9/11! A discussion.

Scroll to see replies

I bet Half the people who have posted saying it was just a terrorist attck havent spent any longer then 1 hour researching the subject.

Some people predicted 9/11 to happen and with the people involved.

Reply 21

Aj12

Original post by lifeshard

That's one of my skepticisms, but I don't think it's a solid enough argument to then go on to conclude that it definitly couldn't have been an inside job or maybe just a case of Bush knowing about it in advance and using it to his advantage.

I could easily just say, no they wouldn't have talked.. We don't know WHAT could have been offered or the threats that might have been used. I could even argue that obviously it being such a covert operation, the government would be careful about who knew and who didn't. Also, there are cases of people "talking" but these people had inclins rather than solid secret governmental info. It can be argued for both sides, which is why i'm not on either side yet :confused:

Every single 9/11 has been debunked through experimentation and computer models. None of the 9/11 theories make any sense.

Reply 22

Pharm Boy

terrorists hijacked 4 planes and crashed them into buildings.
I hate conspiracy theorists on this topic, particularly because most of their threories are ludicrous.
Edit: I'm rather shallow and black and White on this matter :tongue:

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 23

StormXibalba

Original post by lifeshard

I have struggled to find a thread on this topic alone. I know a lot of people hate this subject but I find it fascinating (I don't know why?).. What do you think happened?

I don't want to be called a conspiracy theorist, actually no.. I don't really mind.

In my opinion, I wish I knew what happened I really do. I seriously doubt the official version and I haven't really heard any of the 9/11 doubts debunked sufficiently.

If you find this tedious, pls don't reply saying so. I just want a real debate on the topic.

It's all love. :tongue:

I dont think a plane hit the Pentagon. There was no wreckage and the hole was nowhere near big enough for a 757, it was a missile. I cant explain where the passengers are from that plane though. I hope i'm wrong because I dont want to believe it. I also have a hard time believing building 7 collapsed from fire alone...

World Trade Center 1 and 2 were hit by planes and thats why they collapsed, but building 7 wasnt. Its all very strange.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 24

lifeshard

Original post by Aj12

Every single 9/11 has been debunked through experimentation and computer models. None of the 9/11 theories make any sense.

Experimentation and computer models, hmm somehow.. A computer simulating the attacks isn't enough for me (won't the computer come up with the wanted results if programmed in that way? i'm not an expert or anything so sorry if that sounds like a stupid question).. Building 7 and the whole notion of 19 terrorists is problematic for me.

Reply 25

Jacktri

11/9 is the correct term

Reply 26

lifeshard

Original post by Daniel-Ballingall

What is ludicrous? Have you seen Buildings 7's collapse? Do you know any of the names of the terrorists (other than Bin Laden) seriously be honest, without using google? If the answer is no, don't you find that slightly odd? You'd think these would be some of the most famous people on earth being capable of concocting such a plan and then successfully hitting 75% of their targets as amatuer pilots. I'm sorry but if that doesn't raise some questions to you.. Your entitled to your opinion (you've just made me use my single most hated sentence ever)

I don't want to believe it trust me, it's horrific to think the government would particapate in something so terrible.

Reply 27

Aj12

Original post by lifeshard

If you have sky then they show a program called 9/11 considerately on Nat Geo. It covers all the major theories and goes into detail on each one saying whats wrong with the theory presenting evidence talking to experts ect, they also interview the people behind the various conspiracies its worth a watch.

Reply 28

lifeshard

Original post by Jacktri

11/9 is the correct term

9/11 has more of a ring to it lol. Just shows really, the government used the incident to instill fear into it's nation. Calling it 9/11 was just one step, a clever idea too.

Reply 29

StormXibalba

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K0i0

I have a hard time believing a plane hit the Pentagon.

Reply 30

Amuroray

There are Facts that point to 9/11 was an inside job.pure hard evidence that you cant argue with.

9/11 was so obvious it was an inside job.

Reply 31

boromir9111

A discussion in TSR....you're having a laugh OP.....no such thing exists!

Reply 32

hello dave

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3214024953129565561&ei=zjNySe-6Bouk-wGi06TkCw&q=Screw+Loose+Change+Movie&hl=en#

Reply 33

lifeshard

Original post by Aj12

Have you ever seen? Nuoviso: 9/11 or Zero: Investigation into 9/11 on youtube (don't be put off by subtitles), they also have experts presenting evidence and other things that just made it feel valid and not like contorted evidence (most people watch the first 2 minutes of Loose Change get bored and critisize, these other docs are much more like every other kind of doc you'd see). I'll watch the one you suggested when I get the chance myself! The documentary channels on sky tend to piss me off a lot, there all america and britain are the best countries in the world and everything else is wild, oh and Hitler was apparently really bad.

Reply 34

Yawn11

Original post by Amuroray

I agree.

There are lot documentaries on the corruption of American government.

- Loose Change

- Loose Change Final Cut

- Obama decption

- Fall - something

I watched hours, America is pretty much under dictatorship atm. The last real president they had was JFK - and we all know how that ended.

If the "New World Order" ever goes through were practically all enslaved.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 35

hello dave

Original post by Amuroray

This is crap. All the so called 'conspiracies' are either completely fabricated, based on coincidental evidence or just stupid.

"Building 7 collapsed despite no damage" - There's photo evidence of a 20 story hole in the side of the building, firefighters reported uncontrollable fires across multiple stories and creaking noises coming from the frame, they knew it would collapse.

"A missile hit the pentagon" - There was little left of the plane, true, but thats what happens when your travel at 500mph into a building. You think a missile could knock down lamp posts and move a substantial sized generator and still reach the building.
Tests with aircraft against concrete walls have shown they leave practically nothing left at those speeds.

"Aircraft had no windows" - Only a couple of witnesses to this, who saw them from 2 miles away. There were windows in the wreckage.

"Inside trading" - Share puts against the airlines were higher than normal the day before, true, but puts fluctuate massively twice in that year AA puts had reached over double what they were on the day.

It's pretty much all *******s with little substantial evidence, usually presented with made up facts and exaggeration. Americans love conspiracies, don't be an idiot, do you really the the US government could pull off such a stunt? The bush administration couldn't even run the country properly.

Reply 36

lifeshard

Original post by hello dave

To be honest, Building 7's collapse is something I struggle with. There are examples of steel inforced buildings like those three buildings that have burned for over 20 hours before collapsing and not even collapsing in the astonishing way in which WTC 1, 2 & 7 did. It's hard to imagine that a building built in such a sophisticated fashion would collapse because of burning papers/wood/other objects within the building because the jet fuel from the planes exploded on impact so it's relative damage was done the second it hit the building. Also, the world trade centers were built and reinforced especially in the case of planes hitting them so it's not as if it was such a shocking event to the architects of the building, nor the government. I guess if you really think it was the terrorists we can still question the government on whether they should be allowing buildings like that if they can fall at free fall speed due to fire

I don't think a missile hit the building, I think a plane did because otherwise you'd have to ask where that flight and it's passengers went. I'm not sure my friend, but the people in power are being strange for not releasing all the tapes they have especially if people are calling for them. If nothing weird happened, why not, do you know what I mean? It's just weird, the circumstances surrounding the pentagon i.e. the fact that the plane just happened to hit the building in the only place where people were not and the slick manovevre the pilot made to hit the pentagon at such a low hieght when there is numerous evidence suggesting the terrorist who is said to have been controlling that plane was a complete amatuer.

Aircraft had no windows is something i've come across but have not paid attention to. Doesn't really seem relevant or provable. If i'm going to be one 100 percent frank with you my issue is really with the terrorists. I find it odd that nobody knows their names (without the help of google).. the fact that the president's administration claimed to have found one of the terrorists passports which even the dumbest will know is a LIE, they should really be household names the way Osama is considering they were the ones who DONE IT. It's all just too convenient you know. I'm not gonna say my argument is the most coherrent or that I know all the answers. I really don't. I just find something inherrently not right about the whole thing and since this is one of THE defining moments of the 21st Century, I want to have a rounded view of what happened before History is rewritten to suit the powers.

Reply 37

hello dave

Original post by lifeshard

The trade centres weren't built like traditional steel-framed buildings. They only had a steel frame on the outside and an inner core. After absorbing the impact of the aircraft (a ridiculous amount of energy) there was no way they were gonna stand long.

The examples of steel buildings that have stood in fires, pretty much always have a concrete-reinforced core, and all the steel ends up melting anyway, WTC's did not have this.

Pretty much all structural engineers agree that heat from fires caused the collapse. Many predicted it as soon as the towers were hit.

Pretty much all demolition experts agree that a controlled explosion is not like that of building 7. The central core collapsed first, there were no seismic readings indicating explosions before the collapse, and it leant to the south side as it fell. Nothing like a controlled explosion.

Also they didn't free fall. Watch any video and you'll see debris hits the ground before the building finishes collapsing.

(edited 13 years ago)

Reply 38

No Man

Original post by lifeshard

Reply 39

bubba.ok

I researched this for a while and came to the conclusion that it wasn't all what it seemed. As others have mentioned it was building seven and the pentagon that really made me question what went on that day.
I don't believe that to be 'rad' though or 'different'. Making my mind up on this really messed my head around and left me feeling pretty disturbed. Sometimes i wish i didn't think it was a conspiracy because thinking about the evil in this world is seriously scary.