**9/11 Wtf really happened??**

[Firestreak]

First off, your just being a dickhead, flat out, and secondly, no, not possible. Theres absolutely no way, especially with the 2nd tower, that it could have happened that way. That plane clipped the corner of the buidling, theres no way that fire could have spread, and caused enough damage in around an hr to cause the collapse of that entire building ESPECIALLY considering those buildings were built with the intent to withstand hurricanes and other disasters, so even if the fires caused the steel girters to weaken and fail, the building itself wouldn't have failed, especially in the manner that it did, that was an implosion, you dumbass. Also, the buldings cores were the strongest parts of them, they were struck above the cores, that would have stopped the complete destruction of the towers. And you mean to tell me that throughout history buildings have withstood much worse and not collapsed but the 2 towers that have been described as nearly indesructible, were brought down by that? Theres was a tornado not too long ago where I live from what I have been told by friends and family alike, it directly hit a bank of america tower, that bulding DID NOT COLLAPSE! it was refinished into a tower of condos, now if this normal local tower can withstand a direct hit from a tornado, why couldnt these towers withstand those planes? Now, I will say this, the first tower, yes it is possible that the hit from the plane could have caused enough damage to cause the integrity to be compramised, but it wouldn't have failed as a whole, the second tower, could not have been compramised enough from the plane clipping it to cause that.
With me so far? now lets examine this in more detail. the second tower was clipped on the corner of the building, so theoretically, according to the laws of physics, when that tower went down, by all means the top should have collapsed and fell to the side, instead it fell directly down like the first one did afterwards. Now, go ahead and argue, im sure you will find some way to, but theres one thing for certain, I did not post intending on starting a fucking war, and you had to be an asshole and start one anyways, so now, just to show you what a fucking moron you are, I will go ahead and stay up arguing with you, researching everything I can/have to to prove to you that THERE IS NO WAY THOSE TOWERS COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THOSE PLANES!:rtfm:

Retard, this has been long debunked. Why don't you try arguing with the debunks instead of arguing against physics.

There are many different write-ups of the explanation but here's popular mechanics.

=================================
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
===============================
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

 

[Firestreak]

"I did not post intending on starting a fucking war, and you had to be an asshole and start one anyways, so now, just to show you what a fucking moron you are, I will go ahead and stay up arguing with you, researching everything I can/have to to prove to you that THERE IS NO WAY THOSE TOWERS COLLAPSED BECAUSE OF THOSE PLANES!"

I think this makes my point nicely. The idea that you think you can research your case against me in Texas on the internet. Spare some loose change, anyone?

 

[Demovarian]

Retard, this has been long debunked. Why don't you try arguing with the debunks instead of arguing against physics.

There are many different write-ups of the explanation but here's popular mechanics.

=================================
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
===============================
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Look, this may be true, it may not be, you do not know these people you do not know if what they say is anymore true than what anyone else says. You are going off of what these "experts" say, however there are plenty of experts out there saying otherwise. This is a war that caznnot be won on either side unless a direct confession is brought fourth by someone. You and me can go back and fourth all night long researching, and studying, and quoting, but neither of us will budge on this topic either way, if you want me to, i'll get going and debunk the "debunk" I can think of one thing in particular right now, the statement about the debris from the planes slicing through the core, most of a plane is comprised of aluminum, why? because the only other metal known to man with enough strength and is lightweight enough to fly is Magnesium, however magnesium when finely divided become very explosive, making for shitty planes. Other than the engines and a few other parts here or there those planes parts didnt have enough strength to break through that core let alone "slice" through it. And I highly doubt that even if they those few parts did slice through the core, the fires went down over 60 floors and reached the lobbys causing as much damage as they claimed the fires did. Those were big explosions, but not that big. It doesn't add up, even with your "expert" testimonys

 

[Demovarian]

But even if I do debunk your debunk, you will come back with something else stating the same thing I have about the not knowing what is true vs untrue, so for the sake of our sanity, I am going to bed, fuck this for tonight. And you can bash me saying you won and i pussied out all you like or w/e. I honestly dont care because I believe something you dont and vice versa and its never gunna change nor is there any way to prove either side until we have seen every piece of evidence out there and heard confessions as I stated before. Goodnight QCDN, goodnight quetz and goodnight topic, Im going to bed while i am still sane. :wacko:

 

[Watchyourstep]

Firestreak u post fukin essays man lol, this thread isnt intended to be a "im right ur right" post, its simply an eye-opener of all the coencidences that happened. Fuk it lets say half that video is scripted and falsified and the whole documentation is straight bullshit made up of a buncha nerds with too much time on their hands. 1 clear thing that I still cant justify is, where the fuck are the planes wrecked panels, engine, wing spans, tail fin, and remotely questionable peices when they crashed into the Pentagon and The field where flight 93 crashed?

I mean come on, I specifically remember questioning myself during class in High School when they showed the damage at both spots, and asking "wow.. the clean-up crew is fast, because theres barely any traces of that big ass plane hitting those areas", however I didn;t think anything of it, because of the emotional and dramatic situation, UNTIL the other day. 5 yrs ago, I asked that question, and it was forgotten, and dis-regarded UNTIL I saw the film. I mean come on your talking about 2 100ton 120+ feetin width planes with passenger capacity of hundreds, yet you don't see jack shit in the areas where it crashed. Theres no trace of any trails left from the planes decent into the ground or any damamged grasses or dirt trails, and anyone with common sense can realize that, at that speed, size, and velocity, there aint noway in hell that the plane will just automatically stop upon impact, it would hit a target, and continue to stream across the ground, and in those 2 areas, there wasn't even traces of a huge 757 plane. Explain?

 

[Lanien]

Demo, you have no idea what you are talking about on several accounts. Jet fuel burning can melt steel for starters. Second of all, the core of the building runs all the way to the roof. If the plane hit above the core, it wouldn't have hit the building at all.

Near the bottoms of the towers the steel was four inches thick, whereas near the tops it may have been as little as 1/4th inch thick.

Fire fueled (no pun intended) by jet fuel can easily burn through streel 1/4 inch thick.

Try reading more into the subject than making shit up.

And the one tower did fall slightly out. The sheer weight of it would cause it to fall straight down, causing the levels to collapse in sequence.

 

[Ryuoho]

If everyone held everything they believe in up to the standards the conspiracy theorist are holding to the 9/11 story, no one would believe in anything they havn't seen with their own eyes. So what makes you think our history books or your own religiouis beliefe(shoud you have one) are true?

 

[Torqameda]

Retard, this has been long debunked. Why don't you try arguing with the debunks instead of arguing against physics.

There are many different write-ups of the explanation but here's popular mechanics.

=================================
THE WORLD TRADE CENTER
The collapse of both World Trade Center towers--and the smaller WTC 7 a few hours later--initially surprised even some experts. But subsequent studies have shown that the WTC's structural integrity was destroyed by intense fire as well as the severe damage inflicted by the planes. That explanation hasn't swayed conspiracy theorists, who contend that all three buildings were wired with explosives in advance and razed in a series of controlled demolitions.

Widespread Damage
CLAIM: The first hijacked plane crashed through the 94th to the 98th floors of the World Trade Center's 110-story North Tower; the second jet slammed into the 78th to the 84th floors of the 110-story South Tower. The impact and ensuing fires disrupted elevator service in both buildings. Plus, the lobbies of both buildings were visibly damaged before the towers collapsed. "There is NO WAY the impact of the jet caused such widespread damage 80 stories below," claims a posting on the San Diego Independent Media Center Web site (sandiego.indymedia.org). "It is OBVIOUS and irrefutable that OTHER EXPLOSIVES (... such as concussion bombs) HAD ALREADY BEEN DETONATED in the lower levels of tower one at the same time as the plane crash."

FACT: Following up on a May 2002 preliminary report by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a major study will be released in spring 2005 by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), a branch of the U.S. Department of Commerce. NIST shared its initial findings with PM and made its lead researcher available to our team of reporters.

The NIST investigation revealed that plane debris sliced through the utility shafts at the North Tower's core, creating a conduit for burning jet fuel--and fiery destruction throughout the building. "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," says Forman Williams, a NIST adviser and a combustion expert, "but if it's atomized and combustible and gets to an ignition source, it'll go off."

Burning fuel traveling down the elevator shafts would have disrupted the elevator systems and caused extensive damage to the lobbies. NIST heard first-person testimony that "some elevators slammed right down" to the ground floor. "The doors cracked open on the lobby floor and flames came out and people died," says James Quintiere, an engineering professor at the University of Maryland and a NIST adviser. A similar observation was made in the French documentary "9/11," by Jules and Gedeon Naudet. As Jules Naudet entered the North Tower lobby, minutes after the first aircraft struck, he saw victims on fire, a scene he found too horrific to film.

"Melted" Steel
CLAIM: "We have been lied to," announces the Web site AttackOnAmerica.net. "The first lie was that the load of fuel from the aircraft was the cause of structural failure. No kerosene fire can burn hot enough to melt steel." The posting is entitled "Proof Of Controlled Demolition At The WTC."

FACT: Jet fuel burns at 800° to 1500°F, not hot enough to melt steel (2750°F). However, experts agree that for the towers to collapse, their steel frames didn't need to melt, they just had to lose some of their structural strength--and that required exposure to much less heat. "I have never seen melted steel in a building fire," says retired New York deputy fire chief Vincent Dunn, author of The Collapse Of Burning Buildings: A Guide To Fireground Safety. "But I've seen a lot of twisted, warped, bent and sagging steel. What happens is that the steel tries to expand at both ends, but when it can no longer expand, it sags and the surrounding concrete cracks."

"Steel loses about 50 percent of its strength at 1100°F," notes senior engineer Farid Alfawak-hiri of the American Institute of Steel Construction. "And at 1800° it is probably at less than 10 percent." NIST also believes that a great deal of the spray-on fireproofing insulation was likely knocked off the steel beams that were in the path of the crashing jets, leaving the metal more vulnerable to the heat.

But jet fuel wasn't the only thing burning, notes Forman Williams, a professor of engineering at the University of California, San Diego, and one of seven structural engineers and fire experts that PM consulted. He says that while the jet fuel was the catalyst for the WTC fires, the resulting inferno was intensified by the combustible material inside the buildings, including rugs, curtains, furniture and paper. NIST reports that pockets of fire hit 1832°F.

"The jet fuel was the ignition source," Williams tells PM. "It burned for maybe 10 minutes, and [the towers] were still standing in 10 minutes. It was the rest of the stuff burning afterward that was responsible for the heat transfer that eventually brought them down."
Click to enlarge
Click to enlarge
VIOLENT COLLAPSE: Pancaking floors--not controlled demolition--expel debris and smoke out South Tower windows. PHOTOGRAPH BY AP/WIDE WORLD PHOTOS

Puffs Of Dust
CLAIM: As each tower collapsed, clearly visible puffs of dust and debris were ejected from the sides of the buildings. An advertisement in The New York Times for the book Painful Questions: An Analysis Of The September 11th Attack made this claim: "The concrete clouds shooting out of the buildings are not possible from a mere collapse. They do occur from explosions." Numerous conspiracy theorists cite Van Romero, an explosives expert and vice president of the New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, who was quoted on 9/11 by the Albuquerque Journal as saying "there were some explosive devices inside the buildings that caused the towers to collapse." The article continues, "Romero said the collapse of the structures resembled those of controlled implosions used to demolish old structures."

FACT: Once each tower began to collapse, the weight of all the floors above the collapsed zone bore down with pulverizing force on the highest intact floor. Unable to absorb the massive energy, that floor would fail, transmitting the forces to the floor below, allowing the collapse to progress downward through the building in a chain reaction. Engineers call the process "pancaking," and it does not require an explosion to begin, according to David Biggs, a structural engineer at Ryan-Biggs Associates and a member of the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) team that worked on the FEMA report.

Like all office buildings, the WTC towers contained a huge volume of air. As they pancaked, all that air--along with the concrete and other debris pulverized by the force of the collapse--was ejected with enormous energy. "When you have a significant portion of a floor collapsing, it's going to shoot air and concrete dust out the window," NIST lead investigator Shyam Sunder tells PM. Those clouds of dust may create the impression of a controlled demolition, Sunder adds, "but it is the floor pancaking that leads to that perception."

Demolition expert Romero regrets that his comments to the Albuquerque Journal became fodder for conspiracy theorists. "I was misquoted in saying that I thought it was explosives that brought down the building," he tells PM. "I only said that that's what it looked like."

Romero, who agrees with the scientific conclusion that fire triggered the collapses, demanded a retraction from the Journal. It was printed Sept. 22, 2001. "I felt like my scientific reputation was on the line." But emperors-clothes.com saw something else: "The paymaster of Romero's research institute is the Pentagon. Directly or indirectly, pressure was brought to bear, forcing Romero to retract his original statement." Romero responds: "Conspiracy theorists came out saying that the government got to me. That is the farthest thing from the truth. This has been an albatross around my neck for three years."
===============================
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html?page=4

Fire lol you're a freaking beast at this.

 

[Bustaballs]

It's funny how whenever a debate about it comes up, Popular Mechanics and Maddox are the only things certain people seem to run to in defence. I've already watched speeches and read essays of many many experts who have debunked all of that PM bs.

What everyone should remember is that the NIST and FEMA reports aren't the same. They are two different THEORYS and they say they can be changed at any time (at least the new NIST one does). It's not proven and those PM "facts" aren't all facts. The controlled demolition theory is just another idea about what happened. There are so many experts who believe it and not the whole government conspiracy thing.

Just the fall of the towers is a very detailed subject that requires a ton of research (and not just some bullcrap mag article that has nothing to back up its "facts") just to get an real understanding of why each theorist thinks the way they do.

 

[Makelith]

blah blah blah

I'm also done with this thread now. I thought you were taking a class in this kinda thing? Ask your professor then. Hopefully he will knock some sense in to you.

Everyone who doesn't believe just makes the same arguments over and over, and have been proven wrong over and over.

If this really was a government conspiracy, the loose change video never would have made it past the first edition, much less been revised as much as it has been.

If the government really killed that many people in 9/11, whats 4 more people? You'd think they would be more worried about paying off the countless experts that could prove that the plane couldn't have done the damage alone.

 

[Firestreak]

If you can agree that...

...the official story is scientifically plausable.

You just have to weight the possibility that there was a suicide bombing perpetrated by twenty terrorists using airplanes versus the likelihood that ANY other possible event happened.

Without even discussing if George Bush and his administration would actually risk being executed on a long shot to justify this Iraq war that he's not even directly linked to 9/11 anyway...

You have to consider how likely it is that you could even pull this off. How many hundreds of people would need to be involved? What's the odds that if you asked a random person to help murder thousands of citizens of their own country they'd say yes? How many people would you have to ask before you got enough to say yes? Would everyone stay fucking silent? Are all of the many magazines and television shows that debunked all the conspiracies part of the conspiracy as well? How difficult would it be to recruit members of the media to the cause of the conspiracy?

Really consider these questions before you give serious doubt to the official story.

 

[Firestreak]

What qualification does it take to be an "expert"? as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned? Reading about that topic for 30 minutes on wikipedia? If you've debunked the debunks than show it instead of vaguely eluding to it.

As to Watchyourstep. You won't find things you aren't looking for, but there are plenty of photos out there are tons of wreckage. You should really read the entire "loose change guide," because it will make that 50% of bullshit you see in the video change to 100%. But here specifically it will address your stupid question.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

 

[Demovarian]

What qualification does it take to be an "expert"? as far as conspiracy theorists are concerned? Reading about that topic for 30 minutes on wikipedia? If you've debunked the debunks than show it instead of vaguely eluding to it.

As to Watchyourstep. You won't find things you aren't looking for, but there are plenty of photos out there are tons of wreckage. You should really read the entire "loose change guide," because it will make that 50% of bullshit you see in the video change to 100%. But here specifically it will address your stupid question.

http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg2.html

lol, i just looked through all that shit, the explanations are done by someone who is not any more qualified to make an assesment than the guy who made LC, in fact many of his statements were directly mentioned in LC and an explanation was given, but there was no explanation from this guy. Also the pictures of the pentagon crash still don't add up, many of those were also explained in the movie yet not by this other guy, Im not saying LC is right and he is wrong however, for now, I am going with the side that provides some sort of explanation, not just "WHAT are you talking about? thats not the 'official' story" He needs to give what the official story is if hes going to argue it. And one photo struck me especially, the pic of them aiding an older woman, was that supposed to be a "survivor" of the crash? because if so, I call bullshit on this whole thing, she had no burns anywhere, no singed hair, no burned or tathered clothes, nothing. An explosion that decimated a plane is going to leave an obese woman unscathed? Sounds fishy to me..... Now, if she was a person from inside the pentagon, why would it be so important to post that pic especially considering they emphasized it by making a high res version of it. Like I said, I cant tell what or where this other guys was trying to go with this because he doesnt go into explanation about his debunks or his pics as far as I saw. All i can see from this guy is a breakdown of the script of the movie and over-analysis, why do i say hes over analyzing? because as I said before, half the shit hes saying makes no sense, he convieniently left out that they said in the film they were rolls-royce engines too and tried to argue it, did anyone actually watch this film on this board and pay attention other than me and watchyourstep?

 

[Bustaballs]

A better guide to Loose Change would be this one:

http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/loose_change/index.html

Because of its flaws, the film is an easy target for debunkers defending the official story that the attack was the work of Islamic fundamentalists. One example is the the very detailed debunking of the entire video entitled 9-11 Loose Change Second Edition Viewer Guide: And debunking of various 9/11 conspiracy theories. Unfortunately, many people -- perhaps a vast majority of Americans -- are likely to dismiss the film's vitally important conclusions because of the many errors it makes along the way. Not surprisingly, Loose Change is being exploited by apologists for the official story to reinforce the stereotype that has long been used to by the mainstream to media to bludgeon the 9/11 Truth Movement: that all challenges to the official story are the product of irrational "conspiracy theorists." Michael Green's essay 'Loose Change' An analysis, which covers the film's first edition, illustrates the problem with its fast-and-loose approach to the facts

Pretty much sums up everyone who defends the official story that attacks Loose Change.

9/11 Research is a great site for anyone interested in alternate theorys. The research is conducted by many experts and points out many of the flaws of the official story and of some of the alternate theorys presented in movies like Loose Change. It is my personal favorite 9/11 site next to The Complete 9/11 Timeline which brings the story together with thousands mainstream news sources.

 

[Fonzy]

It's funny how whenever a debate about it comes up, Popular Mechanics and Maddox are the only things certain people seem to run to in defence. I've already watched speeches and read essays of many many experts who have debunked all of that PM bs.
.

No, the difference is PM is an objective publication who consulted many expert INCLUDING those that were used to spin ellaborate and silly conspiracy theories(which maintained they were misquoted). Most conspiracy theorist site one source as dramatic proof that this was all a setup, don't actually make an effort to consult industry experts. The article Watchyourstep posted is the one everyone looks to as "proof" that it was a government cover up

But the beauty of conspiracy theorist is they need no proof as the fictitous story they concocted is far more settling to their pallets and in line with their own personal views; i.e. psychotic meglomaniacal government. Their arguments are composed almost entirely around circumstantial and bogus "evidence". Any bit of ambiguity in the event is used as grounds to throw lofty and weightless accustation screaming conspiracy. Personally I don't dignify this thought process worthy of the term theory.

I think the idea that santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy acted out the attacks is more plaussible than our incompetent US government. Can't even keep quiet about congressman soliciting little boys for sex acts, how do you cover up this? That, and their is not one shread of any evidence towards the theory.

 

[Firestreak]

lol, i just looked through all that shit, the explanations are done by someone who is not any more qualified to make an assesment than the guy who made LC, in fact many of his statements were directly mentioned in LC and an explanation was given, but there was no explanation from this guy. Also the pictures of the pentagon crash still don't add up, many of those were also explained in the movie yet not by this other guy, Im not saying LC is right and he is wrong however, for now, I am going with the side that provides some sort of explanation, not just "WHAT are you talking about? thats not the 'official' story" He needs to give what the official story is if hes going to argue it. And one photo struck me especially, the pic of them aiding an older woman, was that supposed to be a "survivor" of the crash? because if so, I call bullshit on this whole thing, she had no burns anywhere, no singed hair, no burned or tathered clothes, nothing. An explosion that decimated a plane is going to leave an obese woman unscathed? Sounds fishy to me..... Now, if she was a person from inside the pentagon, why would it be so important to post that pic especially considering they emphasized it by making a high res version of it. Like I said, I cant tell what or where this other guys was trying to go with this because he doesnt go into explanation about his debunks or his pics as far as I saw. All i can see from this guy is a breakdown of the script of the movie and over-analysis, why do i say hes over analyzing? because as I said before, half the shit hes saying makes no sense, he convieniently left out that they said in the film they were rolls-royce engines too and tried to argue it, did anyone actually watch this film on this board and pay attention other than me and watchyourstep?

So basically, a college kid in his basement makes a video and invents a system of physics to justify his theory. Then a guy in his basement goes ahead and debunks the shit out of it, every point, referencing the exact times in the video every claim is made to make it as convieniant as possible, and because of this, you don't believe the official claims by all the experts that the government explanation is true?

Have you considered just how far you're really stretching to not have to give up and say, "fuck it, I was wrong!" All this for what even if could be proven as possible(which it can't by a long shot) would still make it highly unlikely to be even true? If your physics worked, which it doesn't, most people aren't going to take the time to care because they know the chances of the conspiracy are so low it's not worth spending their time worrying about by the sheer improbability that it could be orchastrated, kept silent and go off without any flaws.

 

[Archmage]

This thread rates a Moldy Taco on the Thread Tacometer.

People who think there's some big conspiracy about 9/11 make me shake my head and wonder about the future of the gene pool if these people breed.

 

[Bustaballs]

No, the difference is PM is an objective publication who consulted many expert INCLUDING those that were used to spin ellaborate and silly conspiracy theories(which maintained they were misquoted). Most conspiracy theorist site one source as dramatic proof that this was all a setup, don't actually make an effort to consult industry experts. The article Watchyourstep posted is the one everyone looks to as "proof" that it was a government cover up

But the beauty of conspiracy theorist is they need no proof as the fictitous story they concocted is far more settling to their pallets and in line with their own personal views; i.e. psychotic meglomaniacal government. Their arguments are composed almost entirely around circumstantial and bogus "evidence". Any bit of ambiguity in the event is used as grounds to throw lofty and weightless accustation screaming conspiracy. Personally I don't dignify this thought process worthy of the term theory.

You're right. A lot of conspiracy theorists are like that. While doing my extensive research on different subjects relating to government conspiracys, I've come across many of these kinds of people. I, unfortunately, have been to a forum where many of the people there believe in every government conspiracy theory ever have to been thought of. However, not everyone is like this and stereotyping everyone who disbelieves the official story by referring to them as crazy conspiracy theorists proves nothing more than your own ignorance and straight out stupidity.

I think the idea that santa claus, the easter bunny and the tooth fairy acted out the attacks is more plaussible than our incompetent US government. Can't even keep quiet about congressman soliciting little boys for sex acts, how do you cover up this? That, and their is not one shread of any evidence towards the theory.

The thing is they haven't covered it up very well, obviously, because some people actually have a brain seperate from that of a sheep of big brother and general society. Look at past events. Look at all of the other real government conspiracys that have been little known to the general public. If there isn't a major outrage among the people then nothing will be done about it and people will get on with their lives. It's obvious that the people will not suspect the government upon the time of a major incident and accuse anyone who thinks different as crazy.

There are many many flaws and omissions in the official story of 9/11 that have been 100% proven. There is absolute proof that the government knew about the attacks beforehand and allowed them to happen along with many many other things. It's all in the mainstream media. It's just scattered so much that no one can get all of the information from one mainstream source.

The Complete 9/11 Timeline is a great resource for information on 9/11 from nothing but mainstream media that brings all of the information together and much of it disproves a lot of the official story and raises infinate questions. There is also a documentary based on the timeline which you can find in my sig and watch it for free.

9/11 Research is another great resource that shows many flaws in the official story as well as flaws in some of the alternate theorys using science and math by experts in related fields along with facts from many different mainstream sources.

The official story is horribly inaccurate and 9/11 deserves a true independant investigation from many independant experts in all relating fields that are agnostic about the subject. Every testimony must be under oath, all documents must be presented to EVERY person investigating, and every part of the investigation must be recorded for all to see. These things were not done last time and that must change because the people don't have nearly the whole story.

That is all the members of the 9/11 Truth Movement want.

 

[Firestreak]

Right, brings up all the information that's out there, no matter how unreliable the source and if it's been retracted or not. Then you guys mine it for whatever data you can find to justify the position you've already taken. The only thing that is even possible is that the government "let it happen" when they could have moved to stop it, but to be honest, you really have to be an asshole to believe that.

And by the way, there HAS been a commisson by experts into the truth behind the attacks. It's was called the 9/11 commission. Their major criticism was "failure of imagination" in that if Clinton and Bush had done a better job thinking up how the attacks could have happened then they could have possibly stopped them.

 

[Fonzy]

You're right. A lot of conspiracy theorists are like that. While doing my extensive research on different subjects relating to government conspiracys, I've come across many of these kinds of people. I, unfortunately, have been to a forum where many of the people there believe in every government conspiracy theory ever have to been thought of. However, not everyone is like this and stereotyping everyone who disbelieves the official story by referring to them as crazy conspiracy theorists proves nothing more than your own ignorance and straight out stupidity..

lmao, "extensive research". Okay Sherlock. What was the tail number or aircraft make of the US military airplane used to crash into the 2 towers? Surely in your extensive research you have viewed the planes hitting the buildings and have the best in video enhancement technology at your disposal to do so with. What type of missle was launched at the pentagon and how many eye witness accounts are there of it? Kind of a dumb question considering you have lockheed and many other missle manufacturers on speed dial. What type of explosives evidence was recovered in the WTC wreckage? Surely when you were sifting through the rubble with your bare hands you found some sort of evidence and used your mobile balistics lab to analyze it. Why did Bin Laden take credit for an attack if he didn't commit it? Cause I'm sure in your many trips to Afghanastan you have had personal discourse with the harmless soul. How many high ranking government officials have come forward and acknowledged and admitted their role in THE greatest cover up of all time? Why does the government continually allow you to live considering you obviously are threatening their secrecy in their ellaborate cover-up

What you do, is you "research" propaganda(probably on the internet exclusively) which you believe whole heartedly and conclusively before you even finish reading it. The fact remains there is no evidence at all to support this retarded conspiracy. Evidence, I.E. physical proof pointing to a government cover up. There is none, Bush doesn't have a manifesto sitting in his oval office waiting to be found and published by one of you "brave" individuals. The kicker is anyone who disagrees is ignorant or stupid or a government sheep. Can you have a more bullet proof argument than that? If you disagree you haven't researched enough. I've watched your little videos and read the little websites and can smell BS a mile away and those sites reak of it. Let me ask you this, have you ever tried to "research" the other side of the argument; in other words, listen to the people who aren't looking for a conspiracy and might just be a little bit objective in the matter?

oh by the way, that video you link in you sig is PURE propoganda, would make the nazi in your sig proud. But what do I know, Im 2 dum 2 reed!

The thing is they haven't covered it up very well, obviously, because some people actually have a brain seperate from that of a sheep of big brother and general society. Look at past events. Look at all of the other real government conspiracys that have been little known to the general public. If there isn't a major outrage among the people then nothing will be done about it and people will get on with their lives. It's obvious that the people will not suspect the government upon the time of a major incident and accuse anyone who thinks different as crazy..

yes and I expect if these people make outrages claims they provide some proof, not distorted circumstantial evidence and ambiguity to concot the most elaborate setup of all time. Until then, they are whackos who have watched too many X-Files episodes and crossdress like skully on the weekends.

There are many many flaws and omissions in the official story of 9/11 that have been 100% proven. There is absolute proof that the government knew about the attacks beforehand and allowed them to happen along with many many other things. It's all in the mainstream media. It's just scattered so much that no one can get all of the information from one mainstream source. ..

but see, this ABSOLUTE proof changes daily. The arguments and evidence are contradicted and changed daily. This is the only movement that can acknowledge their argument is or was bogus but keep arguing their point. Loosechange was the gossiple(and for MOST still is) until people had enough and went out to show what sort of BS it was. After that I don't think most people need to even dignify this silliness with disproving it as any objective person can see through it in a heartbeat. This conspiracy is tailored to paranoid people who have a severe and prexisting distrust of the US government.

The official story is horribly inaccurate and 9/11 deserves a true independant investigation from many independant experts in all relating fields that are agnostic about the subject. Every testimony must be under oath, all documents must be presented to EVERY person investigating, and every part of the investigation must be recorded for all to see. These things were not done last time and that must change because the people don't have nearly the whole story.

Well maybe your just the brave soul needed to bring us heathenistic and blinded sheep back to reason. I still got money saying it was Santa Claus.