I've just convinced myself to that 9/11 is a conspiracy

[Bronx Warlord]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!! THREE FLOORS OF BOTH BUILDINGS CAVED IN INSTANTANEOUSLY AND ALLOWED THE FLOORS ABOVE IT TO BEGIN FALLING DOWNWARD WITH GRAVITY!!!!! WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION PRIVATE!!! YOU PRESENT CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE OLD PEOPLE F__K!!!!

When Devil Dogs attack! Get Some!

 

[LesCanadiens]

There's accounts of fire fighters and police who were closest after the impacts also hear one or several sounds resembling explosions or earthquakes and after that the buildings collapse.

That isn't proof of a bomb or anything. Of course people heard all sorts of horrible noises on that day, and I don't see you make any effort to actually prove what they heard was a bomb. You just screech "OMG SOMEONE HEARD A BANG IT MUST HAVE BEEN A BOMB!!!"

There are so many things in so many situations that can produce noises resembling an explosion, especially since the average joe has no idea what a bomb going off sounds like. Could have been steam or water under pressure escaping from a broken main, could have been the elevators hitting the ground after the cables were severed. Or the more likely explanation was that those noises came from transformers burning. Skyscrapers contain large and numerous electrical transformers, and when these burn they produce a series of loud and distinct bangs, which to the uninitiated observer sounds a lot like a bomb.

Bottom line, I'd like to see you prove that those noises were bombs going off.

What is interesting is that the top floors don't actually collapse before the lower part starts collapsing. As seen in this video:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=kv4s3fn8jDc the top floors are holding up as the lower ones start exploding which means that the top ones actually never even reached and pounced the ones below the impact as is illustrated in most computer simulations (floor upon floor falling on each other).

In clear language: The top floors that are supposed to cause the chain reaction that makes the lower floors collapse aswell never catch up with the lower floors falling.

And they do, but the collapse is going to occur at the point of failure, which is where the planes hit. The top floors were not under any significant strain, since they aren't bearing any load, since there's nothing above them!

It's good to add that security protocol/system was changed just days prior to the terrorist atacks aswell: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/peter_tatchell/2007/09/911_the_big_coverup.html

No, it wasn't. For a few weeks prior to the attacks, they had been receiving an unusual number of bomb threats by phone, the kind that local high schools get all the time. So they added extra security, but by the time the attacks came, the phone threats had tapered off until they were at normal levels and the extra security was removed. Note that I said extra security, as in the security was not weakened, just returned to normal levels.

@ Eran. I agree, if anything it collapsed. But some here say it imploded. I'd like them to explain that
Ofcourse I also disagree to that it collapsed due to the jetfuel. Anyway this just shows that even the people who support the "official theory" don't really know what to think as we who don't belive in the "official theory". It's a mess of belifes, opinions and "facts".

Yes, 9/11 deniers have their own special set of beliefs, opinions, and "facts," none of which have any bearing on reality.

 

[gallego]

Skyscrapers weigh way more than planes. If I ran a stick into a rock, the stick would break and the rock would stay the same. It's very simple.

I'm guessing that's a joke.

I think people should be focusing more on the government's failure to take more action to prevent the attacks knowing what the terrorists were planning ahead of time instead of things like this. The memo clearly stated "terrorists will use airplanes" and security should have been jacked up. Hell, I still think airport security is way too loose. They don't check things well at all and I know people who have gotten through with swiss army knives and things like that accidentally having left them in bags and stuff. Let's focus on real policy.

 

[DNK]

After reviewing the video you posted, I have formed the same conclusions: it's apparent that the building collapsed.

Nobody's saying that the top floors themselves implode, that doesn't make sense. They're saying that they collapse into the damaged floor. This is what the video shows.

 

[nonconformist]

According to Dr. Heigelspeigel, the projectile that hit the Twin towers was likely similar to this:

Spoiler graphic picture :

 

[West 36]

It was no inside job. The planes hit the buildings after being hijacked by terrorists. Maybe something else was going on in the buildings, however if some kind of explosives were used, it would still have been terrorists anyway. This was not some master plan by Bush or the like. If you all think he's so stupid, how would he organize something like this?

 

[Bamspeedy]

Thats the thing tho. The upper part never collapsed and never accelerated and produced force. It was actually about to tilt when the explosions started/it started tilting when the explosions started (hard to see exacly). 2.40

The part of the building where the impact was is where it first collapsed. As it collapsed, the top part came crashing down (because there was nothing holding it up anymore!)

The 'tilt' you were starting to see was the final support columns giving away, and once they were gone, the entire floor that gives way starts falling, and because of the size and weight, there wasn't much choice but to come straight down.

You want to see what implosions look like?

http://www.auslandsjahr.eu/2007/04/26/top-10-hochhaussprengungen/

They only vaguely resemble the WTC collapse visually to someone who knows nothing about building implosions (except some of the implosions have too many flashes), but doesn't resemble the WTC in any way when you compare the sounds (explosions are totally absent in the WTC). The comparison is really profound if you look at #3.

The real implosions look more like free-fall speeds, because the bottom was indeed taken out from under them. Now look at the WTC and what you see happening on the ~80th floor area is what happens at ground level on the real implosions, meaning at the WTC the 80th floor or whatever was what was kicked out from underneath the rest of it.

Also at the WTC you can see other debris falling faster than the rest of the building, meaning the main part of the building was not falling at free fall speeds.

(How does the building implode in almost free fall speed just because a small area of it is damaged/weakened or even destroyed/melted/ruined completely).

Do you have any idea how buildings collapse by themselves from structural failure? Skyscrapers are not designed to fall over like a tree!

This building wasn't designed like other, shorter buildings, where you can hit a corner and only the corner would collapse. The main support columns were in the middle. If those fail, it won't tip over onto one side, it will collapse straight downward.

 

[nonconformist]

Conspiracy?

Spoiler :

 

[Ondskan]

Sorry I just had to check back on this and reply.

So you're saying it wasn't an implosion?
Great then we agree.

So you're saying it wasn't at freefall speed?
Great then we agree.

So you're saying the building in case of a structural collapapse shouldn't tilt over?
Great, then we agree!



Cheers.

 

[JerichoHill]

I like Jericho was in NYC that day. I saw the aftermath of the first plane hitting and then I saw with my own eyes the second plane hit. I watched the buildings come down.

I too will remove myself from this thread before I get banned.

Bronx,

I was in DC that day. I saw the Pentagon hit

 

[Verge]

OP, there are copious amounts of technical information explaining how the towers collapsed. I recommend you read the linked Popular Mechanics article, it's very good. Of course, if you're not planning on doing so, then there isn't much point to this thread.

 

[JollyRoger]

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT!!!! THREE FLOORS OF BOTH BUILDINGS CAVED IN INSTANTANEOUSLY AND ALLOWED THE FLOORS ABOVE IT TO BEGIN FALLING DOWNWARD WITH GRAVITY!!!!! WHAT IS YOUR MAJOR MALFUNCTION PRIVATE!!! YOU PRESENT CONSPIRACY THEORIES LIKE OLD PEOPLE F__K!!!!

Isn't gravity just a theory?

 

[BasketCase]

Fine. So the government's story is full of holes?

 

[Ondskan]

To easy.

 

[Riffraff]

If you want a conspiracy around 9/11 - at least go with the one of the US government knowing but allowing Al Qaida to attack the WTC.

 

[LesCanadiens]

Also, the poll is a huge strawman. Nobody claims that the fires melted the steel, just that they weakened it to the point where it could no longer support the weight.

 

[Elrohir]

Incidentally, your poll sucks. The fire didn't melt the steel, it just weakened it so that it could collapse. I'm not voting.

Begin by reading the article I gave you and search about it on wikipedia (9/11).
There you will find the names of several highly awarded scientists who belive what I belive.


After that you can research on your own. it's better that way than me telling you what to look for and who to read, I've done that a little to much already.

There's no article in the OP. I haven't seen any other articles posted by you in this thread, either, maybe I missed it.

You made an assertion, now you back it up. I'm not going to go searching for evidence that your ideas are true when I think they're baloney, and have been proven to be baloney many times. If you're going to insist that there's evidence when everyone thinks you're wrong, then you need to provide the evidence yourself.

If you can't provide it, at least man up and admit that you can't.

Edit: About the explosives, I don't know. The change of security protocol and the in many peoples opinion lowered security might have contributed. It's just as peculiar as to how the hijackers got on the planes in the first place when they were suspected by the FBI and when the gov. was warned by among others France that a terrorist atack was about to happen.


Gonna eat now. Cu's

The largest building that I can find that was ever demolished by explosives was the JL Hudson Department Store. It was 2.2 million square feet. It took a 12 person crew 24 days to place "4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on columns on nine levels of the complex. Over 36,000 ft of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay elements were installed in CDI’s implosion initiation system". They had to cart in and place "2,728 lb of explosives". Oh yes - and it took them 7 months to investigate it and decide where to set everything up at. The 24 days was just setting up the actual explosives.

The World Trade Center was over 8 million square feet. Four times the largest controlled demolition in history. That building took weeks to set up, with over a ton of explosives and tens of thousands of feet of detonating cord.

And you're telling me that they rigged a building four times as large with all these explosives (Maybe 8000 lbs worth? If that same proportion holds true) over a period of weeks or months, and no one noticed? Not one person noticed and called it in? Not one of those bomb sniffing dogs that periodically swept the building smelled anything at all?

Look: When you have no motive, no evidence, no experts supporting your idea, and your "hypothesis" is virtually impossible on the face of it, you need to admit the truth: your "theory" is crap, through and through.

 

[Ondskan]

Ya that's what it's meant to be. If you want send a Pm to an administrator. I'm not sure who they are.
Sorry for missing a little detail that I couldn't change and that most understand was a mistake. None of us is flawless.


It's not my theory. It's a theory made by experts. Why do I keep repeating myself when you don't listen anyway? Read the articles. If you *won't* read the articles then stop saying I'm wrong before you've read the people who's theory I have addapted to my own.

Enough with this slander.

 

[Merkinball]

None of us is flawless.

ten char

 

[Elrohir]

It's not my theory. It's a theory made by experts. Why do I keep repeating myself when you don't listen anyway? Read the articles. If you *won't* read the articles then stop saying I'm wrong before you've read the people who's theory I have addapted to my own.

WHAT EXPERTS?

Post your precious article. Or link to the post where you posted it. I'm getting tired of your dodging. Post it, or admit that you're full of it.

Or, as is more likely, pretend that I'm not willing to listen to what you have to say, and continue living in your own little world. Whatever.

Enough with this slander.

Is it slander to say that ******** ideas are ********? That theories that you'd have to be beyond credulous to believe are dumb?

Can you slander an idea, anyway? I'm attacking wrong ideas, not people.