9/11 Theory

Oh, I didnt see the second tower behind. My bad

 

Yea, I know. Thanks for telling.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting TheBlackMamba:</div><div class="quote_post">I don't like him. I have no clue what his grades where. But I can give him some respect for getting into Yale and graduating.

Lol, I mean it wouldn't surprised me if he had C-'s.</div>
I think University acceptances greatly vary based upon alumni, people who donate, as well as powerful people.

Considering George Bush Sr. was an alumni, was a president, and I don't know if he donated a large amount of money, but I wouldn't be surprized.

I think it would be very unlikely if Yale didn't accept and graduate him.

Note: I'm not saying George Bush is dumb, I'm just saying that he was accepted and graduated from Yale is not the strongest point to imply he is smart. If his father was not an alumni, nor a president, and didn't donate, I would agree with your point.

 

And I found the loose change video very interesting. I was in grade 11 when it happened, and even a day later, physics teacher thought that the way that both buildings collapsed were too perfect.

Are there any facts regarding whether the terrorists that were supposedly on the plane are still alive? Because at the end of loose change it claims that most of the "terrorists" are still alive.

Which would imply they weren't on the plane.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">And I found the loose change video very interesting. I was in grade 11 when it happened, and even a day later, physics teacher thought that the way that both buildings collapsed were too perfect.

Are there any facts regarding whether the terrorists that were supposedly on the plane are still alive? Because at the end of loose change it claims that most of the "terrorists" are still alive.

Which would imply they weren't on the plane.</div>

Just read the loosechange guide. Don't waste your time on this video any longer. These people made a ridiculous amount of factual errors.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">Just read the loosechange guide. Don't waste your time on this video any longer. These people made a ridiculous amount of factual errors.</div>
I read a some of the sections that I thought I would be interested in the guide and although it pointed out some errors, it didn't explain a lot of things. (And had a lot of mocking remarks)

My biggest question I guess is what caused the two towers to fall? (Especially the way they did at the speed they did)

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post">To summarize the aircraft:
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 707-320B is 336,000 pounds.
The maximum takeoff weight for a Boeing 767-200ER is 395,000 pounds.

The wingspan of a Boeing 707 is 146 feet.
The wingspan of a Boeing 767 is 156 feet.

The length of a Boeing 707 is 153 feet.
The length of a Boeing 767 is 159 feet.

The Boeing 707 could carry 23,000 gallons of fuel.
The Boeing 767 could carry 23,980 gallons of fuel.

The cruise speed of a Boeing 707 is 607 mph = 890 ft/s,
The cruise speed of a Boeing 767 is 530 mph = 777 ft/s.</div>
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html
The impact itself would have only affect girders on a few floors in a certain area. I think the core would have been intact.

There have been steel framed buildings with strong fires for longer periods of time that haven't collapsed. Sometimes as long as 19 hours.

<div class="quote_poster">Quote:</div><div class="quote_post"> * ~1510?C (2750?F) - melting point of typical structural steel
* ~825?C (1517?F) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.

The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800?C.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower. </div>
http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

What do you believe is the reason for the collapses? Maybe it was from buckling from the weakening of steel, but I don't know if 50% strength steel wouldn't be strong enough to do its job. Especially if it were only on a few floors and there are thousands of joints.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">I read a some of the sections that I thought I would be interested in the guide and although it pointed out some errors, it didn't explain a lot of things. (And had a lot of mocking remarks)

My biggest question I guess is what caused the two towers to fall? (Especially the way they did at the speed they did)


http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/boeing_707_767.html
The impact itself would have only affect girders on a few floors in a certain area. I think the core would have been intact.

There have been steel framed buildings with strong fires for longer periods of time that haven't collapsed. Sometimes as long as 19 hours.


http://911review.com/coverup/fantasy/melting.html

What do you believe is the reason for the collapses? Maybe it was from buckling from the weakening of steel, but I don't know if 50% strength steel wouldn't be strong enough to do its job. Especially if it were only on a few floors and there are thousands of joints.</div>

About the collapse of the towers: http://www.loosechangeguide.com/lcg3.html

The examples from past buildings that were on fire (cited by LooseChange guide), show why it is inappropriate to mock/compare the damage caused to the twin towers.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting LooseChangeGuide:</div><div class="quote_post">
Official explanation? Falling debris from the Twin Towers created an internal fire,<font color=""Red""> The NIST report on WTC 7 isn't out yet. Real investigations take time. </font>Which ignited several fuel tanks inside the building. <font color=""Red"">Why not show the building when smoke was pouring from nearly every floor?</font> If this is true, then it would be the third building in history to collapse because of a fire.
<font color=""Red"">Uh, no. You only got that wrong by a few million buildings.</font>

Anyway, all three of these steel frame buildings sustained heavy damage in addition to massive fires.

<font color=""Red"">The first two would be the Twin Towers. Remember those 767s that hit them?</font></div>

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting LooseChangeGuide:</div><div class="quote_post">
Errors of fact: 81
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacies: 92
Assumptions and conjectures not supported by evidence: 92
Photo & video images that do not support statements being made: 48
Non sequiturs: 24
Opinions expressed on technical subjects by non-experts: 22
Anonymous sources: 19
"Straw man" arguments: 10
Overgeneralizations: 10
Arguments to authority: 3
Similes or metaphors taken as literal statements: 12
Statements misleading because incomplete quotes used: 25

Total flubs: 426 </div>

 

So Heuvonkiller what do you think caused the WTC towers to collapse?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting SkiptoMyLue11:</div><div class="quote_post">So Heuvonkiller what do you think caused the WTC towers to collapse?</div>

That's pretty rhetorical.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting huevonkiller:</div><div class="quote_post">That's pretty rhetorical.</div>
Assuming you don't think the fire melted the steel, because a hydrocarbon (Kerosene) fire couldn't do that. I'm just going to guess what you think may have caused the towers to collapse.

Well do you think it was fire that caused the girders to weaken, and then simultaneously thousands of joints of the girders all interconnected broke from the weight of its own floor.

Then after the one floor fell, its weight caused the floor below it to fall, etc, etc,etc.

Is that what you think happened? if not what do you think happened in detail? You don't have to explain what you think happened if you don't feel like it.

 

I've already said my piece on this issue and although it seems most ppl have concluded that these theories are nothing more than a farce, I still believe that many points still hold a lot of weight. And I've read many of the rebuttals articles like the one from Popular Mechanics or Loosechangeguide.com, so I'm not being ignorant.

But the thing that Loose Change didn't mention which I, and many other ppl, feel is important evidence is the footage of George Bush after the collapse of the second tower. Now when you are just told that your country is being attacked by terrorists, do you:

a) sit there in a school full of innocent children for more than an hour even though you know that these terrorists are looking to bomb your whereabouts or
get the hell out of there and make sure you're in a safe spot away from any children.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting dunksworth:</div><div class="quote_post">I've already said my piece on this issue and although it seems most ppl have concluded that these theories are nothing more than a farce, I still believe that many points still hold a lot of weight. And I've read many of the rebuttals articles like the one from Popular Mechanics or Loosechangeguide.com, so I'm not being ignorant.

But the thing that Loose Change didn't mention which I, and many other ppl, feel is important evidence is the footage of George Bush after the collapse of the second tower. Now when you are just told that your country is being attacked by terrorists, do you:

a) sit there in a school full of innocent children for more than an hour even though you know that these terrorists are looking to bomb your whereabouts or
get the hell out of there and make sure you're in a safe spot away from any children.</div>

That George Bush issue, doesn't prove or give weight to any conspiracy theory.

 

You guys know how some people say that Osama Bin Laden is dead? he maybe dead, but the media and stuff won't tell people, so that this issue will keep on going on. I bet all of you guys that even if Osama died, media won't say <u>OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD</u> Bush just wants to keep this mess going on. He just wants a reason to fight muslims. That's the whole point of 9/11 and going into Iraq and stuff. As you can see, some believe that our government had setup this whole thing, and even if we did, why blame muslims? Why go into Iraq? A Muslims country? Why keep this going on? To fight Muslims? Why Muslims? <u>GAS</u> Why are we in Iraq trying to build a government for them? We wanted Saddam, we got him, now why are we still in there? Why do we have troops there? Who asked us to do this? So, we are basically there for no reason. Soldiers dying at a place where they are not needed. Why doesn't Bush have any troops in Lebanon where they are needed? Why? Bush basically has troops where not needed instead of a place where they are needed.

 

^ http://www.timesonline.co.uk/global

The main article deals with the issue of whether or not Bin Laden is actually dead.

 

And what I am trying to stay is whether he is dead or not, our media will never tell if he is or not. Because they are trying to keep this issue going on.

 

I actually feel that if he was found to be dead, the media would not stop rubbing it in our faces. The Bush administration certainly wouldn't.

I'm not going to address your "Muslims against the World" rant, because it's contradictory and based off emotions, not facts. Every religion has people who hold that type of mentality (mine included), but that doesn't mean it's true.

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Umair15:</div><div class="quote_post">You guys know how some people say that Osama Bin Laden is dead? he maybe dead, but the media and stuff won't tell people, so that this issue will keep on going on. I bet all of you guys that even if Osama died, media won't say <u>OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD</u> Bush just wants to keep this mess going on. He just wants a reason to fight muslims. That's the whole point of 9/11 and going into Iraq and stuff. As you can see, some believe that our government had setup this whole thing, and even if we did, why blame muslims? Why go into Iraq? A Muslims country? Why keep this going on? To fight Muslims? Why Muslims? <u>GAS</u> Why are we in Iraq trying to build a government for them? We wanted Saddam, we got him, now why are we still in there? Why do we have troops there? Who asked us to do this? So, we are basically there for no reason. Soldiers dying at a place where they are not needed. Why doesn't Bush have any troops in Lebanon where they are needed? Why? Bush basically has troops where not needed instead of a place where they are needed.</div>

Thats crap, why would Bush just want to fight Muslims? If he wanted to fight Muslims he would send troops over to every country with a high Muslim population. Why doesn't he attack countries like Somalia? I mean isn't that what the radical, fundamentalists say? They say that the "war is on Muslims." Even if he is doing it for oil as you stated, he just wants to get oil not "kill Muslims." If Israel had oil and Bush just wanted oil, he would send his troops into Israel to get the oil.

Why wouldn't the media say Osama is dead if they believed it? You do realise that the media does not work for the government don't you? Surely the media has no incentive to say Osama is dead. Do you understand that the internet is also part of the media? Do you understand that people can anonymously post things on the internet saying "omgggzz osama iz dead!!11."

Also about the part where "some believe the government set up the whole thing," well the crazy lady across the street thinks she see's pigs flying, does that mean its true?

One thing I don't understand, is why people only care about things happening to people of the same religion as them(not you in particular). There are 1000 other events happening in the world, why ignore everything else and only acknowledge the hurt happening to people the same religion as you? Some people do this and they aren't even from the country where the massacres are happening. I'm not saying they shouldn't care because obviously they should, but why ignore other events happening in the world?

 

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Laker_fan:</div><div class="quote_post">Thats crap, why would Bush just want to fight Muslims? If he wanted to fight Muslims he would send troops over to every country with a high Muslim population. Why doesn't he attack countries like Somalia? I mean isn't that what the radical, fundamentalists say? They say that the "war is on Muslims." Even if he is doing it for oil as you stated, he just wants to get oil not "kill Muslims." If Israel had oil and Bush just wanted oil, he would send his troops into Israel to get the oil.

Why wouldn't the media say Osama is dead if they believed it? You do realise that the media does not work for the government don't you? Surely the media has no incentive to say Osama is dead. Do you understand that the internet is also part of the media? Do you understand that people can anonymously post things on the internet saying "omgggzz osama iz dead!!11."

Also about the part where "some believe the government set up the whole thing," well the crazy lady across the street thinks she see's pigs flying, does that mean its true?

One thing I don't understand, is why people only care about things happening to people of the same religion as them(not you in particular). There are 1000 other events happening in the world, why ignore everything else and only acknowledge the hurt happening to people the same religion as you? Some people do this and they aren't even from the country where the massacres are happening. I'm not saying they shouldn't care because obviously they should, but why ignore other events happening in the world?</div>

Great post, Laker fan. You saved me the troublesome task of posting something long.

<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Umair15:</div><div class="quote_post">
You guys know how some people say that Osama Bin Laden is dead? he maybe dead, but the media and stuff won't tell people, so that this issue will keep on going on. I bet all of you guys that even if Osama died, media won't say OSAMA BIN LADEN IS DEAD Bush just wants to keep this mess going on. He just wants a reason to fight muslims. That's the whole point of 9/11 and going into Iraq and stuff. As you can see, some believe that our government had setup this whole thing, and even if we did, why blame muslims? Why go into Iraq? A Muslims country? Why keep this going on? To fight Muslims? Why Muslims? GAS Why are we in Iraq trying to build a government for them? We wanted Saddam, we got him, now why are we still in there? Why do we have troops there? Who asked us to do this? So, we are basically there for no reason. Soldiers dying at a place where they are not needed. Why doesn't Bush have any troops in Lebanon where they are needed? Why? Bush basically has troops where not needed instead of a place where they are needed.</div>

Not all media act like Fox News. In fact, they are usually left wing and have already reported that Bin Laden might be dead. We are still in Iraq because we are attempting to establish a government there. Whether that is actually possible or not is another question. The government didn't set up anything on 9/11 (e.g. the 9/11 commission report will explain this to you), those who believe so are stretching reality.