9/11 Conspiracy

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.

Second, how could the hijackers have made it aboard the planes, carrying mace and knives, without being questioned?

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?

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.

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

Dumbasses.

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

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.

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.

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'.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

I can say the same back, you can CLEARLY see an object and you can CLEARLY see it has a wing.

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.