The Student Room Group

Bin Laden told followers not to 'waste [their] effort' attacking the UK

Scroll to see replies

Original post by gateshipone
Well according to conspiracy theorists they left plenty behind and managed to demolish buildings in a way inconsistent with plane strikes.

Incidentally the reason the towers collapsed has been investigated by plenty of people and it is actually very possible for them to collapse how they did. They were designed for plane hits, but not in the form they came in. No one considered planes full of fuel to be flown at top speed into them. It was always assumed it'd be an accident during an emergency landing if anything.


No, if you read the earlier posts, this has been discussed, and many engineers and architect don't think it was possible (i'm an aspiring architect myself). I think you need to read the posts, they were designed to withstand those sized/weighing planes traveling at 600 mph.

No, all skyscraper are designed to withstand the impact of planes, they're not called skyscrapers for no reason, they are literally in the sky.


The building came down due to a number of factors. There's plenty of explanations out there that make more sense than a controlled demolition. sure, it kinda looked like one, but it wasn't. No one in their right mind would demolish a building from the top, that's not how demolition works.


like what, what makes more sense, i think you should read the earlier posts before replying. well, if a plane hits it from the top, why would they demolish it from the bottom? also, what happened to building 5 (solomon brothers tower), no plane hit it but it came down. The BBC reported it fell 23 minutes before it actually did.
(edited 11 years ago)
Well yeah why would he, we hardly matter...
Original post by King-Panther
No, if you read the earlier posts, this has been discussed, and many engineers and architect don't think it was possible (i'm an aspiring architect myself). I think you need to read the posts, they were designed to withstand those sized/weighing planes traveling at 600 mph.


Yeah trust me I've read and seen plenty of evidence to back up what I witness that day. I've also read the conspiracy version of events in detail and frankly it often seems like nit picking tiny details. I'm not convinced.

Was it unlikely to happen, sure, but it isn't impossible that under the right circumstances those buildings could come down.

No, all skyscraper are designed to withstand the impact of planes, they're not called skyscrapers for no reason, they are literally in the sky.


Really? So when I was on top of the Empire State Building last month I was high in the air? Gotta admit I didn't notice!!!

like what, what makes more sense, i think you should read the earlier posts before replying. well, if a plane hits it from the top, why would they demolish it from the bottom?


Because if you're carrying out a controlled demolition you start from the bottom and work your way up...

also, what happened to building 5 (solomon brothers tower), no plane hit it but it came down. The BBC reported it fell 23 minutes before it actually did.


Dunno if you noticed, but it had 2 110 floor buildings with a 1 acre footprint each collapse next to it. There are plenty of images showing the extreme damage it received from those collapses. That plus the attention being on looking for survivors from WTC1 & 2 and not on putting out the fires in WTC7 (not 5 btw) led to the eventual collapse.

Believe me I've read a lot about this subject over the years and I've been to ground zero. I've also literally held pieces of the buildings. This topic isn't something I am discussing with no knowledge behind me.

As for the BBC report, have you ever considered it was a mistake. On a day where 2 massive buildings had been attacked and lower Manhattan had become a place of destruction it's easy to believe that erroneous information was going around. No one had a clear picture of what was happening so it's easy to think the BBC were told another building had collapsed. That's the problem with live reporting from a place like that, without official channels to provide solid info, rumours can and are reported.
Original post by King-Panther
no, the whole idea of al qaeda is a lie, as conformed on the BBC documentary "power of nightmares".


Hmm, it wouldn't surprise me if the US were creating false terrorism. The rise of the BRICs and the Gulf States is worrying to the US, the US need to tame them if they want to maintain their superpower status as well as to guarantee future oil supplies...

Click this link btw, it's interesting. I don't think the blurry picture of Bin Laden is real either.

http://www.infowars.com/top-us-government-insider-bin-laden-died-in-2001-911-a-false-flag/
Joining in the 9/11 debate, no steel structure in history has even collapsed due to office fires. The Twin Towers shouldn't have collapsed due to the planes hitting them. The heat of the engine oil cannot become hot enough to melt the steel. This is interesting, as WTC5 collapsed on it's own without a plane hitting it. Also, looking at how the buildings fell - they all fell from a complete standstill to complete flat within 10 seconds ish. Without dynamite as aid, this cannot be achieved. The idea that momentum increased as each floor collapsed on the next is preposterous, these buildings were designed not to be melted by fire.

Also, other FBI buildings were randomly destroyed and these were given little air time. Coincidence?

Other factors as well are important, such as when the plane landed near the Pentagon, the CCTV of the shop across the road from it had their CCTV confiscated before they could look at it... Do they have something to hide? I think so... Probably because the official 'footage' was edited...
Original post by gateshipone
Yeah trust me I've read and seen plenty of evidence to back up what I witness that day. I've also read the conspiracy version of events in detail and frankly it often seems like nit picking tiny details. I'm not convinced.


well, the fact a plane brought down a building designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes, is not nit picking.

Was it unlikely to happen, sure, but it isn't impossible that under the right circumstances those buildings could come down.

Really? So when I was on top of the Empire State Building last month I was high in the air? Gotta admit I didn't notice!!!


no, it does seem physically possible that those planes were brought down by those planes.

Because if you're carrying out a controlled demolition you start from the bottom and work your way up...


indeed you can, but whats stopping you from doing it the other way around?

Dunno if you noticed, but it had 2 110 floor buildings with a 1 acre footprint each collapse next to it. There are plenty of images showing the extreme damage it received from those collapses. That plus the attention being on looking for survivors from WTC1 & 2 and not on putting out the fires in WTC7 (not 5 btw) led to the eventual collapse.


explain how debris can bring down a building, surely it would just damage it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lGAvX0vsIR8&feature=related

here is footage of it coming down, when ever in history has fire brought down a 50 story building? that was the official report, even though the fire was very minor.

Believe me I've read a lot about this subject over the years and I've been to ground zero. I've also literally held pieces of the buildings. This topic isn't something I am discussing with no knowledge behind me.

As for the BBC report, have you ever considered it was a mistake. On a day where 2 massive buildings had been attacked and lower Manhattan had become a place of destruction it's easy to believe that erroneous information was going around. No one had a clear picture of what was happening so it's easy to think the BBC were told another building had collapsed. That's the problem with live reporting from a place like that, without official channels to provide solid info, rumours can and are reported.


it was a mistake, the massive building was in the background at a distance (whilst the reporter was reporting), standing there tall and proud, can't they tell the difference between an erect building and one that has collapsed.

no, only the twin towers had fell, so how could they get them confused when they already said they had fell and then said the other building had fallen in the same sentence.
Original post by Captain Hindsight
Joining in the 9/11 debate, no steel structure in history has even collapsed due to office fires. The Twin Towers shouldn't have collapsed due to the planes hitting them. The heat of the engine oil cannot become hot enough to melt the steel. This is interesting, as WTC5 collapsed on it's own without a plane hitting it. Also, looking at how the buildings fell - they all fell from a complete standstill to complete flat within 10 seconds ish. Without dynamite as aid, this cannot be achieved. The idea that momentum increased as each floor collapsed on the next is preposterous, these buildings were designed not to be melted by fire.


The steel was severely weakened by the combination of the force of the planes, the burning fuel and the weight of dozens of floors above them. Notice the first tower to fall was the 2nd hit. It was hit lower than the first so there was more pressure from more floors above being put on the weakened structure.

Original post by King-Panther
well, the fact a plane brought down a building designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes, is not nit picking.


The Titanic was designed to stay afloat even if it took on a lot of water. Guess what it failed due to random chance exceeding what it was designed for.

explain how debris can bring down a building, surely it would just damage it.


Yes, it did damage it severely. It cut a MASSIVE hole over a dozen floors in size into WTC7. The damage was extreme.

here is footage of it coming down, when ever in history has fire brought down a 50 story building? that was the official report, even though the fire was very minor.


How many 50 story buildings have been hit by debris from 2 of the largest buildings in the world collapsing next door? You seem to be suggesting that fire alone brought down WTC7, which simply ignores the giant hole in the building!

it was a mistake, the massive building was in the background at a distance (whilst the reporter was reporting), standing there tall and proud, can't they tell the difference between an erect building and one that has collapsed.


Could you have pointed out WTC7 from a distance pre-9/11? I very much doubt the reporters who happened to be in NYC that day had detailed knowledge of the exact layout of the world trade centre.

no, only the twin towers had fell, so how could they get them confused when they already said they had fell and then said the other building had fallen in the same sentence.


The same way there were reports of other hijacked planes throughout the day. There were rumours and incorrect information flying around everywhere with everyone trying to get their minds around what was happening. Mistakes in situations like that are to be expected.

Are you suggesting the BBC lied on purpose? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were told to report WTC7's collapse, the powers that be who were behind the attack who told them to report it would have waited to tell them until AFTER the demolished the building.
Original post by gateshipone
The steel was severely weakened by the combination of the force of the planes, the burning fuel and the weight of dozens of floors above them. Notice the first tower to fall was the 2nd hit. It was hit lower than the first so there was more pressure from more floors above being put on the weakened structure.


yeah, it would cause it to become weakened not melt, so explain to me how it melted? Also, it would weaken where the fire is, and cause the top to topple, not collapse upon itself. nor does this account for the collapse of the central columns, nor tubular perimeter.



The Titanic was designed to stay afloat even if it took on a lot of water. Guess what it failed due to random chance exceeding what it was designed for.


yes, it exceeded what it was designed for, but the towers didn't, they could withstand the impact of multiple planes.

Yes, it did damage it severely. It cut a MASSIVE hole over a dozen floors in size into WTC7. The damage was extreme.


what damage, from debris, there are images of the building and the damage is minor?? the official report said it was fire that brought the building down.

How many 50 story buildings have been hit by debris from 2 of the largest buildings in the world collapsing next door? You seem to be suggesting that fire alone brought down WTC7, which simply ignores the giant hole in the building!


which giant hole, their are images of the building just before it collapsed. and the debris was small, the buildings disintegrated when falling, so what caused the this non existent damage.

Could you have pointed out WTC7 from a distance pre-9/11? I very much doubt the reporters who happened to be in NYC that day had detailed knowledge of the exact layout of the world trade centre.


no, that massive building standing next to where the twin towers stood, no, i would have thought it was a tall fat grey person. no, but it was one of the most famous sites in the world, so im sure they did, its there job to know what they're reporting about.

The same way there were reports of other hijacked planes throughout the day. There were rumours and incorrect information flying around everywhere with everyone trying to get their minds around what was happening. Mistakes in situations like that are to be expected.


which reports of other planes? how can that mistake be made when that building was stood behind them?

Are you suggesting the BBC lied on purpose? If so, wouldn't it stand to reason that if they were told to report WTC7's collapse, the powers that be who were behind the attack who told them to report it would have waited to tell them until AFTER the demolished the building.


no, im suggesting they new in advance, but slipped up and reported it too early. what happened to norad, why did they take the planes down, they have a 20 minute response time but the planes were of course for over an hour.
Reply 108
Original post by eggnchips
I was punched square in the face by a drunk idiot on a bus a few years ago, it now looks nothing like it did before then...far from conclusive evidence. Hell as soon as I get a whiff of a big smell my nose changes shape.


Yes, because that explains why photos took before and after the cia supplied "confession video" still look nothing like him.
Reply 109
I like how this thread has been completely derailed.
Original post by King-Panther
yeah, it would cause it to become weakened not melt, so explain to me how it melted? Also, it would weaken where the fire is, and cause the top to topple, not collapse upon itself. nor does this account for the collapse of the central columns, nor tubular perimeter.


There was a documentary on the BBC a while ago that had an architect show how the buildings could collapse the way they did based on the damage the planes did.

yes, it exceeded what it was designed for, but the towers didn't, they could withstand the impact of multiple planes.


Planes loaded with most of their fuel? did those designs account for the fire resistant material around the columns being heavily damaged and so exposing them to the heat and damage that was caused?

what damage, from debris, there are images of the building and the damage is minor?? the official report said it was fire that brought the building down.


Again, severe damage + fire is enough to bring down a building. I agree, fire on its own once, but when you severely weaken a structure and then let a fire burn for 7 hours, it's certainly feasible that the building would fail eventually.

http://www.kolumbus.fi/av.caesar/wtc/wtc7_2.jpg

and a description of the damage from people who were there:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse


which giant hole, their are images of the building just before it collapsed. and the debris was small, the buildings disintegrated when falling, so what caused the this non existent damage.


Sorry, are you saying there wasn't much debris left from the twin towers? Are you insane?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_zENuDflPejY/TD-zQFpvr6I/AAAAAAAAEnE/2wRyAUx1nRg/s640/ground-zero-september_11_ground_zero.jpg

That's a tiny part of ground zero. Look at the size of the people next to that rubble. You think all that stuff falling from the sky at high speed won't do any damage? That steel was heavy. I've held a small part of it and it was extremely thick and heavy. It'd shred a building if it fell. The fact that it took months to clear that site suggests there was a decent amount of debris there.

no, that massive building standing next to where the twin towers stood, no, i would have thought it was a tall fat grey person. no, but it was one of the most famous sites in the world, so im sure they did, its there job to know what they're reporting about.


The towers themselves were the famous part, only new yorkers would have been able to name all the buildings most probably. Again, these reporters were thrust into reporting a situation that had never happened before with very little communication to confirm facts. The antenna on top of one of the towers handled most of the comms for NYC, when it was destroyed it was very hard to communicate across the city.

which reports of other planes? how can that mistake be made when that building was stood behind them?


http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-10/many-false-hijackings-911

no, im suggesting they new in advance, but slipped up and reported it too early. what happened to norad, why did they take the planes down, they have a 20 minute response time but the planes were of course for over an hour.


The US was set up to defend from an outside incursion into their airspace so all their flight plans were geared to that. They made a mistake on the day and it took time to correct. You should read up on the military response. They admitted they failed badly. In hindsight it's easy to say they messed up, but considering the country was under attack in an unprecedented way in multiple cities, it's understandable that comms were bad between the ground and the fighters in the air.

I know you won't agree with any of this, but based on all the research I've done both here at home and in the cities that were attacked, things went down pretty much as has been said. It may be hard to believe, but it happened. Just like the moon landing is hard to believe happened with 60s tech - but it did.

I really do find it fascinating that people like you think you've outsmarted the CIA or some other shady organisation who somehow were both able to put together the greatest plot in history but were at the same dumb enough to leave all this evidence that it didn't happen the way we've been told. You can't have it both ways.
(edited 11 years ago)
Reply 111
Original post by King-Panther
thermite is a possibility, but not the only one. Indeed, i am indicating some sort of demolition because those buildings would not have collapsed upon themselves, nor could the heat melt the steal.




there is no account of the molten steal. nor does this account for the collapse of the central columns, nor tubular perimeter.





also, what brought building 5 down, no plane hit it.


Thermite is not a possibility. http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm
lets here these other possibilities then?
No one has claimed the heat melted steel. Its an idiotic claim and everyone knows its not true.

The structural integrity of the World Trade Center depends on the closely spaced columns around the perimeter. Lightweight steel trusses span between the central elevator core and the perimeter columns on each floor. These trusses support the concrete slab of each floor and tie the perimeter columns to the core, preventing the columns from buckling outwards.

After the initial plane impacts, it appeared to most observers that the structures had been severely damaged, but not necessarily fatally.

It appears likely that the impact of the plane crash destroyed a significant number of perimeter columns on several floors of the building, severely weakening the entire system. Initially this was not enough to cause collapse.

However, as fire raged in the upper floors, the heat would have been gradually affecting the behaviour of the remaining material. As the planes had only recently taken off, the fire would have been initially fuelled by large volumes of jet fuel, which then ignited any combustible material in the building. While the fire would not have been hot enough to melt any of the steel, the strength of the steel drops markedly with prolonged exposure to fire, while the elastic modulus of the steel reduces (stiffness drops), increasing deflections.

Do you mean building 7? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uFJa9WUy5QI
Anyone who knows a bit about architecture would no that it was quite impossible for the towers to fall the way they did (like a controlled demolition) because of a mere plane.
I mean if you look at other buildings ( comparable to the twin towers), Which endured much more fire over a longer period of time, You will see that the steel frame of the buildings still stood. At worse the still frame would fall sidewards (or a slight tilt).
I mean thats obvious, Take a look at the bombing of dresden in world war two! The city was left in ruins by constant bombardment but youll see that the frame of the buildings still stand, Buildings far inferior to that of the world trade centre.
And as for the people who believe that it could have been a slight chance, 'one in a million', That the world trade centre did collaspe as a result of jet fuel, Then you've made an error. It wasnt just a coincidental event in which 1 tower happened to collaspe. But both towers! The same way? Hit at differnt angles.
I dont know what happened all i know is that its not the way they've put it.
Its funny how people say they dont believe in God and miracles, but they believe that the twin twers collasped as a result of jet fuel!? I suggest you go and educate yourselves :/ stop reading online jargon!
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Anyone who knows a bit about architecture would no that it was quite impossible for the towers to fall the way they did (like a controlled demolition) because of a mere plane.
I mean if you look at other buildings ( comparable to the twin towers), Which endured much more fire over a longer period of time, You will see that the steel frame of the buildings still stood. At worse the still frame would fall sidewards (or a slight tilt).
I mean thats obvious, Take a look at the bombing of dresden in world war two! The city was left in ruins by constant bombardment but youll see that the frame of the buildings still stand, Buildings far inferior to that of the world trade centre.
And as for the people who believe that it could have been a slight chance, 'one in a million', That the world trade centre did collaspe as a result of jet fuel, Then you've made an error. It wasnt just a coincidental event in which 1 tower happened to collaspe. But both towers! The same way? Hit at differnt angles.
I dont know what happened all i know is that its not the way they've put it.
Its funny how people say they dont believe in God and miracles, but they believe that the twin twers collasped as a result of jet fuel!? I suggest you go and educate yourselves :/ stop reading online jargon!


It's the combination of jet fuel and the extreme damage from the planes. I suggest you educate yourself and stop acting like anyone is claiming it was jet fuel alone that brought the towers down. It was a combination of damage and a very hot fire weakening the supports which were taking much more of a load than they were supposed to due to the loss of a lot of them from the initial crash.

And yeah, why wouldn't they come down the same way, they were built the same and had the same sort of damage to them.
Original post by King-Panther
Did I claim that? There is little evidence to support that but a lot of evidence to support 911 was an inside job.

Those towers were designed to withstand the impact of multiple planes, like all sky scrapers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ssuAMNas1us


It's okay mate, the WW1 and WW2 were not actually real, did you know that? And also the illuminati control EVERYTHING, they even control what time you have a sh*t tonight. Did you also know that no one is actually in Afghanistan and the taliban don't exist, actually fu*k it Afganistan doesn't even exist, it was all a plan by some crazy freemason to trick the public. Obama is Osama bin ladin too did you know that? Crazy sh*t...
Original post by gateshipone
It's the combination of jet fuel and the extreme damage from the planes. I suggest you educate yourself and stop acting like anyone is claiming it was jet fuel alone that brought the towers down. It was a combination of damage and a very hot fire weakening the supports which were taking much more of a load than they were supposed to due to the loss of a lot of them from the initial crash.

And yeah, why wouldn't they come down the same way, they were built the same and had the same sort of damage to them.


Loool, Wait! 'Very hot fire'...Are you an idiot? Fire caused by...fuel? Extreme Damage?...Please what damage are we talking about?
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Loool, Wait! 'Very hot fire'...Are you an idiot? Fire caused by...fuel? Extreme Damage?...Please what damage are we talking about?


I'm sorry, have you not seen what happened on 9/11? Let me explain, 2 large aircraft struck the world trade centre towers at close to their top speed. They ripped into the building creating massive holes in the support structure of the buildings. Burning jet fuel was sent through the building due to the force of these impacts and got to work weakening the steel structure which had become exposed.
Original post by gateshipone
I'm sorry, have you not seen what happened on 9/11? Let me explain, 2 large aircraft struck the world trade centre towers at close to their top speed. They ripped into the building creating massive holes in the support structure of the buildings. Burning jet fuel was sent through the building due to the force of these impacts and got to work weakening the steel structure which had become exposed.


Dodging the question *sigh*, :/ I think were done here, your obviously you are somewhat stupid, engaging myself in an argument with you is not worth my time. Good day.
Original post by PeterOkenla11
Dodging the question *sigh*, :/ I think were done here, your obviously you are somewhat stupid, engaging myself in an argument with you is not worth my time. Good day.


I answered your question about the damage. Quite clearly actually.
Reply 119
if Bin ladin attacked UK, and UK were to come to iraq and attack (like What US did eventhough bin laden is not iraqi), i would become a refugee because I am british iraqi.

Quick Reply

Latest