9/11 doco on ten last night

[Karnage]

ep sat there with my tin foil hat on and wondered why can't i sleep, im wasting valuable sleeping time watching some crap that is prolly from the same group of people who beleive the moon landing didn't happen. Just imagine the logistics of conducting that exercise, how many people can you actually keep quiet?

[Bossxr8]

Originally Posted by boss-290

What about the Pentagon? How did a Plane of that size make a hole that small? And why was there only 1 camera operating at the time, and the date being wrong saying the 12, Sept, 2001?

The U.S government just planned this stunt so they had a good reason to invade Iraq.

There was a show on a few months ago that documented the hours leading up to, and after the time the plane hit the Pentagon, and it explained all the reasons why those things happened. The fuselage was basically vapourised as the Pentagon is heavily fortified against attack. It was called 24 hours or something like that, on Ch 7.

[Group C]

'guym' beat me to the punch.

I thought EXACTLY the same while watching it....
'Where's all the people (254, I believe) that were on those planes that were 'supposedly' used on 9/11??
We all know that enough money can buy someone to 'disapear', so that something like this could be done, but buying off 254?? And keeping them quiet AND hidden for life??

From memory, WHOLE families were killed on those planes, so they'd be even harder to hide than just the odd single person or 250...

Also, I distintly remember that a major US TV network newsreader/reporter was on the 1st plane that hit the north tower. What I'm getting at is, how would you hide a person that is recognisable by, at a guess, 50% of the population??

: Stupid me, they've been doing it for years with Elvis and Harold Holt.
: :nutsycuck : :nutsycuck

[max^power]

at first i wasn't going to bother posting to this thread, but might as well...i didn't watch the video, nor do i want to. The moon landing was real. The terrorism was real, these conspiracy theorists should just get over it and put their minds on other projects. I've worked with one of these guys before - they are NUTS!

[Jeld-Wen Falcon]

You know what I find funny? People who say they wasted thier time watching this 'crap' and whatever. You could have very well just turned it off after you realise that it was 'crap'.

[Group C]

Originally Posted by Jeld-Wen Falcon

You know what I find funny? People who say they wasted thier time watching this 'crap' and whatever. You could have very well just turned it off after you realise that it was 'crap'.

In that case, I've just realised that I spent me childhood watching Bugs Bunny, The Muppets and the rest, but coz it wasn't real, I should of turned it off...
But it was good for a laugh!!

[CruizinEB]

Originally Posted by boss-290

What about the Pentagon? How did a Plane of that size make a hole that small? And why was there only 1 camera operating at the time, and the date being wrong saying the 12, Sept, 2001?

The U.S government just planned this stunt so they had a good reason to invade Iraq.

hear hear man, that is exactly what i said ;)

[M14A-Mclaren]

There is very 2 different views on this forum, I personally don't believe about the pentagon missile theory, because people saw the plane. But the theory about the Bush administration using 9/11 as an excuse to invade Eurasia, isn't so far fetched to me.

Zbigniew Brzezinski, who was Jimmy Carter's national security advisor and also worked with Reagan and Bush 1, wrote a book back in the 97 saying that the key for Americas control (energy, economy etc) of the world in the 21st century is control of Eurasia, which is exactly where America is fighting now.

There is historical evidence that Governments have been caught engaging in terrorist attacks on they're own population. William McKinley in the 1890's blew up they're own ship ion Havana Harbour in Cuba as a pretext for war with the Spanish, Hitler did it with his own Reichstag. A good example is the Northwoods document to quote part of it, "Casualty lists in US newspapers would cause a helpful wave in national indignation". They certainly got a wave of national indignation after Sep 11.

[Redrum]

As for the answer to how and why the buildings collapsed there was a doco a year or so ago about the design and engineering of the buildings. Because of the height of the buildings and the need to have elavators and not dominate floor space with elevators a new design was used where the floors and the side of the structure were heavily dependent on each other with bugger all pillars on the internals of the building. The plane hitting the buidling shook the fire retardent of the steel floor beams and the tempature of the fire warped these. One or so levels collapsed down. Gravity did the rest.

This hour of power freak must be related to Michael Moore.

[CruizinEB]

here is some mor info ;)

Originally Posted by Greg Szymanski

A former chief economist in the Labor Department during President Bush’s first term now believes the official story about the collapse of the WTC is “bogus,” saying it is likely that a controlled demolition destroyed the twin towers and adjacent building No. 7.

“If demolition destroyed three steel skyscrapers at the World Trade Center on 9-11, then the case for an ‘inside job’ and a government attack on America would be compelling,” said Morgan Reynolds, Ph.D., a former member of the Bush team who also served as director of the Criminal Justice Center at the National Center for Policy Analysis, headquartered in Dallas.

Reynolds, now a professor emeritus at Texas A&M University, also believes it’s “next to impossible” that 19 Arab terrorists alone outfoxed the mighty U.S. military, adding the scientific conclusions about the WTC collapse may hold the key to the entire mysterious plot behind 9-11.

“It is hard to exaggerate the importance of a scientific debate over the cause(s) of the collapse of the twin towers and Building 7,” said Reynolds from his offices at Texas A&M. “If the official wisdom on the collapses is wrong, as I believe it is, then policy based on such erroneous engineering analysis is not likely to be correct either. The government’s collapse theory is highly vulnerable on its own terms. Only professional demolition appears to account for the full range of facts associated with the collapse of the three buildings.

“More importantly, momentous political and social consequences would follow if impartial observers concluded that professionals imploded the WTC. Meanwhile, the job of scientists, engineers and impartial researchers everywhere is to get the scientific and engineering analysis of 9-11 right.”

However, Reynolds said “getting it right in today’s security state” remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9-11.

HASTILY REMOVED

From the beginning, the Bush administration claimed that burning jet fuel caused the collapse of the towers. Although many independent investigators have disagreed, they have been hard pressed to disprove the government theory since most of the evidence was hastily removed by the federal government prior to independent investigation. Critics claim the Bush administration has tried to cover up the evidence. The recent 9-11 commission has failed to address the major evidence contradicting the official version of 9-11.

Some facts demonstrating the flaws in the government jet fuel theory include:

• Photos showing people walking around in the hole in the North Tower where 10,000 gallons of jet fuel supposedly was burning.

• When the South Tower was hit, most of the North Tower’s flames had already vanished, burning for only 16 minutes, making it relatively easy to contain and control without a total collapse.

• The fire did not grow over time, probably because it quickly ran out of fuel and was suffocating, indicating without added explosive devices the fires could have been easily controlled.

• FDNY firefighters still remain under a tight government gag order to not discuss the explosions they heard, felt and saw. FAA personnel are also under a similar 9-11 gag order.

• Even the flawed 9-11 commission report acknowledges that “none of the [fire] chiefs present believed that a total collapse of either tower was possible.”

• Fire had never before caused steel-frame buildings to collapse, nor has fire collapsed any steel high rise since 9-11.

• The fires, especially in the South Tower and WTC-7, were relatively small.

• WTC-7 was unharmed by any airplane and had only minor fires on the seventh and 12th floors of this 47-story steel building, yet it collapsed in less than 10 seconds.

• WTC-5 and WTC-6 had raging fires but did not collapse despite much thinner steel beams.

• It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel to raise the temperature of steel close to melting.

NUMEROUS HOLES

Despite the numerous holes in the government story, the Bush administration has ignored all critics. Mainstream experts, speaking for the administration, offer a theory essentially arguing that an airplane impact weakened each structure and an intense fire thermally weakened structural components, causing buckling failures while allowing the upper floors to pancake onto the floors below.

Hard evidence is lacking due to FEMA’s quick removal of the structural steel before it could be analyzed. The criminal code requires that crime scene evidence be kept for forensic analysis, but FEMA had it destroyed or shipped overseas before a serious investigation could take place.

And even more doubt is cast over why FEMA acted so swiftly since coincidentally officials had arrived the day before the 9-11 attacks at New York’s Pier 29 to conduct a war game exercise, named “Tripod II.”

Besides FEMA’s quick removal of the debris, authorities considered the steel quite valuable as New York City officials had every debris truck tracked on GPS and even fired one truck driver who took an unauthorized lunch break.

“The government has failed to produce significant wreckage from any of the four alleged airliners that fateful day,” said Reynolds. “The familiar photo of the Flight 93 crash site in Pennsylvania shows no fuselage, engine or anything recognizable as a plane, just a smoking hole in the ground. Photographers reportedly were not allowed near the hole. Neither the FBI nor the National Transportation Safety Board have investigated or produced any report on the alleged airliner crashes.”

[Group C]

Originally Posted by Redrum

As for the answer to how and why the buildings collapsed there was a doco a year or so ago about the design and engineering of the buildings. Because of the height of the buildings and the need to have elavators and not dominate floor space with elevators a new design was used where the floors and the side of the structure were heavily dependent on each other with bugger all pillars on the internals of the building. The plane hitting the buidling shook the fire retardent of the steel floor beams and the tempature of the fire warped these. One or so levels collapsed down. Gravity did the rest.

This hour of power freak must be related to Michael Moore.

I saw this doco too.
I remember them saying that the towers were designed to take a hit from the biggest plane built at the time, that being a Boeing 707.
1st prob. was that the 737 and 767 (from memory) that hit are BIGGER than a 707.
2nd prob. was that the the fire retardant stuff was designed for a building fire that would gradually work it's way up the building. It wasn't designed for a blast of heat, and although the buildings were designed to cop a plane hit, nobody thought about the plane's fuel load that would explode. They only concentrated on the size, weight and speed of the plane... :
And as Redrum said, it was the heat that did the rest.

[Psycho Chicken]

Cruizin do you even read that tripe? Of course, it was a controlled demolition :rolleyes: The thousands of workers and visitors at the WTC failed to notice engineers coming in, drilling holes in the walls and planting explosives.

Photos of people walking around in the hole? Where, never seen em. First tower wasn't burning when the second plane (missle, UFO, whatever) hit? Where there's smoke there's fire.

Seriously. Turn the Rage Against the Machine off and open a book on grammar.

[CruizinEB]

no i wont, every one has there right to an opinion

[Aaron_EF8]

no i wont, every one has there right to an opinion

But you are trying to push your opinion onto us as fact. There is a BIG difference. Parts of that extract are mis-leading anyway.

However, Reynolds said “getting it right in today’s security state” remains challenging because he claims explosives and structural experts have been intimidated in their analyses of the collapses of 9-11.

He must have forgotten that 9/11 was over 4 years ago, the WHOLE reason we see and hear about increased security nowdays is because of 9/11.

And as for the 'small hole' theory about the Pentagon.....

http://www.oilempire.us/graphics/damage_comp.jpg

Now I don't know about anyone else, but that looks like a pretty damn big hole to me.

[Armageddon Designs]

I didn't see all of it, just a bit on the Pentagon. There was a video floating around on the email system at work all about the pentagon attack, saying that it was a conspiracy, that a 757 would have made more damage and been more visable to the public before the crash. How can it puncture through the three protective rings, about 9feet of reinforced concrete in one hit, if any of you have cable you will probably see the add for the History channel where they crashed an F4 Phantom into a solid concrete wall, only 6feet thick, there was nothing left of the Phantom, and I mean nothing, the wall barely had a mark on it! Also all of the video survalence footage from surrounding businesses was removed from them by the FBI. All the camers in question had a clear veiw of the suposed flight path and there was no plane. This started me going on it awhile ago, no doubt about the WTC but the Pentagon still puzzles me.

Most of the Photo's in that link are after the building colapsed.

A 757 CRASHES INTO A BUILDING THROUGH A HOLE ONLY 17 FEET WIDE AND LEAVES NO DEBRIS OUT SIDE!

[Falcon Freak]

What happened on the 9th of November? I must have missed it.

FF

[Armageddon Designs]

Originally Posted by Falcon Freak

What happened on the 9th of November? I must have missed it.

FF

Are you being funny? Remeber the Yanks are backwards!

[Falcon Freak]

Originally Posted by Armageddon

Are you being funny? Remeber the Yanks are backwards!

Yes it was a joke. We all know the yanks use MM-DD-YY whereas the majority of the world uses DD-MM-YY.

FF

[Armageddon Designs]

Sorry just wanted to check.

[Walkinshaw]

Aluminium vs Concrete.....not hard to see who wins

[Mesa]

Originally Posted by Armageddon

I didn't see all of it, just a bit on the Pentagon. There was a video floating around on the email system at work all about the pentagon attack, saying that it was a conspiracy, that a 757 would have made more damage and been more visable to the public before the crash. How can it puncture through the three protective rings, about 9feet of reinforced concrete in one hit, if any of you have cable you will probably see the add for the History channel where they crashed an F4 Phantom into a solid concrete wall, only 6feet thick, there was nothing left of the Phantom, and I mean nothing, the wall barely had a mark on it! Also all of the video survalence footage from surrounding businesses was removed from them by the FBI. All the camers in question had a clear veiw of the suposed flight path and there was no plane. This started me going on it awhile ago, no doubt about the WTC but the Pentagon still puzzles me.

Most of the Photo's in that link are after the building colapsed.

A 757 CRASHES INTO A BUILDING THROUGH A HOLE ONLY 17 FEET WIDE AND LEAVES NO DEBRIS OUT SIDE!

I thought of the same thing. I believe the same thing happened to the last aircraft that was brought down before it reached it's target.
As for the flash as it hit the tower, there are a few things in front of the fuse such as oxygen bottles, APU units etc that may have been responsible for that flash.

[HOON69]

Originally Posted by Thunder

Everone has missed the most obvious conspiracy theory.

Donald Trump wanted to demolish and re-built New York. So he hired Chuck Norris for project 9/11. I also believe the late Charles Bronson also helped.

I KNEW IT :

[M14A-Mclaren]

Oh come on, that missile theory is really stupid. That section of the pentagon was recently strengthened. Read this site http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html. There was engines and landing gear found at the site, the holes not too small and the fact you don't see any pictures of debris outside is explained on that site.

[the_scotsman]

This sounds like a video I downlaoded off the net a while ago...I'm a sucker for all the conspiracy theories...Ive seen them all...Im in the middle...The Pentagon just seems a bit suss...why remove all the video tapes from cameras of nearby businesses straight after it happened? The WTC does seem a bit far fetched...but it just doesnt all peice together as it should.

PaxtonAndrew, I don't believe man has landed on the moon, I reckon it was a hoax...I've had many an argument at work! :|

[blueoval]

Can anyone explain the unidentified addition to the underside of the plane that hit the second tower?

I too am sceptical. Mainly because I dont really trust governments in general. I beleive there is money to be made in war, and if the pollies have their thumb in the armaments pie then, it doesnt suprise me that something like this happens. What do all men want? 'More money, and more power'.

just my 2c, not wanting to start a flame war! :P

[brodfloyd]

Originally Posted by CruizinEB

no i wont, every one has there right to an opinion

gotta love this, a man who actually likes an eb falcon to drive in the year 2006 is an expert on explosives, physics, the workings of supposedly corrupt governments and international terrorism.

oh and also

see me in 20 years, when the yanks go back to the moon and have a look at the flag and all the ИИИИ they left up there last time. THen tell me its fake. nobs

[5speedeb]

whats wrong with driving eb's in 2006

[M14A-Mclaren]

Originally Posted by blueoval

Can anyone explain the unidentified addition to the underside of the plane that hit the second tower?

I too am sceptical. Mainly because I dont really trust governments in general. I beleive there is money to be made in war, and if the pollies have their thumb in the armaments pie then, it doesnt suprise me that something like this happens. What do all men want? 'More money, and more power'.

just my 2c, not wanting to start a flame war! :P

I too am skeptical and don't trust goverments, mainly the American and especially the Bush administration, but why would they launch a missle into the pentagon? its not like there isnt people around to see it, I think they would have thought about the fact that if they aimed a missle at the pentagon, people would have seen it.

[pandaman]

Originally Posted by CruizinEB

no i wont, every one has there right to an opinion

Absolutely right. In response to that information you posted up though, I will make a couple of quick rebuttals. The whole thing about how the fire should not have collapsed the buildings, this is true. BUT the combination of a bloody big aircraft smacking into it and then catching fire was enough. As was stated earlier, the impact damaged the fire retardant materials, the fire then damaged the structure, there was a loss of structural integrity around the levels where the impact occurred and the following chain reaction collapsed the whole building. It's plausible, it really is, to my mind much more plausible than the idea of some elaborate government sponsored demolition that killed hundreds of people and did some fairly serious damage to their economy.

WTC-7 collapsed even though it only suffered minor damage, also stated earlier. WTC-7 shared a basement with one of the large ones 1 or 2 I cant remember, anyway, take away the basement and the rest of the building will likely follow, you dig? Also plausible.

Originally Posted by CruizinEB

"It’s difficult if not impossible for hydrocarbon fires like those fed by jet fuel to raise the temperature of steel close to melting."

Now this I've gotta take issue with, what are you burning when you use an oxy to weld/cut steel? thats right ethyne, a HYDROGODDAMNCARBON. Ok while jet fuel wont burn as hot as an oxy acetylene mix, i guarantee it will still make steel girders hot enough to be significantly weakened, and if you have a few thousand tonnes being supported by these now weakened girders once again you might think that a collapse is perhaps plausible? They reckon the fire "only" burned for sixteen minutes huh? Well, anyone who thinks that sixteen minutes of intense fire wont seriously damage a building has obviously been breathing the fumes from such a fire.


This whole conspiracy theory thing in this case seems to stem from a belief that it couldnt happen like that, that nothing so simple and crude could fell their high tech penis extension of a building. Well guess what it did and it aint the first time, such a thing has happened before. Most notable example I can think of is a little boat that "couldn't be sunk", where is it now? about thirteen thousand feet below the surface of the atlantic if memory serves.

That said, yeah sure you're entitled to your opinion, if you've got your own theories on this then go ahead and post 'em up man.

[Rodp]

Didn't see the doco, there's no doubt in my mind that 4 planes were Hijacked and 3 reached their intended targets.

I just finished watching 'Modern Marvels - Inviting Disaster' and the 2nd half of the show concentrated on the twin towers. Several engineers including one of the original engineers involved in designing the building clearly stated that the buildings weren't designed to take a head-on impact from a large fully fuel laden aircraft. I downloaded it from Channel BT quite awhile ago, unsure if it's still available.

When the planes impacted, the building went into structural failsafe mode which allowed them to keep standing. The heat generated from the fire internally started to weaken these structural failsafes (apparently made from aluminium) causing them to progressively fail causing the building to eventually collapse on itself.

Apparently the 2nd impact almost caused the building to topple and was teetering for a good 10 seconds. Had either building toppled over, the damage and the casualty rate would have been far far worse.