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

Grandeeod · 15-09-2014 11:38PM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

What does your structural engineering degree tell you about World Trade Centre 7?

Always wondered about this. Bring it on folks!

cerastes · 15-09-2014 11:47PM

miss no stars wrote: »

Also need to remember that the airplane is a thin walled pressure vessel. Not just little sheets of aluminium as some people like to purport :rolleyes:

What do you mean by that?
Do you have a degree in aeronautical engineering?, its not a pressure vessel of the likes of some pressurised steel container like an oxy acetelene tank or something with multiple Bars of pressure. You seem like you're suggesting its a pressurised container like some kind of bomb. There are pressure relief valves to prevent structural overloads positive or negative. Even when it is pressurised there might only be a difference of 60kPa, just over half an atmosphere. Enough to sustain damage to an aircraft flying along, but not a flying bomb.

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Several layers of steel. All as thick as a tank.

Calibos wrote: »

Look up how an anti tank round works and the size of one. Christ on a bike!

Wut? andddd? how is that connected?, are you suggesting an anti tank round is small so can penetrate tank armour, so a plane flying at high velocity must be able to penetrate steel/concrete? becuase its made of metal?? maybe you can clear that one up?
An anti tank round is designed to focus its energy in one place to defeat armour, a plane flying at high velocity is not designed to do that.

bilston · 15-09-2014 11:56PM

Sorry if this has already been mentioned over the last 40 odd pages but can a 9/11 "truther" explain to me how whoever supposedly planted demolition charges in the three buildings managed to pull it off without the 50 odd thousand people who worked in them noticing?

The_Kew_Tour · 16-09-2014 12:13AM

Building 7 imploding was strange I have to admit.

wretcheddomain · 16-09-2014 12:19AM

The_Kew_Tour wrote: »

Building 7 imploding was strange I have to admit.

It didn't implode. It was clearly structurally damaged from debris from one of the towers as it collapsed.

cerastes · 16-09-2014 12:23AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It didn't implode. It was clearly structurally damaged from debris from one of the towers as it collapsed.

Clearly?
It didnt look very damaged or damaged at all, what need to bring it down and how did they manage that so quickly unprepared and in the midst of all this? and what point, the twin towers had just fallen, they could have done it at another date when someone had a chance to inspect it better.

Hulk Hands · 16-09-2014 12:31AM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

It didn't implode. It was clearly structurally damaged from debris from one of the towers as it collapsed.

How was it clearly structurally damaged? What factor about the way it fell (in classic controlled demolition style), or looked before or after the incident, leads you to believe that it was 'clearly' structurally damaged?

What you're believing is the official story, and subsequently the NIST report which was a schoolboy effort full of holes that only served to unearth thousands more Truthers. It's very tough to believe that the whole event was staged, but WTC7 is an weird anomaly, and will remain so until a truly independent report is carried out on the event.

my friend · 16-09-2014 12:43AM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

WTC7 is an weird anomaly, and will remain so until a truly independent report is carried out on the event.

WTC7 contained a C&C centre for NYC agencies in the event of such an incident as the attacks on WTC. WTC7 had fuel tanks on site for generators, it was merely victim to contagion and a catastrophic sequence of events. The only thing anyone is guilty of was the stupidity of placing that C&C centre in such a high risk location

Hulk Hands · 16-09-2014 01:02AM

my friend wrote: »

WTC7 contained a C&C centre for NYC agencies in the event of such an incident as the attacks on WTC. WTC7 had fuel tanks on site for generators, it was merely victim to contagion and a catastrophic sequence of events. The only thing anyone is guilty of was the stupidity of placing that C&C centre in such a high risk location

Funnily enough the government commisioned NIST report denys that the fuel tanks were a factor in the collapse at all. Does that make you a conspirator also?

35cent · 16-09-2014 01:02AM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

Did she go ahead with cancelling that?

Yeah she did.

my friend · 16-09-2014 01:09AM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

Funnily enough the government commisioned NIST report denys that the fuel tanks were a factor in the collapse at all. Does that make you a conspirator also?

This thread is piteous, so many people with so much time to waste.

You want to believe in a conspiracy? Go for it

You expect those incapable of grasping what was happening for hours to be capable of engineering complex sequences of events?

There simply ain't enough tinfoil for this planet.

Laughable

Hulk Hands · 16-09-2014 01:17AM

my friend wrote: »

This thread is piteous, so many people with so much time to waste.

You want to believe in a conspiracy? Go for it

You expect those incapable of grasping what was happening for hours to be capable of engineering complex sequences of events?

There simply ain't enough tinfoil for this planet.

Laughable

You just came in acting like an expert on the event, even though the official report actually disagrees with the point you made. That's laughable. Throw a hissy fit then when your nonsense point gets found out.

I've already stated that I find it hard to believe the U.S pulled the whole operation off. I'm simply talking about the strangeness of WTC7

my friend · 16-09-2014 01:23AM

Hulk Hands wrote: »

You just came in acting like an expert on the event, even though the official report actually disagrees with the point you made. That's laughable. Throw a hissy fit then when your nonsense point gets found out.

I've already stated that I find it hard to believe the U.S pulled the whole operation off. I'm simply talking about the strangeness of WTC7

The point 'I made' was with regard to the stupidity of locating the C&C within 7
There was plenty of collateral damage in the vicinity

You seem very sensitive to comments made about an entire thread.

cerastes · 16-09-2014 02:48AM

my friend wrote: »

The point 'I made' was with regard to the stupidity of locating the C&C within 7
There was plenty of collateral damage in the vicinity

You seem very sensitive to comments made about an entire thread.

well, its only stupid if they know the twin towers were to be attacked in advance or maybe it isnt stupid.

ardle1 · 16-09-2014 03:00AM

I was in Rice and Roddy's car accessories shop in Dundalk,at the counter,and they had SKY news on,,, everybody just went silent.. I'll never forget it! and at the same time my phone rang, a friend of mine saying 'are you fcukin lookin at SKY news?
P.S: My friend wasn't Jim Corr and I don't think it was a conspiracy.....

nicki11 · 16-09-2014 08:38PM

I was in the "big kids" room at the creche playing pool with one of my friends when it came on the radio, I asked the supervisor if it was real she said it was and then went to comfort one of the other supervisors who's brother worked there (he died when the building collapsed).

wretcheddomain · 17-09-2014 12:37AM

The problem with the conspiratorial position is the following:

Nobody should accept the "official version", because nobody is allowed to define what gets called "official" in these cases. The word is entirely redundant. However, from the evidence available to the public, we can at least conclude that Islamic fanatics boarded those aircraft and acted accordingly when on said aircraft.

The conspiratorial position is then reduced to:

1) The US were aware of the attacks and let them happen.

or

2) The US exacerbated the attacks by controlled demolitions and use of explosives in the buildings etc.

So, what is the purpose of the US getting involved? Usually the response is something like, "they needed to get into Iraq" etc. If the aim was indeed political, actually going to the effort of bringing the buildings down is entirely surplus to requirements. In other words, the US could have acted exactly the same politically, even if the buildings didn't come down. Furthermore, going to this bother of taking the buildings down would have been a totally unnecessary effort.

So, from this perspective, it seems ludicrous at best to accept (2) above. At best, you can only say they were aware of the attacks and let them happen.

cerastes · 17-09-2014 11:55PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

The problem with the conspiratorial position is the following:

Nobody should accept the "official version", because nobody is allowed to define what gets called "official" in these cases. The word is entirely redundant. However, from the evidence available to the public, we can at least conclude that Islamic fanatics boarded those aircraft and acted accordingly when on said aircraft.

The conspiratorial position is then reduced to:

1) The US were aware of the attacks and let them happen.

or

2) The US exacerbated the attacks by controlled demolitions and use of explosives in the buildings etc.

So, what is the purpose of the US getting involved? Usually the response is something like, "they needed to get into Iraq" etc. If the aim was indeed political, actually going to the effort of bringing the buildings down is entirely surplus to requirements. In other words, the US could have acted exactly the same politically, even if the buildings didn't come down. Furthermore, going to this bother of taking the buildings down would have been a totally unnecessary effort.

So, from this perspective, it seems ludicrous at best to accept (2) above. At best, you can only say they were aware of the attacks and let them happen.

For a start, you are saying " we can conclude" like its definitive, thats the official line.
I dont think we will ever know the truth.
How anything can be concluded, when they could not even identify who "got" on board? they were obliterated, but strangely passports and a koran were found in the wreckage?? when it was also part of the official story as that was what caused the building to come down (intense fire).
Weren't some of the so called hijackers, later found alive? and after all, had not been on the plane/s? what'd they do? teleport? You are saying we can con

Also, do you really think if planes were hijacked and they had to be shot down, do you really believe that a war could have been gotten from that, I dont think so. To go to war either requires real justification or some overwhelming act that prevents assessment of the situation and actually find out who was responsible and it prevents any kind of dissent or concern of going to war from within. Even the Taliban said they'd hand over Bin Laden if the US could provide evidence. As for attacking countries after that??

Hoop66 · 18-09-2014 09:23AM

cerastes wrote: »

Weren't some of the so called hijackers, later found alive? and after all, had not been on the plane/s?

No.

wretcheddomain · 19-09-2014 07:17PM

cerastes wrote: »

For a start, you are saying " we can conclude" like its definitive, thats the official line.
I dont think we will ever know the truth.
How anything can be concluded, when they could not even identify who "got" on board? they were obliterated, but strangely passports and a koran were found in the wreckage?? when it was also part of the official story as that was what caused the building to come down (intense fire).
Weren't some of the so called hijackers, later found alive? and after all, had not been on the plane/s? what'd they do? teleport? You are saying we can con

Also, do you really think if planes were hijacked and they had to be shot down, do you really believe that a war could have been gotten from that, I dont think so. To go to war either requires real justification or some overwhelming act that prevents assessment of the situation and actually find out who was responsible and it prevents any kind of dissent or concern of going to war from within. Even the Taliban said they'd hand over Bin Laden if the US could provide evidence. As for attacking countries after that??

I didn't say we could definitively conclude, I said we could "at least conclude" - as we have access to enough of the available evidence to draw some basic conclusions, however inconvenient it may be to you.

You asked 7 questions in that post, and 7 questions I won't answer. Why not?

Quite simply because you claimed nothing could be concluded yet you yourself appear to have come to your own conclusions and auto-refuse to listen to any counterposition.

This is the problem with the conspiratorial position, where they might have a ghost of a point yet feel, needlessly, to extrapolate unsubstantiated questions and concerns as if they reflected the available evidence.

cerastes · 19-09-2014 09:32PM

wretcheddomain wrote: »

I didn't say we could definitively conclude, I said we could "at least conclude" - as we have access to enough of the available evidence to draw some basic conclusions, however inconvenient it may be to you.

You asked 7 questions in that post, and 7 questions I won't answer. Why not?

Quite simply because you claimed nothing could be concluded yet you yourself appear to have come to your own conclusions and auto-refuse to listen to any counterposition.

This is the problem with the conspiratorial position, where they might have a ghost of a point yet feel, needlessly, to extrapolate unsubstantiated questions and concerns as if they reflected the available evidence.

I didnt claim nothing can be concluded, I said how anything can be concluded because it was you that came to this end point (conclusion), "we can at least conclude that Islamic fanatics boarded those aircraft and acted accordingly when on said aircraft". Now you say it's not definitive.
You cant or wont answer same things I noticed, which are things I came across that others noticed, basically holes in the official story.
You have painted yourself into a corner with the story you adamantly follow, I'm open to the truth, something that governments in this case the US govt, which has a record of distorting the truth and hiding the real truth from the general populace. All people dont accept things at face value anymore, because information is available outside official lines. Some of that is far fetched stuff, I dont know what the truth is, but there are too many holes in the official story, some of which I presented, but you point blank and stubbornly decline to answer, because you planted your flag on the story you believe and you cant row backwards now.

How much of a record does even our own govt have of hiding the truth from us.
try come up with a plausible reply to some of the things I posited, which you have declined to answer, these are only a small portion of the holes found by people.
In some regard, I believe whats has been mentioned here, I think it is along the lines of never mistake negligence/incompetence for design.
but also,
There have been plans put forward in the late nineties to attack Iraq, which like Libya and Syria, had no benefit or interest in supporting an Al Qaeda type organisation.
All wars have at their basis, money. The hawks in the US were calling for a an invasion of Iraq years before 9/11 ever happened.
How do you get people to support a war against a country which is your target? its like slight of hand, you need to whip people up into a frightened and defensive frenzy, a few planes hijacked might have done it but I doubt it, you need a shock and awe to make sure your support will be unwavering.
The Us is not beneath supporting and funding potential enemies so its not implausible the US ignored a real threat, or funded and supported radical elements in their own goals to further US goals, an intent to have an excuse to go to war, what the hell did Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway???
As a friend of mine said, when that invasion occurred, what were the US army doing? were they securing oil wells or defending hospitals?
hospitals and museums were being looted, unrest was being fomented, either through reckless naive idiocy or design.

Wompa1 · 19-09-2014 09:46PM

cerastes wrote: »

I didnt claim nothing can be concluded, I said how anything can be concluded because it was you that came to this end point (conclusion), "we can at least conclude that Islamic fanatics boarded those aircraft and acted accordingly when on said aircraft". Now you say it's not definitive.
You cant or wont answer same things I noticed, which are things I came across that others noticed, basically holes in the official story.
You have painted yourself into a corner with the story you adamantly follow, I'm open to the truth, something that governments in this case the US govt, which has a record of distorting the truth and hiding the real truth from the general populace. All people dont accept things at face value anymore, because information is available outside official lines. Some of that is far fetched stuff, I dont know what the truth is, but there are too many holes in the official story, some of which I presented, but you point blank and stubbornly decline to answer, because you planted your flag on the story you believe and you cant row backwards now.

How much of a record does even our own govt have of hiding the truth from us.
try come up with a plausible reply to some of the things I posited, which you have declined to answer, these are only a small portion of the holes found by people.
In some regard, I believe whats has been mentioned here, I think it is along the lines of never mistake negligence/incompetence for design.
but also,
There have been plans put forward in the late nineties to attack Iraq, which like Libya and Syria, had no benefit or interest in supporting an Al Qaeda type organisation.
All wars have at their basis, money. The hawks in the US were calling for a an invasion of Iraq years before 9/11 ever happened.
How do you get people to support a war against a country which is your target? its like slight of hand, you need to whip people up into a frightened and defensive frenzy, a few planes hijacked might have done it but I doubt it, you need a shock and awe to make sure your support will be unwavering.
The Us is not beneath supporting and funding potential enemies so its not implausible the US ignored a real threat, or funded and supported radical elements in their own goals to further US goals, an intent to have an excuse to go to war, what the hell did Iraq have to do with 9/11 anyway???
As a friend of mine said, when that invasion occurred, what were the US army doing? were they securing oil wells or defending hospitals?
hospitals and museums were being looted, unrest was being fomented, either through reckless naive idiocy or design.

Woman are made out of sand!!

19-09-2014 09:54PM

I was in college doing the last week of a summer job in a telemarketing company.

Remember on my way back after lunch at 1.50pm after one plane hit the tower and the commentator on Sky News was dismissing the idea that it was an accident, then cycling back to work thinking "How could it be anything other than an accident????"

Simpler times. In my life, I can say the world was a totally different place before and after the event, in a meaningful way.

It seems to me that growing up in the 90's the world was a happy, peaceful and prosperous place, at least in the Western World. I wish we could go back, knowing what we know now about the world.

Egginacup · 20-09-2014 02:31AM

Spent 13 years trying to blow up an aluminium tube ( I try this at least twice a month) so that everything is gone but a paper passport is left.

No joy yet.
I'll keep going.

See you next September.

IvaBigWun · 10-09-2015 01:07AM

The 14th anniversary of 9/11 is this Friday. Have any new good documentaries surfaced in the past year or two?

I believe TV3 had one on this week, I havent seen it yet but I heard it was very much on the side of "there is no conspiracy" which seems to be to norm for TV specials like this.

From my OP;

I woke up late that day, just after noon, so I didnt see it live like a lot of people I spoke to that evening. It was Sky News and the BBC for rolling news all day as the images kept coming out and the whispers of where Ireland would start in World War 3 began. It thankfully didnt come to that of course but nothing was being ruled out in the initial few days after.

Do I think it was a conspiracy? Yes.

Ive watched countless documentaries and read up on this as much as possible and it still comes down to that thought I had when I was still half asleep switching on the TV that day:

"Why is someone demolishing the twin towers?"

I believe the twin towers and WTC 7 (a building that was never hit by a plane, yet fell at freefall speed) all came down via controlled demolition.

There is also something very off about the Pentagon attack and the crashing of Flight 93.

Tomorrow is the 9/11 anniversary. Where were you when it happened on 11/9/2001 and was it a conspiracy?

Even if you dont believe there was a conspiracy, what are your memories of that day?

IvaBigWun · 10-09-2015 01:12AM

A new poll that wasnt in the OP has also been added.

Ken. · 10-09-2015 01:15AM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

what are your memories of that day?

That i'd been asleep for 2 months.

ceadaoin. · 10-09-2015 01:22AM

Egginacup wrote: »

Spent 13 years trying to blow up an aluminium tube ( I try this at least twice a month) so that everything is gone but a paper passport is left.

No joy yet.
I'll keep going.

See you next September.

Well, what's the latest update?

Samaris · 10-09-2015 01:48AM

I came home from school at lunchtime on a Tuesday and missed lunch sitting on the couch across from my Dad watching it on RTE.

And please give it a friggin' rest with the conspiracy nonsense. The rubbish people come out with. :rolleyes:

10-09-2015 01:51AM

IvaBigWun wrote: »

The 14th anniversary of 9/11 is this Friday. Have any new good documentaries surfaced in the past year or two?

I believe TV3 had one on this week, I havent seen it yet but I heard it was very much on the side of "there is no conspiracy" which seems to be to norm for TV specials like this.

While not a new documentary or anything, I've only recently stumbled across this harrowing recording of a man's desperate 911 call from inside the towers. It goes on until the tower collapses, (as such, we hear his last words literally) and it really gives you a human feel to what went on rather than the movie-looking scenes we've all seen. You get a sense of who this guy was and what he was about.

*Warning: This is extremely upsetting and if you are of an emotional make-up, I would recommend you avoid it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S40V4KpStZ0

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

Comments