the entire buidling didn't weaken at once. Where the structural damage occured, the fall begun, where it wouldve met resistance. It didnt meet resistance as it fell at free fall speed, confirmed by the NIST report. This is of course presuming that fires weakened a skyscraper so much that it fell, for the first time ever. People mentioning trusting the opinion of engineers on the NIST report. The only reason the 'architects and engineers for 9/11 truth' exists is because of this report and its inaccuracies. WTC7 wasn't even that big of a story to the theorists before this report. Now, to people like me who have a hard time believing the government did teh whole operation this but can't understand the WTC7 collapse, it has become the whole story.

The buildings were hit by planes that had never been thought that could be in use at the time of construction (the planes it was protected against were a lot smaller). These planes that hit carried way more fuel as well. A semi low/med temperature burn would over 8 hours have enough time to weaken the whole steal loadbearing structure, heat will not just stay in one spot on a conductor there will be a hot spot were the initial burn started but this will travel up and down heating and weakening enough to create a collapse.

Hulk Hands · 15-09-2013 10:47PM

darkpagandeath wrote: »

The buildings were hit by planes that had never been thought that could be in use at the time of construction (the planes it was protected against were a lot smaller). These planes that hit carried way more fuel as well. A semi low/med temperature burn would over 8 hours have enough time to weaken the whole steal loadbearing structure, heat will not just stay in one spot on a conductor there will be a hot spot were the initial burn started but this will travel up and down heating and weakening enough to create a collapse.

I'm talking about building 7, the one not hit by a plane. I'm only interested in what happened to building 7 really, as it's unthinkable (to me) that they could pull off the whole operation.

Anyway, there's nothing theorists can do to convince anyone, our arguments are never going to be stronger than the best of the internet vidoes. Similarly, the rest have nothing stronger than the official reports. Up to people to make up their own mind, as basically everyone who has looked at it has at this stage. Hopefully that long awaited independent report will come sooner rather than later, and finally expose the lies or shut the theorists up. Until it comes, this will go on and on.

niallo27 · 15-09-2013 10:54PM

WTC 7 suffered a complete collapse though. Building directly under the towers survived but this building completely collapsed on itself. Why weren't the full tapes of flight 93 phone calls released, not even to the families.

9/11 anniversary, where were you when it happened and was it a conspiracy?

Comments