9/11 Conspiracy Theory - Very interesting stuff

[Lennon]

Plus they all come across as being a bit mental.

I tend to agree.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

There's nothing in my nature that goes hunting for the conspiracy theory, and I'm usually the first to pour scorn on the nerdy cranks who spend hours working on these things. However, at the very least, there are several factoids in the official version of the 9/11 events that don't seem to stand up to even the gentlest of analysis, even if the explanation for that isn't a sinister one.

[communistworkethic]

There's nothing in my nature that goes hunting for the conspiracy theory, and I'm usually the first to pour scorn on the nerdy cranks who spend hours working on these things. However, at the very least, there are several factoids in the official version of the 9/11 events that don't seem to stand up to even the gentlest of analysis, even if the explanation for that isn't a sinister one.

just as there are with the apollo moon landings, roswell, kennedy etc etc Sometimes fact is stranger than fiction but it is these elements that the conspircay thereoists latch on to.

Try reading anything by Graham Hancock, makes a some great theories but they are all as mental as the next. Every book clearly written with the conclusion first and the evidence then sought to prove it.

The bible code is another. Ooh there are hidden codes if you select certain variations of letters. Well first, which version of the bible are you saying is the right one? Where have you got these combinations of letters you are using from? Have you found a note from St Matthew? Or have you let a computer come up with in the same way it would with any book?

[Lennon]

There's nothing in my nature that goes hunting for the conspiracy theory, and I'm usually the first to pour scorn on the nerdy cranks who spend hours working on these things. However, at the very least, there are several factoids in the official version of the 9/11 events that don't seem to stand up to even the gentlest of analysis, even if the explanation for that isn't a sinister one.

A simple google search finds countless articles which convincingly debunk the previously convincing conspiracy theories.

It's a debate that will go on forever though.

[keveh]

Just finished watching that video, it was awesome.

The thing that struck me the most were the little explosions all the way down the WTC.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

Just finished watching that video, it was awesome.

The thing that struck me the most were the little explosions all the way down the WTC.

I know. There is no 'simple google search' that can demonstrate that those THREE towers fell purely because of the two planes alone.

[keveh]

The whole "towers collpasing" section of that film was great, especially the other building that fell down out of nowhere.

Buildings that big have never fallen down from fires, yet 3 do in the same day.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The whole "towers collpasing" section of that film was great, especially the other building that fell down out of nowhere.

Buildings that big have never fallen down from fires, yet 3 do in the same day.

Obviously two big planes hit the Twin Towers, but the fact that Building 7 on the complex came down in the same way and so soon is just beyond a joke.

[communistworkethic]

The whole "towers collpasing" section of that film was great, especially the other building that fell down out of nowhere.

Buildings that big have never fallen down from fires, yet 3 do in the same day.

Buildings that big generally haven't had fuel laden jets flown in to them.

3 built to to the same design in the same complex.

as was pointed out the building were built as an exoskeleton, collapsing one floor on to the next would have the same effect as the martial arts breaking blocks, you crack the first couple and there's a ripple effect taking the lower ones out with less effort.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The whole "towers collpasing" section of that film was great, especially the other building that fell down out of nowhere.

Buildings that big have never fallen down from fires, yet 3 do in the same day.

Buildings that big generally haven't had fuel laden jets flown in to them.

3 built to to the same design in the same complex.

as was pointed out the building were built as an exoskeleton, collapsing one floor on to the next would have the same effect as the martial arts breaking blocks, you crack the first couple and there's a ripple effect taking the lower ones out with less effort.

Commie - I felt exactly the same way you do when I first heard about all of this. Just take the time to watch the second edition of Loose Change, even if it is just to give you something more concrete to refute. Those buildings fell almost at freefall and I don't think the 'ripple' or 'pancake collapse' theory can explain it. And.... no fecking plane hit the third building!

[keveh]

Buildings that big generally haven't had fuel laden jets flown in to them.

In that video it showed examples of other buildings that had fires.

These buildings weren't exactly small buildings, and the fires inside them weren't exactly small either. Some of them lasted for 24 hours plus, and spread over 10 floors, yet the buildings still stayed stood up.

In the video it also talks about the steel the building was made of, and how it wouldn't melt and collapse (which is the reason that was given) from the heat of jet fuel burning.

You should watch the video when you get time, it points out some pretty interesting stuff.

I'm not saying it's concrete, but it is eyebrow raising at the least.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

The melting point, in both senses of the word, isn't really that conclusive. It's clear that the steel could become soft, or expand, or something, under conditions that are significantly less intense than would be required for it to actually melt. But why was building 7 so special? None of the other buildings fell down because of falling debris, and 7 wasn't even the closest.

[Lennon]

In that video it showed examples of other buildings that had fires.

These buildings weren't exactly small buildings, and the fires inside them weren't exactly small either. Some of them lasted for 24 hours plus, and spread over 10 floors, yet the buildings still stayed stood up.

In the video it also talks about the steel the building was made of, and how it wouldn't melt and collapse (which is the reason that was given) from the heat of jet fuel burning.

You should watch the video when you get time, it points out some pretty interesting stuff.

I doubt the fires alone would have caused the buildings to collapse, but I imagine a 300 tonne aluminium bullet ramming into a building at 500 mph, would do some pretty drastic damage to the structure.

[communistworkethic]

Buildings that big generally haven't had fuel laden jets flown in to them.

In that video it showed examples of other buildings that had fires.

These buildings weren't exactly small buildings, and the fires inside them weren't exactly small either. Some of them lasted for 24 hours plus, and spread over 10 floors, yet the buildings still stayed stood up.

In the video it also talks about the steel the building was made of, and how it wouldn't melt and collapse (which is the reason that was given) from the heat of jet fuel burning.

You should watch the video when you get time, it points out some pretty interesting stuff.

I'm not saying it's concrete, but it is eyebrow raising at the least.

and did these buildings have the support beneath 20 + stories ripped out from under them when the were hit by the equivalent of a huge petrol filled bomb??

[keveh]

I'm not going to bother going back and forth like this, you obviously haven't watched the video so there's no point talking about it.

[Lennon]

This is pretty thorough:

http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm

Found using a 'simple google search'. I'm not saying it's conclusive, but it's got just as much integrity as any conspiracy site I've seen.

P.S I've watched the videos and I agree; they are very convincing.

Also, for someone who claims to not care either way, I've got more involved than I hoped I would.

[mummywhycantieatcrayons]

and did these buildings have the support beneath 20 + stories ripped out from under them when the were hit by the equivalent of a huge petrol filled bomb??

I doubt the fires alone would have caused the buildings to collapse, but I imagine a 300 tonne aluminium bullet ramming into a building at 500 mph, would do some pretty drastic damage to the structure.

Fine, but what about the building that wasn't even hit by a plane?

[communistworkethic]

I'm not going to bother going back and forth like this, you obviously haven't watched the video so there's no point talking about it.

I've watched plenty and read plenty. What I always find so interesting in these case is the ability of people to latch on to the theories put across by people so very selective in the science they use to support their views.

Fire alone has never caused a high rise building to collapse. - well not if you decide it didn't in this instance. If a building had collapsed 20 years ago while on fire, would the fire have been immeidately ruled out because it hadn't happened before? Have steel-framed buildings that have been on fire collapsed? If fire was ruled out in evry event, was that the correct conclusion? If it has never happened before could it never happen in the future? The application of logical questioning goes out of the window when presented with conspiracy theories.

But then who has said fire is solely reponsible? That 300 seater aircraft had a role to play too. Watch a building collapse under demolition, the charges go off in different places depending on the building construction - they do not necessarily go off on all floors and yet you will see what look like explosions on floors where no detonations take place - as a concrete column gives way it explodes, firing dust and fragments outwards.

In fact without flying a plane in to a building with exactly the same circumstances nobody knows how the building would react exactly, it's their best guess.

And then there's the who and why? The US government looking for an excuse for a war killed 4,000 of it's own citizens? Presumably they got Bin Laden to admit to it by paying him off and haven't caught him because they aren't really trying? If they wanted an excuse they didn't need to stage a 3 part terrorist attack and they certainly didn't need to have the WTC collapse totally.

[Lennon]

Fine, but what about the building that wasn't even hit by a plane?

There's a section on that in the link I posted.

I don't know though. I'm not a structural engineer.

[Montreal Wanderer]

My own view, for what it is worth, is that these conspiracy theories are rubbish that play on the gullible. Popular Mechanics was convincing enough for me as a debunk. I'm just glad they finally got that thug Abu Musab al-Zarqawi .