Jump to content

9/11 Conspiracy - It was an inside job.


waynewex

Recommended Posts

Please, for the love of God, tell me that nobody on this forum believes in this conspiracy crap? I was just browsing Youtube when I came across a video based on 9/11, and the comment section was filled with retards stating "OMG IT DUZNT ADD UP".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 97
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

anyone that believes that 9/11 is a conspiracy is quite the idiot....i'm not a fan of the US government and quite open minded, but that is just a load of.....crap....

prove it

 

Prove it? We don't need to. Two large jets flew straight into each of the buildings and they collapsed. Case closed. Unless you can prove otherwise.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you waynewex.

 

Everyone saw two planes, and like i said, planes that go cross country are loaded with fuel, which can cause a nice fire and fire melts steel, which is what the towers were made off. So once the beams are melted the support for the top part collapses and hence the whole tower collapses. So unless the other side can prove it otherwise, thats what  happened and everyone was witnessed to it.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Alot of the conspiracy theories are nonsense, but if you sift through it there are a fair few anomalies that nobody has successfully explained, especially todo with the pentagon building. Does this mean that the government set it all up? No of course not. Does it mean it's possible there is a conspiracy of some kind, sure why not. But the whole manner in which the first post was posed doesn't exactly lend itself to somebody thats open minded and willing to look at any evidence logically.

 

Does saying "OMG IT DUZNT ADD UP" make somebody an idiot? Yes. Does that change the fact that there are many well educated people that also believe there were strange occurances. No. Before anybody starts flaming me, I have no real opinion either way, I've read some evidence from both sides of the fence and both have certain degrees of merit. At the end of the day it doesn't make any difference to me.

 

Innocent untill proven guilty huh. Who's on trial, the government or the terrorists? Depending on your point of view depends on who lies the burden of evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its called speculation. we'll never know, but that doesn't mean you cant believe in a conspiracy. how did however many men there were come together and do something so devastating without any extra help? i dont know the details of what went on, but lets think logically and accept the fact that what we hear and read on tv and newspapers isnt the full story. i would hate to believe that these men brought a whole nation down to its knees alone and had the perfect combination of events happen to them which lead them to be on those planes that day.

 

the steel melting is science. it has nothing to do with motives, actions, plans, etc. It is just what happens when a plane hits a building.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Cags - my opening post was pretty aggressive because, to be honest, the majority of those declaring that some things "just don't add up", have said so on the basis that they believe the US government were behind the whole incident. It's a case of people being bored enough with their lives to believe in this crap. MANY engineers etc have given their opinions on matters relating to the events on 9/11, yet the majority of these conspiracy theorists still refuse to believe that it wasn't an inside job.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

its called speculation. we'll never know, but that doesn't mean you cant believe in a conspiracy. how did however many men there were come together and do something so devastating without any extra help? i dont know the details of what went on, but lets think logically and accept the fact that what we hear and read on tv and newspapers isnt the full story. i would hate to believe that these men brought a whole nation down to its knees alone and had the perfect combination of events happen to them which lead them to be on those planes that day.

 

the steel melting is science. it has nothing to do with motives, actions, plans, etc. It is just what happens when a plane hits a building.

 

For a conspiracy of this scale, it would take alot more than just a few scheming men sitting around a table. We're talking about Emergency personnel etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see I'm going to end up looking like I'm on the side of 'conspiracy' here, but I'm just being devils advocate. Yes metal melts under heat, anybody can say that. But how many of you are actually qualified to say that the steel structure of the building would melt under the temperature produced by jet fuel burning? Two seconds of googling suggests that jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1000 degrees and that the melting point of steel is 1500 degrees. Now I'm most certainly not qualified to state what the implications of this are. But it does make blanket statements of 'There was fire, metal melts, thus it melted' naive at best.

 

Yes I'm well aware that there have been 'expert witness' that would testify that under condition x, given condition y, z may have happened. But I've seen 'expert witness' statements for both sides of the argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can see I'm going to end up looking like I'm on the side of 'conspiracy' here, but I'm just being devils advocate. Yes metal melts under heat, anybody can say that. But how many of you are actually qualified to say that the steel structure of the building would melt under the temperature produced by jet fuel burning? Two seconds of googling suggests that jet fuel burns at a maximum of 1000 degrees and that the melting point of steel is 1500 degrees. Now I'm most certainly not qualified to state what the implications of this are. But it does make blanket statements of 'There was fire, metal melts, thus it melted' naive at best.

 

Yes I'm well aware that there have been 'expert witness' that would testify that under condition x, given condition y, z may have happened. But I've seen 'expert witness' statements for both sides of the argument.

 

Steel wouldn't melt under the heat produced by burning fuel. However, jet fuel burns at 825° C and steel loses 50% of it's strength at 648 ° C. Do the math on that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Whenever I first saw this thread, I thought it was going to be supporting the idea of a conspiracy.  I was like "Oh no...."

 

 

Personally, I've seen no proof that it was or wasn't a conspiracy.  But as far as the United States doing it?  Why?  Why would anyone have wanted to do that?  Makes a lot more sense that terrorists would just hate the United States.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am most certainly not qualified for this debate, I highly doubt you are. From what I've read yes in theory the jet fuel could have reached that temperature, but it's far more likely that it didn't reach much above 700, even assuming it did get hot enough to cause 50% weakness in the steal, due to the in-built redundancy of the building, that in itself would not cause collapse of the building. And before you bother coming back and saying yes but the differing weaknessing due to varying burning temperatures could have introduced other factors combined with the damage causes from the initial impact etc etc. Know this... I already know that, my whole point was people will jump to assumptions. I bet it never occured to most the people that read this thread that the heat melting the steel wasn't a given (afterall metal and heat don't mix), which even the most rudimentary study shows.

 

The fact is it's an immensely complicated engineering 'problem'. Even the 'experts' can't agree on the cause of the collapse. I really don't see the point debating it in what is a 'Programming' forum. I'm sure the only real fact that can be drawn from the whole debate is that the loss of life involved was a tragedy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am most certainly not qualified for this debate, I highly doubt you are. From what I've read yes in theory the jet fuel could have reached that temperature, but it's far more likely that it didn't reach much above 700, even assuming it did get hot enough to cause 50% weakness in the steal, due to the in-built redundancy of the building, that in itself would not cause collapse of the building. And before you bother coming back and saying yes but the differing weaknessing due to varying burning temperatures could have introduced other factors combined with the damage causes from the initial impact etc etc. Know this... I already know that, my whole point was people will jump to assumptions. I bet it never occured to most the people that read this thread that the heat melting the steel wasn't a given (afterall metal and heat don't mix), which even the most rudimentary study shows.

 

The fact is it's an immensely complicated engineering 'problem'. Even the 'experts' can't agree on the cause of the collapse. I really don't see the point debating it in what is a 'Programming' forum. I'm sure the only real fact that can be drawn from the whole debate is that the loss of life involved was a tragedy.

 

Yes - but we're not just talking about burning fuel are we? We're talking about burning fuel PLUS the initial impact of a large passenger jet into a very large skyscraper. Surely a support column would have been severed here and there?

 

PS: I know you said I'd say that but it still had to be said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, I think the whole bill folding is just a load of shit. I mean come on, if these people who believe it was a US Govt. conspiracy theory could provide more proof than "Oh Lookz a bill foldz to show some funky ass design", I may listen. I mean come on you can turn anything you look at into anything you want if you look at long enough. As far as I am concerned it was terrorists fault, whether domestic or foreign, why do we need to differentiate between them?

 

If you do believe it was a conspiracy (non-US Govt), well I would have to agree as the terrorists who did this had to conspire to pull it off in the first place.  Conspiracy is defined as: a group of conspirators banded together to achieve some harmful or illegal purpose. But as far as a US Govt conspiracy, there has not been one argument I have read to sway me that it was. Just because engineers theories say that it could not melt the steel does not mean that to be true. A rough example is Myth Busters, they always do the math and sometimes they are completely wrong. Certain circumstances can cause different results and to replicate it is nearly impossible unless you want to waste a ton of money to build a replica and crash jets into that replica to see.

 

Eh my 2cents. Sorry if I put anyone down, your views are your views, that is just mine. Not meaning to offend anyone.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: I know you said I'd say that but it still had to be said.

Why? You provided no extra details than what I did, the argument was already laid out for others to see. The only reason I can see for you saying it is to prove that I was right about you using it as an argument. You should be careful about proving me right when your so determined to disagree with what I say... ;) Considering if you read my very first post you'll see that my own personal reservations have a LOT more todo with the pentagon than the tradecenter I really don't see why you seem so persistent to 'argue' when I've not laid out any direct contradictions to your opinion. I've only attempted to prove that it's not as clear cut (from an engineering standpoint) as everybody seems to think. It is the blanket denials and simplification of evidence that leads to the conspiracy theories emergining in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: I know you said I'd say that but it still had to be said.

Why? You provided no extra details than what I did, the argument was already laid out for others to see. The only reason I can see for you saying it is to prove that I was right about you using it as an argument. You should be careful about proving me right when your so determined to disagree with what I say... ;) Considering if you read my very first post you'll see that my own personal reservations have a LOT more todo with the pentagon than the tradecenter I really don't see why you seem so persistent to 'argue' when I've not laid out any direct contradictions to your opinion. I've only attempted to prove that it's not as clear cut (from an engineering standpoint) as everybody seems to think. It is the blanket denials and simplification of evidence that leads to the conspiracy theories emergining in the first place.

 

Yes - the facts were the same. I just summed it up in an easy ABC-like fashion. 50% loss of strength in steel + heavy impact of passenger jet into very large skyscraper = not hard to imagine why the WTC collapsed.

 

And pray tell - what are they reservations that you hold about the attack on the Pentagon?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't be bothered to list them out to you when you've blatantly pre-determined I'm 'talking shit'. If I had a signed affidavid from the president you'd still probably come up with some way to say it was bollocks. I'm really not interested.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really can't be bothered to list them out to you when you've blatantly pre-determined I'm 'talking shit'. If I had a signed affidavid from the president you'd still probably come up with some way to say it was bollocks. I'm really not interested.

 

The only theory that I pre-determined as being a load of horse shit is the theory that says the events of 9/11 were the result of an inside job. So unless your reservations about the Pentagon have something to do with that aforementioned theory, you shouldn't be worrying. Also, stating "Oh well even if the President said so, you wouldn't believe me", is a bullshit argument.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is more than a year old. Please don't revive it unless you have something important to add.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.