Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by DustyM)
    Incidentally...why all this focus on explosions. Why wouldn't the terrorists have planted bombs to ensure that the towers came down?
    The planes were visually symbolic but may not have done the job by themselves.
    More interesting then is why the Govt denied there were explosives prior to the investigators report.
    Because it was impossible to lay explosives on the main supports without it being noticed.

    40,000l of kerosene is certainly enough to weaken steel.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by cowleya)
    Second, how could the hijackers have made it aboard the planes, carrying mace and knives, without being questioned?
    Security has changed radically since 9/11 before which you were able to carry small knives, multitools, mace, etc onto planes (esp. domestic flights). The same could be said for courtrooms and other areas of high risk.

    It was only after 9/11 (and what we learned from it) that check in times were increased, any sharp implements in hand luggage were banned, no metal cutlery, etc.

    (Original post by cowleya)
    Please, don't take this the wrong way. I'm almost certain the Government had nothing to do with it, but without addressing these issues comprehensively, how can we be 100% sure?
    Some people don't want to believe the truth and some people won't believe the truth. Working to uncover a potential conspiracy gives people a direction, hope, motive, etc - even if it's completely misplaced.

    It's no coincidence that people who believe in one conspiracy theory often believe in many. You could say that certain people are predisposed to believe in conspiracy theories and others not based on their character traits.
    Offline

    11
    (Original post by ch0c0h01ic)
    You can't tell anything from that tape given the framerate, quality, distance from the site, etc.

    You're seeing what you want to see, not what is actually there.
    I can say the same back, you can CLEARLY see an object and you can CLEARLY see it has a wing. If you can't see that then you have your eyes closed.

    And I'm seeing what I want to see?

    No, I just expect a impact hole the size of a plane that hits, when there isn't then its fishy.

    Where are the wings impact?

    Don't tell me they burned up, carbon fibre and aluminum does not totally melt in the 0.002 seconds it would have took the 500mph wing to go through the fireball and impact the wall.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Are we forgetting the misterious collapse of WTC7? O thats right... It burned to its freefall. (how ever thats possible.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hitler burned down his own parliament building to take away civil liberties and go to war. It's nothing new. History always repeats itself.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've been reading through a few pages, so I'm just going to post my views on the Pentagon. The fact is that the Pentagon is one of the most securest buildings in the world, with over 400 CCTV cameras covering every square inch of the building. Regardless of this, the most footage ever recovered was 3 stupid frames from one CCTV camera. The fact that the hotel across from the Pentagon had its footage seized and destroyed is another argument, beyond me.

    I'm sorry, but people here that are trying to prove that a plane actually hit the pentagon (and disappeared) with only 3 frames ever being recovered from the 400 cameras that watch over the building, has a severe mental disorder, or is just plain stupid.

    Dumbasses.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrvn)
    Are we forgetting the misterious collapse of WTC7? O thats right... It burned to its freefall. (how ever thats possible.)
    Did you even bother to read the posts above yours or are you just wilfully ignorant of facts?

    The 'mistery' solved
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrvn)
    Dumbasses.

    O DEAR ARNT U CLEVAR U DISAGRREEEEE WITH SCIENSE LOLZ

    You've certainly made many experienced structural engineers unemployed with your theories you wasteman.

    Also the pentagon security footage was first bought up by a truther, if you'd bothered to read the thread you would have realised. People have already pointed out that it's poor quality, but you can still see that it was a plane that hit the pentagon. Anyone who doesn't properly research has a severe mental disorder. Or is just a wasteman.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    Did you even bother to read the posts above yours or are you just wilfully ignorant of facts?

    The 'mistery' solved
    I could say the same to you

    The mystery deepens
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    I could say the same to you

    The mystery deepens
    :facepalm2:

    You could but it would betray the fact that you didn't even bother to read my link. All the falsities in your link have been shown in mine.

    Never mind the fact that you link has no evidence at all. Merely red herrings and assumptions by idiots. If you want to prove a point use science. "O STEEL NVR MELTZ BFOR" isn't evidence of anything and betrays a misunderstanding of the investigative process at its very core.

    There is no mystery here. Merely anomaly hunting. And as far as anomaly hunting goes it's the worst attempt I've seen.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    :facepalm2:

    You could but it would betray the fact that you didn't even bother to read my link. All the falsities in your link have been shown in mine.

    Never mind the fact that you link has no evidence at all. Merely red herrings and assumptions by idiots. If you want to prove a point use science. "O STEEL NVR MELTZ BFOR" isn't evidence of anything and betrays a misunderstanding of the investigative process at its very core.

    There is no mystery here. Merely anomaly hunting. And as far as anomaly hunting goes it's the worst attempt I've seen.
    I have read the debunking911 site quite thoroughly and had another quick read prior to posting.

    The point I am getting at is why trust one website's explanation over the other?

    The single point of failure theory is one that I find far-fetched. A much more rational theory from careful analysis of the evidence suggests controlled demolition.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    O DEAR ARNT U CLEVAR U DISAGRREEEEE WITH SCIENSE LOLZ

    You've certainly made many experienced structural engineers unemployed with your theories you wasteman.

    Also the pentagon security footage was first bought up by a truther, if you'd bothered to read the thread you would have realised. People have already pointed out that it's poor quality, but you can still see that it was a plane that hit the pentagon. Anyone who doesn't properly research has a severe mental disorder. Or is just a wasteman.
    Someone useing the word "wastemans" is definitely under the age of 15 or just an under-developed adult.

    Clearly see its a plane? You are high on crack sir. Get a life 'wasteman.'

    I can't believe you still havn't for once questioned why only 3 freeze frames where realesed... to this date. Go back to playing World of Warcraft.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    I have read the debunking911 site quite thoroughly and had another quick read prior to posting.

    The point I am getting at is why trust one website's explanation over the other?

    The single point of failure theory is one that I find far-fetched. A much more rational theory from careful analysis of the evidence suggests controlled demolition.
    Not really. The evidence shows that the best model is one of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the towers. Sauce.

    And why trust one source over the other? Because one presents valid evidence and science while another goes 'oooooh noooo that's not happened before steel doesnt melt LOL! look at the video it looks like an explosion to me. it must be'.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    Not really. The evidence shows that the best model is one of a fire-induced, gravity-driven collapse of the towers. Sauce.

    And why trust one source over the other? Because one presents valid evidence and science while another goes 'oooooh noooo that's not happened before steel doesnt melt LOL! look at the video it looks like an explosion to me. it must be'.
    For starters, the link looks boring as sin and I'm not gonna spend the next hour reading it all only to come to the same conclusion that I don't believe that particular theory.

    A for the steel, answer me this. If fire has never caused the collapse of a steel structure before, then how by some miracle did it happen to 3 buildings in the same location on the same day?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrvn)
    Someone useing the word "wastemans" is definitely under the age of 15 or just an under-developed adult.

    Clearly see its a plane? You are high on crack sir. Get a life 'wasteman.'

    I can't believe you still havn't for once questioned why only 3 freeze frames where realesed... to this date. Go back to playing World of Warcraft.
    *using
    *haven't
    *were
    *released


    I didn't say clearly. Stop creating straw men and learn to read wasteman so you can argue against what I actually say. "People have already pointed out that it's poor quality" is what I said. You can't clearly see anything in it. BUT, you can see more of a plane than a missile. Look it up.

    And there were a lot more frames than 3, you dry guy, but leave that because it doesn't really matter. I agree that there wasn't a lot of video considering the amount of cameras at the Pentagon (80+). We've only seen footage of the attack from 2. However you fail to take into account that many of those cameras would not have been in the position to record the attack.

    It is odd that there are no good views. However security cameras are not intended to observe events happening far away from the station where they are built. They also weren't really built to spot high speed planes crashing into buildings, and they capture video at a slow frame rate which serves their purpose. That's probably why it's extremely difficult to actually see the plane in the moving video.

    You know what. I'll even grant you that the lack of film evidence is suspicious, but where we differ in views is if the so-called withholding of evidence is proof that there was a conspiracy. If you argue that a certain theory is NOT true, then you have to provide an alternate theory and prove that it is actually possible. All other theories that involve anything other than a Boeing 757 appear to be impossible.

    An anomaly doesn't make a conspiracy.

    A couple more things. Well played on questing my age because I use different words from you. That was only slightly more mature than me pointing out your spelling errors, and me calling you a wasteman. And as for the World of Warcraft reference... Is that meant to be an insult or what? You can do better than that mate I'm sure.

    Call me a fat piece of **** at least.... 'Go play World of Warcraft'... That's poor... It's nothing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by death_on_the_stairs)
    For starters, the link looks boring as sin and I'm not gonna spend the next hour reading it all only to come to the same conclusion that I don't believe that particular theory.

    A for the steel, answer me this. If fire has never caused the collapse of a steel structure before, then how by some miracle did it happen to 3 buildings in the same location on the same day?
    If you won't read the evidence then quite frankly I don't know what to say to you. How can you support a position without reading contrary evidence? As for the bit in bold... Well that just sums up conspiracy quacks doesn't it. 'No contrary evidence will ever make me consider another theory'. Thank for having to balls to admit it before I waste my time. I genuinely appreciate it.

    But I won't answer your question as such. Because it's based on 2 false premises. I'll point them out. In fact I'll copy and paste because it's quicker.

    There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.
    The first false premise is that the situation in this steel tower was the same as all other steel tower fires. The statement you made is deceptive because it doesn't take these factors into account.

    The second false premise is a good one. Because to be honest I could've said this one first and I wouldn't need to mention the first one. But I did so anyway to show how even if this premise didn't exist the first one was still invalid. The second false premise is that fire has caused the collapse of steel structure before.

    In fact, since you are so easily bored when presented with scientific evidence, I have a video for you that lays out both these false premises. I could've saved time and not bothered typing all this but now that it's done I'll leave it.

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fr3shmang0)
    If you won't read the evidence then quite frankly I don't know what to say to you. How can you support a position without reading contrary evidence? As for the bit in bold... Well that just sums up conspiracy quacks doesn't it. 'No contrary evidence will ever make me consider another theory'. Thank for having to balls to admit it before I waste my time. I genuinely appreciate it.

    But I won't answer your question as such. Because it's based on 2 false premises. I'll point them out. In fact I'll copy and paste because it's quicker.



    The first false premise is that the situation in this steel tower was the same as all other steel tower fires. The statement you made is deceptive because it doesn't take these factors into account.

    The second false premise is a good one. Because to be honest I could've said this one first and I wouldn't need to mention the first one. But I did so anyway to show how even if this premise didn't exist the first one was still invalid. The second false premise is that fire has caused the collapse of steel structure before.

    In fact, since you are so easily bored when presented with scientific evidence, I have a video for you that lays out both these false premises. I could've saved time and not bothered typing all this but now that it's done I'll leave it.

    The reason I didn't read it is because you essentially told me the outcome. Regarding the video, touche, maybe things can collapse from fire. I'm still not a believer though. I think we're gonna have to agree to disagree on this one mango. You do put up a good argument though, have some rep. Fair play.:yy:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Straightpath)
    If you had any comprehension of physics you would know that typical aviation fuel burns at about 1000 degrees Farenheit, whilst steel needs more than 2000 degrees to BEGIN to give way.


    You were saying?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Choccielatte)
    Personally, I think it's disrespectful for you to even consider the concept that the US government was behind 9/11. Over 1000 People died. Al-Queda admitted responsibility - stop picking at the bones and trying to create controversy. I didn't approve of the Bush administration and their policies/moral scruples. But I don't believe any Westernised government would blow up their own people just to invoke sympathy or give cause to counter terrorism so directly.

    It would have been impossible to stage a cover-up of such an event.

    Conspiracy theorists such as yourself, have no respect for the dead and their families. 9/11 happened. It was a terrorist attack. Stop trying muck-rake over such an extensive tragedy and get a topic that isn't so emotionally charged. It's quite sickening how you can even contemplate this tbh.
    ACTUALLY, taliban said that if America could prove even by a single piece of evidence that it was Bin Laden, they would hand him over. Obv America couldnt so they didnt. Saying that I still dont beleive that it was the US Government. I dont see how it is disrespectful though? kids are taught to question and debate who exactly started WW1 but its not insulting to the millions who died.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rucklo)
    I can say the same back, you can CLEARLY see an object and you can CLEARLY see it has a wing.
    On the first frame as it comes into view you can see a grey/white/silver object enter view, then you can see a shadow below the flight path, then an explosion - nothing more, nothing less given the angle of the camera, distance from the collision site, frame rate, resolution, etc.

    And I'm seeing what I want to see?
    If you give someone a bottle of wine and tell them that it's an expensive/good wine they will enjoy it more than if you told them that it was a cheap/poor wine - same bottle of wine, a bit of human intervention, two different outcomes. If you bombard people with conspiracy theories, tell them what they can see/think/hear, etc it is going to influence their thoughts on the matter.

    You cannot prove or disprove the pentagon attacks using that video, you're seeing something which isn't there and there's a strong argument that its an artefact of the media.

    No, I just expect a impact hole the size of a plane that hits, when there isn't then its fishy.

    Where are the wings impact?

    Don't tell me they burned up, carbon fibre and aluminum does not totally melt in the 0.002 seconds it would have took the 500mph wing to go through the fireball and impact the wall.
    A while back my dog was extremely ill, it was choking and retching (and had been doing so on and off for a couple of hours). It had been eating a hide chew earlier in the day. I was adamant that it was a GI obstruction and laid it on pretty thick with the vet. Turns out it was kennel cough. Why was I wrong? I wasn't a qualified vet and I didn't have any experience of the situation.

    I'm sorry but you've got no real experience of what happened and you're not a professional witness - who are you to say that it doesn't add up or that the professionals have got it all wrong?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    Useful resources
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.