9/11 explained in simple terms

[ianrobbo1]

9/11 explained in simple terms


BANG!!! and later, another BANG!!! the results being "not nice" :dunno:




.


simple enough?? :dunno:

 

[Duck n Dive]

when caesar and jesus were killed no first hand information at all made it to the outside world! mostly hearsay and conjecture.

Hmmmm................... so just how did you manage to arrive at that gem of deductive reasoning then??

One of the crucial elements of analysis is the ability to identify factual information from "information and data" and to then produce reasonable conclusions.

It also requires the ability to recognise that "statements" are not "facts".

I could mathematically prove a causal relationship between the price of petrol in Scandanvia and the incdents of baldness in Peru (or any other totaly unrelated set of figues) ........ if you're prepared to simply use factual data in order to prove one's point without actually doing the work of establishing a factual and measurable correlational relationship then it's easy.

I've actually undertaken a number of investigations into various incidents, some alongside the HSE and AAIB.

My experience is that the facts can actually be very, very hard to actually establish and prove.


Anyway ........ do have fun

 

[AV8TOR]

I personally thought it belonged to the guy who bought the biggest conspiracy theory of all! I take it you have chosen to accept what the media and the government told you and that you haven't watched the linked videos, heard of thermite, what it looks like when used and noticed that there were thermite showers on the building, and the fact the NO steel-frame building EVER fell before 9/11 and that 3 of them fell at 9/11, or questioned why the buildings went down at freefall speed, or why you could distinctly see explosions BELOW collapse level, or wondered why building 7 went down in an equally vertical control-demolition-type fashion when all surrounding buildings got damaged but stayed standing, and wondered what was in building 7?
And I'm the one wearing the tinfoil hat?

I have some magic beans for sale you could plant them a prove that Giants are real

Even Linda Lovelace wouldn't swallow that that M8

 

[shropslad]

well

I have watched every vid FUK,, & I still think it was the planes that made the buildings collapse,, do you know how much energy was released when a fully fueled plane when into the towers at about 400mph (not 200mph),,, it would have nearly cut cut the building in half.
The so called explosions you see which happen below the collapsing tower are nothing more than pressure being released by the falling debris ( big movements of air)
It would have taken months to rig the buildings with explosives on every floor,to bring them down,, I am sure somebody would have noticed g0551p.
Looking at how the buildings were built,,it is possible that the heat produced by the fuel fires weakened the main centre steel & the weight of the building did the rest.
No conspiracy IMHO. :-:

 

[marcella]

Hmmmm................... so just how did you manage arrive at that gem of deductive reasoning then??

WWwweelll! can you tell me with any great accuracy what is happening at this very moment in time to slavco the carpenter in sarajevo? NO! well i could guess using deductive reasoning and say he's a reet busy fooker at the mo! what with all the bombs and shit that destroyed his works van, rabbit hutch and local kebab shop. likewise for antonio the wealthy nipple ring merchant from rome, i surmise in this decadent time he's running out of pins with which to impale the breasts of the rich and famous! but even though i have access to the web, searching for these characters would take some time, if ever. i might hear stories of slavcos demise on a badly serviced pair of rollerboots from immigrant sarayavian hairdressers? only to find out from local records that he choked on a pomegranite! local records in jesus time by the way were considerably more sketchy than slavcos.
suffice to say, most of what i read may well be conjecture, but it will pertain to todays news. like frechie said, i am prepared to sift through the mire that is the media and make my own mind up.
should we reach different conclusions, i hope your thesis is as hard earned.bl4hbl4h

 

[R2B2]

Well, in all fairness, to give any new evidence a chance, I watched all these vids and it is exactly how I thought.... virtually nothing new at all!! Most of it, if not all, was the same old nonsense that featured in the first round of video's from a while back. Surely it must be difficult to disagree that they are different attempts at reconfirming the same old theories using the same old video material but with different snips from the editing room floor, - even the narrator was the same bloke!

They even used the same clip of the firemen describing the falling floors saying it was like bombs going off, boom-boom-boom he says a little hysterically. Fer chrissakes, that is how many people describe loud noises but it doesn't mean it WAS bombs going off!! There's nothing evidential whatsoever about that. How many people have used the expression "it sounded like a bomb going off..."? Most of us have at some point, I know I have and I have never heard a bomb go off, but I have still said it. The firemen clip is the use of simple selective video editing to enhance the (just previously made) suggestion that explosives were used. This tactic of marrying seemingly "credible" witness statements to conveniently posed suggestions is a common ploy in these type of conspiracy videos, along with the rousing soundtracks and repeated keywords etc, etc. It's easy enough to do - find a clip of someone saying something that can be misconstrued when accompanied with a manufactured suggestion and voila! Sorry, but this is just not convincing evidence!! All this is standard stuff that can be found in any sales training manual, and is aimed directly at the gullible.

A good example of this is the smoke and dust being ejected out of the windows as the stack comes down.... they're simply not demolition explosions as they are not violent enough for that and anyway - they are far too random for demolition charges. If you tried to bring a building down with charges that were placed as sparse as that it wouldn't go very far that's for sure! Apart from the conspiracy faithful most people accept the more feasible explanation that the boom-boom-boom is the sound of the floors landing on top of each other.

As for using demolition charges - I can't believe how they showed sample demolitions of other buildings being brought down from the bottom and then compared them to the towers that were very obviously coming down from the crash zone - 100 odd storeys up. Oooops!! Enough said.

Oh, and the flight 93 still pictures beggars belief!! Are they serious or what? Show pictures only of light scattered debris and then spookily suggest "where's the boeing?" Aw c'mon!!! Even a seven year old is gonna shout "it's behind you!!!" I might just as well show you a picture of the next street from ours and ask what's happened to my house.

Sorry, but there's simply nothing remotely convincing about these videos and I can't believe that people are still getting taken in by this rubbish. You don't have to be at all clever to make up a conspiracy and supporting video of just about any subject using information from the public domain. It's simple.

All this time and nobody has been able to expose what they suggest has been the biggest act of sabotage the world has ever witnessed, involving thousands of people. Instead of explaining how they brought the towers down with explosives that nobody saw them rig and wire, can someone please explain how they've kept this story from yeilding any real evidence??

Btw - Zarqawi (sp) admitted it just for publicity purposes?

Michael Moore has refused ALL requests for interviews about farenheit 911 (and his other "exposes" - yes he's a serial conspiracist) from Journo's from all over the world. He is also very wealthy. Why is that?

 

[Gforceuk]

michael moore is an arse... full stop .

best thing about him is when he was blown up in team america... he he.

And as for the conspiracy theory vids..... why let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy...

all bollocks.

But the naive will always beleive them.

 

[frenchuk]

And that's a bikers' forum... Rather worrying considering so many here are blind! And shit riders - but that another story!

Now seriously, since there are so many experts and engineers here, can you stop simply telling me I'm mad and explain instead to a mad man like me the following points of simple physics:

1/ the impossibilty of a building supposedly collapsing through melting to reach free-fall speed despite landing on each floor? (And that's true for not one, but three buildings, the last one being number seven which didn't withstand a plane entering but still collapsed in a perfect controlled demolition-style fashion at freefall speed?

2/ the impossibilty for a building to naturally neatly collapse onto itself (due to gravity calling at the weakest point) ?

3/ how a chunk of building having started to fall on the side can suddently disintegrate in mid air?

It's so easy to say that people are stupid because they're questioning what they are said. Operation Northwood was something so atrocious and evil that it was simply unbilievable - until CIA files were made public.

 

[Gforceuk]

ah thats it , you dont find anyone guilable enough to beleive this shit so you slag all and sundry off.


here's just one page from a documentary/book.... note the bit i've highlighted.

This is my take, as a former high school Industrial Education teacher with experience in industry, on (the) collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11. The cause of the collapse was obvious to me from the beginning. When all the theories began floating around, it was obvious the conspiracy theorists lack a "mechanical" knowledge. Richard Becker

WTC TOWERS COLLAPSING



1. Whether seen on videotape or in person, implosion of buildings begin with a series of blasts with billowing smoke, orange fire, and a cloud of dust and debris, followed by the sound of the explosions, at the base of the structure as it begins crumbling from the "bottom up" as it settles into a pile of rubble in its own "footprint". Though viewed from a safe distance of up to a half mile away, the concussive wave sound of the explosion can be felt and heard. The principle of an "implosion" is to knock out the building supports so it crumbles into a pile with little or no damage to nearby surrounding structures, as opposed to an "explosion" that scatters debris for a long distance.

2. As seen and heard on many videotapes made by onlookers from a few blocks away from the WTC towers, both structures suddenly started crumbling and collapsing from the top down without the sounds of massive explosions, at the top or the bottom of the buildings. But the audio track clearly picked up the gasps of shock and disbelief as the buildings crumbled into a pile of rubble, but no sounds of explosions. Especially from the bottom of the buildings closest to the cameras. Explosive charges sufficient to bring down the buildings would have blown out all the windows near the base, but as can be seen on the tapes, only one window was blown out.

Neither was there any sign of a explosive fireball or smoke from any explosions, or clouds of debris billowing out at the top or bottom of the buildings. Had there been a series of massive explosions on the crash floors where the collapses obviously began, as seen on the tapes, the concussive wave that is the source of destruction caused by the blast would have disturbed the smoke seen streaming on the light breeze.

Another point to ponder: A PBS documentary on building implosions noted that it required 7 months to prepare a 7 story building for demolition via implosion. The WTC towers were much taller, occupied by businesses with security. Consider the time it would take to rig the WTC towers for implosion without being detected by maintenance people discovering the charges.

Another element of the conspiracy theory is the allegation that a cruise missile hit the Pentagon, rather than a passenger airliner. To illustrate that point, conspiracy websites showed a 737 superimposed over the near small hole punched into the Pentagon to show that the wingspan of the airliner would have inflicted damage. They pointed out that no wings were lying on the lawn after the crash.

The structural strength of the wing spars are intended to support the weight of the aircraft rather than resist buckling when struck on the leading edge of the wing. Considering that the area of the Pentagon where the plane hit had recently been reinforced, and shatter proof windows had been installed, the wings merely folded back against the fuselage and went into the building alongside of the fuselage rather than the wings themselves entering the building while extended (as in a cartoon)!

In a British documentary seen on PBS, a man driving to work the morning of 9-11 appeared on camera to tell his tale. Familiar with aircraft landing and taking off from nearby Reagan airport, where the aircraft come in at a steep approach angle due to all the construction in the area, he said he had heard the sound of an aircraft extra loud and apparently flying extra low that fateful morning of 9/11! He said he put his head out the window and looked up to see a very low jet aircraft, and watched as it clipped a light pole and then plowed into the side of the Pentagon.

Photos of WTC #7 shows smoke billowing out from the bottom to the top. Smoke considered by conspiracy advocates as "proof" that the building was demolished by explosive charges. The fallacy of that premise is evident based on simple logic based on knowledge that many lack. There would be no point in planting charges on all floors from which smoke is billowing, because charges at the base as per standard implosion practices would have been sufficient.

1. The smoke is billowing out due to fires in the building, because any charges detonated to bring down the building would have been billowing puffs including orange fire from the sudden combustion of the charges.

2. There was no point in setting charges on all floors of the building because charges at the base taking out its support would have been adequate to take down the building as per implosion practice.

3. A conspiracy website cited a PBS documentary about WTC#7 collapsing, and noted in the transcript of the audio that the chief of the fire company notified the owner they were going to "pull the building" due to weakening because of the fires. The term "pull" was misconstrued as meaning to "blow up the building", when the term is short for "pulling out the firefighters" because the building had become unstable and was about to collapse.

4. If charges had been set as per claims about the twin WTC towers, why wasn't the building charges set off at the same time as the twin towers? Why wait several hours?

5. The building was not struck by an aircraft, but was damaged (as were other surrounding buildings) by falling debris from the collapsing WTC twin towers! An emergency control center was on an upper floor with a diesel generator with a fuel supply pipe running from a 6,000 gallon fuel tank in the basement. The intense fire was burning diesel fuel spilled from the broken pipe that weakened the structure and brought it down. Anyone with a modicum of ability in reading and reading comprehension, and who bothered to read news reports rather than base opinions on assumptions, could have learned the same thing had they bothered to make the effort.

Another aspect of the theory is the tendency to point to the "Meridian building" in Philadelphia that was subject to an intense fire, but did not collapse. My cousin sent me photos of it. I instantly noticed that it was of standard I-beam construction consisting of vertical columns intersected by lateral beams to tie it together and support the floors. In contrast, the WTC towers were built around a central elevator/utility column to which welded trusses were attached and extending to the vertical outer walls of hollow steel construction. Basically, there was less mass than in standard construction, and did not take much to heat them up to the point of losing their structural strength and buckling under the weight of several tons of floors above. When the floor trusses heated up, they buckled due to expansion and sheared their mounting bolts and dropped down. As a result, the outer walls had no bracing support and were free to fall outward and start collapsing.



Reprinted with the permission of the author.

there are plenty more places with documented data proving that this is how the towers would fall if hit by such immense and fast objects with jet fuel on board.

Get a grip you madman and try to convince kiddies of your stupid claims and not grown ups... eh.

 

[frenchuk]

"as a former high school Industrial Education teacher with experience in industry"

And that makes him an expert in architecture, controlled demolition and explosives? This guy has uninformed opinions and no knowledge controlled demolition whatsoever, he is talking out of arse!

Now, seriously, don't you think it's possible that even some real experts, people who REALLY know what they are talking about, could be manipulated into saying whatever needed to be said to convince people that what they see on tape is not really what they see but just buildings collapsing 'naturally'?
Don't you think it's possible that the media can be manipulated at times? Don't you think there just possibly might be a reason why there was no interest in the media to seriously address the points raised, one by one? That'd be a fantastic documentary - and yet no one has done it (beside a very bad one addressing the issue on one very bad angle).

Have you even watched the videos I posted? What I'm really interested in is someone who has real expertise to answer the points 1-2-3 I raised above. No expert has addressed them until now - I mean real experts, not uninformed people with an opinion. So until then it's all just bl4hbl4hbl4hbl4hbl4hbl4h

They almost pulled up operation northwood if Kennedy didn't prevent it from happening, what makes anyone think that this can't be repeated?

 

[D.S.]

And that's a bikers' forum... Rather worrying considering so many here are blind! And shit riders - but that another story!

Oh Pierre my mon ami, I told you that when you first joined - read my signature dude!
As for shit riders - I couldn't possibly comment.

 

[marcella]

if there is no conspiricy at all, what do we need demolition and exposive experts for? they must be getting thier wage for fu*kall! as has just been said all those buildings just collapsing nice and neat and ready for excavation, whats the chances of that alone. rob said "they used the same clip of the firemen" im glad they did, it insures all who have an interest are working with the same material and not later accounts understandably tainted with even more emotion.
rob goes on to say= it was like bombs going off, boom-boom-boom he says a little hysterically. Fer chrissakes, :dunno: FU*K i have to say i border on hysterical most novembers with 20/30 dickhead youths outside my living room window armed with thunder bangers! i'd be tempted to allow the firemen a little headroom in the hysteria dept.

 

[shropslad]

hmmmmmmm!

ah thats it , you dont find anyone guilable enough to beleive this shit so you slag all and sundry off.

Agree with you GF,
Fuk,, I have seen ALL the vids & don't beleive anyone with half a brain can take the conspiracy theory seriously IMHO.
Now if it were the death of Princess Diana,, I might consider it.

 

[R2B2]

Give it up Pierre, there is no conspiracy. 6 years on and nothing has been uncovered? It would just not be possible to keep the wraps on such a big operation if it really was done by the government.

And before you ask, no I don't believe all what the papers write, and I do believe governments can manipulate them, and I don't believe that our government and others can be trusted and I certainly don't believe all they tell us, but this theory??? Never!! Never in a million years. It's ridiculous in the extreme because it would be logistically impossible to pull it off without someone blowing the whistle - intentionally or otherwise, these theories are just about making money and nothing else. If anyone is in any doubt about that just ask Michael Moore!!

You ask of experts but what experts are featured in the videos? None! Just an anonymous narrator feeding alternative explanations to the hungry gullible. Btw - the expert they used in one of these videos was an engineer in..... Software!! (listen carefully when the narrator girl reads out his title, he's a software engineer!!). Again, you have to say that in six years they cannot find anyone notable to lend any weight or support to the theories, just an unknown software guy exploiting the powers of influence. What does that tell you??

I can't really see what's still driving the continued belief amongst the conspiracy supporters because there is nothing in these videos that remotely support what's being claimed. Seriously, if these video's were presented as evidence in a court trial the judge would throw the case out because of the ambiguity. Why didn't they show an aerial photo of the flight 93 scene from a greater altitude so that it showed the whole site and not just selected stills from ground level? Was it because there was a big aeroplane there to spoil their story?? Lol!!

You ask why the towers collapse at speed. Have you not considered the weight and forces of momentum generated by the upper stack of floors coming down? Pierre, mate, - I have to say, you don't need to be any sort of expert to see what's going on in that collapse. Nor do you need to be an expert to see there are NO explosions!

I can't believe anybody is still buying this nonsense.

And why DID Al Zaqawi admit his involvement?

 

[R2B2]

Don't you think there just possibly might be a reason why there was no interest in the media to seriously address the points raised, one by one?

Yep!! I think there is one very good reason!!

 

[Gforceuk]

anyone with half a brain can take the conspiracy theory seriously IMHO.
.

There i think is the problem..... c7u8

 

[marcella]

has anyone who's posted disbelief in 9/11 theory's actually studied other instances where underhanded or covert control has been hinted at (and not still proven by the passage of time ie dispensation upon secret files and or admitance) and came to the conclusion that the public at large were being duped by a higher authority? and do they still believe they are correct in thier assumption.
if so, would you mind posting the details of your questionable instance and forward the data that led you to your conclusion.

cheers
:yo:

 

[Gforceuk]

has anyone who's posted disbelief in 9/11 theory's actually studied other instances where underhanded or covert control has been hinted at (and not still proven by the passage of time ie dispensation upon secret files and or admitance) and came to the conclusion that the public at large were being duped by a higher authority? and do they still believe they are correct in thier assumption.
if so, would you mind posting the details of your questionable instance and forward the data that led you to your conclusion.

cheers
:yo:

like ufo's are area 51... ? lmao


another tinfoil hat for mr marcella

 

[marcella]

like ufo's are area 51... ? lmao


another tinfoil hat for mr marcella

lolololol, i'll just sign you up for a years supply to the daily sport for your birthay then gf! or double your iq input and post you the john and jane books my kids are finished with?

 

[Gforceuk]

lolololol, i'll just sign you up for a years supply to the daily sport for your birthay then gf! or double your iq input and post you the john and jane books my kids are finished with?

A birthay ? , you dont write for the sport do you ?