9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that

And if you would like to get into a serious discussion about that particular topic, I gaurantee I will absolutely destroy you on it. But here is not the place.

I very much doubt you will, it would require me to take your manic opinions seriously which I would not.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I very much doubt you will, it would require me to take your manic opinions seriously which I would not.

And to be moved from what I believe would require me to listen to your unresearched opinion. Which I could just read through the official version of events for the 2000th time if I wanted to see the same rubbish again.

Absolutely no doubt you believe the official version of events is 100% true, case closed etc etc. People like yourself don't bother to look into things. If the BBC says so then it must be true, right?

Anyway, we have gone competely off topic. I don't come on here to discuss World events. I come on here to discuss boxing so let's get back on topic eh?

If you want to discuss anything else I'm more than happy to do so in the appropriate places.

I was born with a brain thankfully so yes do believe the official version of events, anything is a level of idiocy I will not lower myself. In other news, Elvis is still alive.

I just can't help myself to be honest haha.

If anybody seriously believes that THREE steel framed buildings collapsed in on themselves and fell into nice pretty little piles in the middle of New York city almost identical to a controlled demolition, all within a few hours of each other you need to have a serious word with yourself.

We may as well just put an end to the demolition industry now and just set everything on fire when we want it knocking down eh? No need to waste money scientifically placing charges in the correct places when all we need to do is throw a match in eh?

One of the buildings wasnt even hit by a plane for goodness sake. Supposed to believe a few desert dwellers learnt who learnt to fly in little cesnars had the skills to fly two jumbos into city buildings. But hold on wait, they did find a few of their passports amongst all that rubble of the downed buildings didnt they hahahaha.

Of course it had nothing to do with allowing America to roll into Iraq and topple Sadam and his arsenal of WMD's. Oh wait, they never found any WMD's did they. But of course it was all a massive coincidence, move on people, nothing to see here.

I've not even scratched the surface, I can carry on all day but I'd be wasting my breath because obviously the news outlets always tell the truth to the public don't they.

Go and act crazy elsewhere, I have no inclination to read such a load of rubbish.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Go and act crazy elsewhere, I have no inclination to read such a load of rubbish.

But you did read it didn't you.

I read the first paragraph of tosh then switched off, I pity people like you.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I read the first paragraph of tosh then switched off, I pity people like you.

That's absoluely rich. It's people like me that pity people like you. Wading through life in blissful ignorance of what's actually going on around you. It must be amazing to have a brain and not use it.

So Eddie Hearn caused 9/11?

Of course, I think your nurse is ready to give your next dose of medicine. Moving on from the lunatic.

WT7 was burning for hours before it collapsed.  If explosives were already planted in the building they would have gone off a lot sooner from the heat of the fires.  If the CIA / FBI had organised the whole thing then they would have had to be in charge of all the Saudi Arabian nationals that hijacked the planes etc etc in a highly coordinated campaign involving large numbers of people that took years to come to fruition (training of the Saudis to be able to pilot the planes etc) and it would involve foreign terrorists, US government officials, engineers and scientists with no leaks to the newspapers.   This is when the conspiracy theorists often reveal themselves to be racists imagining a shady organisation controlling the world.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:Of course, I think your nurse is ready to give your next dose of medicine. Moving on from the lunatic.

You fall out with a lot of people don't you?

Nore Staat wrote:WT7 was burning for hours before it collapsed.  If explosives were already planted in the building they would have gone off a lot sooner from the heat of the fires.  If the CIA / FBI had organised the whole thing then they would have had to be in charge of all the Saudi Arabian nationals that hijacked the planes etc etc in a highly coordinated campaign involving large numbers of people that took years to come to fruition (training of the Saudis to be able to pilot the planes etc) and it would involve foreign terrorists, US government officials, engineers and scientists with no leaks to the newspapers.   This is when the conspiracy theorists often reveal themselves to be racists imagining a shady organisation controlling the world.

I'm certainly not a racist. But to address further points please reference one single other steel framed building in the history of the world that has collapsed due to burning for a few hours. Modern buildings just do not collapse like that because they are on fire. That's we have controlled demolitions when we bring buildings down.

There was semi complete sky scraper in Madrid which burned for around 24 hours and did not just fall to the floor in a heap. It just doesn't happen. There are so many holes in the official version of 9/11. We have literally only just scratched the surface in the few paragraphs we have discussed here.

I'm not discussing it any further because that isn't why I come on this forum and we have completely derailed the thread. So apologies to everyone for doing that.

EX7EY,

Not only is it strange that buildings of such magnitude should completely collapse after burning for a few hours, but they collapsed in free fall - how does that happen? What about the resistance, all those floors and pillars and columns etc? You would think it'd go down in bits and pieces but no, these three went down at free fall encountering no resistance from the intact floors below the burning floors. WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane but apparently it collapsed under the weight of the debris from the adjacent building, even though said adjacent building collapsed vertically on its self.

A chat on a non-boxing subject comes as a welcome relief actually there should be more of it like on the old 606

Now I don't know a lot about demolition but that looked a lot like a controlled explosion to me so clinical and precise

What a coincidence they both dropped right to the bottom what's the probability of that you know maybe one could have stopped halfway

Looked like a smooth perfectly controlled demolition and of course as the poster says above doesn't make sense where was the resistance

The problem I have with the 9-11 conspiracy, as with most conspiracy theories is to believe the official version of events you have to believe the security services did their jobs poorly and 20 odd people hijacked some planes. Unfortunate but by no means impossible.

To believe the conspiracy theory you have to believe countless American citizens, across countless agencies and different parts of government conspired to murder fellow American citizens. Not one of whom felt any pang of conscience about this or performed their part of the conspiracy inefficiently. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

It's easy to cover up when all dissenting voices are marginalised and pushed to the periphery by mainstream media and government. Thousands of people don't need to be in on it - only the agencies that carry out the deed. The government then spouts the official line, the corporate media tows that line and the public acquiesce. It's manufactured consent. Anyone with an alternate view is shunned. A recent survey in New York showed that half the people canvassed do not believe the official version of events, but is that represented in mainstream journalism - not at all. It's portrayed as incontrovertible fact.

Rowley wrote:The problem I have with the 9-11 conspiracy, as with most conspiracy theories is to believe the official version of events you have to believe the security services did their jobs poorly and 20 odd people hijacked some planes. Unfortunate but by no means impossible.

To believe the conspiracy theory you have to believe countless American citizens, across countless agencies and different parts of government conspired to murder fellow American citizens. Not one of whom felt any pang of conscience about this or performed their part of the conspiracy inefficiently. It makes zero sense whatsoever.

Admittedly, it is hard to get your head around. And I do not profess to know the facts, that's why it is called theory. But once you go a little deeper other things start to unravel. There is so much to go into, but once you ask the right questions and look in the right places, the picture starts to form.

Governments DO perform 'false flag attacks' in order to justify certain actions. There are countless instances of this happening throughout history where it has been proven and confirmed with actual evidence.

I'm actually not a conspiracy nut even though I may be coming across that way. I don't sit behind my computer for 12 hours a day thinking everything that happens in the world is a conspiracy. 9/11 just never looked right to me from the moment it happened, and I was only 13 at the time. The more I looked into it the more it became pretty obvious that the official version of events is a nonsense.

Those buildings were actually designed to withstand impacts of boeing 707's, yet they both collapsed perfectly after only a few hours. WTC 7 wasnt even hit by a plane, burnt for about 7 hours yet managed to collapse, again perfectly, due to fire. Fire has NEVER brought down steel framed buildings like that at any other point in history, yet we accept that 3 collapsed perfectly within a few hours. It makes no sense. Look at the friggin size of the Twin Towers as well. I mean seriously, look at them. How on Earth could they just both fall down perfectly like that?? Demo experts are precise in where they place explosives when bringing down buildings a fraction of the size of that. Why are they bothering?

Just look at the two people running for US president right now and tell me that all is right in this World? I wouldn't trust them to run an ice cream van.

emancipator wrote:EX7EY,

Not only is it strange that buildings of such magnitude should completely collapse after burning for a few hours, but they collapsed in free fall - how does that happen? What about the resistance, all those floors and pillars and columns etc? You would think it'd go down in bits and pieces but no, these three went down at free fall encountering no resistance from the intact floors below the burning floors. WTC7 wasn't even hit by a plane but apparently it collapsed under the weight of the debris from the adjacent building, even though said adjacent building collapsed vertically on its self.

Exactly. You would expect to see beams, columns, concrete etc etc all falling and smashing off remaining bits of the building and at least some of the building remaining stood up. Wouldn't you? But for both buildings to just experience a total collapse like that in that manner, no I don't think so.

The way the buildings collapsed is just one aspect of it all as well. There is so much more evidence and unanswered questions.

Ex7EY "Those buildings were actually designed to withstand impacts of boeing 707's, yet they both collapsed perfectly after only a few hours"

...and the Titanic was "unsinkable. Engineering for disasters is imprecise at best. Too many variables in material science, manufacture and construction to predict something of this magnitude with any certainty.

Two towers were hit by two planes. Two towers collapsed. Lots of people people died. You dont need to kill that many of YOUR OWN citizens to coerce them into support a war. A simple lie is sufficient, it always has been.

Emancipator has pretty much nailed the way it works by the way. And Hammersmith has provided the evidence. Hammersmith has openly stated that all he has done is accepted the official version of events, without so much as a single question. And all because 'he has a brain' to quote him directly. The irony in that is astonishing.

3fingers wrote:Ex7EY "Those buildings were actually designed to withstand impacts of boeing 707's, yet they both collapsed perfectly after only a few hours"

...and the Titanic was "unsinkable. Engineering for disasters is imprecise at best. Too many variables in material science, manufacture and construction to predict something of this magnitude with any certainty.

Two towers were hit by two planes.  Two towers collapsed. Lots of people people died. You dont need to kill that many of YOUR OWN citizens to coerce them into support a war. A simple lie is sufficient, it always has been.

Actually, three towers collapsed my friend. And I am not trying to say that just because they were designed to withstand impacts from 707's means they were bullet proof. Although the science involved in buildings of that magnitude is pretty precise would you not agree? What I am saying is the probability of both buildings collapsing like that must be very very slim. Yet they did. And let's also remember that the impact to each building would have differed in various ways, different height, speeds, impact position on the building. Yet they suffered identical structural failures which allowed them both to collapse perfectly? No.

Its pointless debating about how a girder and glass skyscraper would react, after being hit by an aeroplane, when you're so sure you know.

IMO we've seen how they react. If you dont want to believe that. Thats fine.

Only way of finding out for sure is to build two more twin towers exactly the same design as the originals in the middle of nowhere and fly a couple of planes in can't entirely rule out the possibility that after such a monumental impact that is how they react can't rule that out definitively

Of course nobody's got the money to carry out such an experiment

3fingers wrote:Its pointless debating about how a girder and glass skyscraper would react, when hit by an aeroplane, because you're so sure you know. IMO we've seen how they react. If you dont want to believe that. Thats fine.

So what about the third building? You told me two buildings were hit by planes, and two buildings collapsed. But I told you three collapsed and you ignored it, because that's much easier eh?

So let's presume you are correct, and that is the way buildings react following a collision with a large aircraft, and I am happy to admit that I do not know for 100% fact that it couldnt happen, I am happy to admit that. But please explain away the third building. So now we are moving from one set of unlikely events being true to another set of unlikely events being true, that WTC 7 collapsed because it was structurally damaged by falling debris and fires?? Again, please explain why we bother using the laws of physics in order to demolish buildings when it is clearly not required. A quote regarding WTC 7 below from a structural engineer if you care to read? Just one single testimony of many.

We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor below.We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn’t know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?

The other general issue I have with conspiracy theories in general (9-11 included) is the relationship they have with incompetence. I don't know what we all do for a living but think about how often in your daily work you encounter incompetence, a delivery not arriving on time, a contract not getting signed, paperwork not getting completed or being done wrong. How often yourself do you drive home and think sh!t, I've not sent that email. I do it all the time, if we're honest I'd guess we all do.

However conspiracy theorists tend to need you to believe plots, regularly involving casts of 100's or 1000's often of Byzantine complexity and under the requirement for absolute secrecy and discretion are all carried out without one person screwing up or leaving the kind of paper trail that will bring the whole house of cards down.

Let's take the "controlled explosion" aspect of 9-11. Now it seems fair to say bringing two large building downs within a short space of each other and to make it look enough like it is not a controlled explosion to fool people takes a lot of skill, so these shadowy government types have to source such experts, trust they will be willing to murder fellow civilians (god know why they would but so be it), silence the ones you approach who would not be willing to do so, of which you'd imagine there would be plenty. Then once you have sourced such experts you have to sneak them into two of the busiest buildings in the world, both of which are tourist attractions and working offices for thousands of people, in one of the busiest cities in the world. If you do all this these people have to plant what common sense dictates would be huge quantities of explosives they have to do all this completely undetected, leaving no trace of their work or the huge amount of explosives that are now planted in various parts of the building and get out again without being detected.

In the hugely unlikely possibility all this is achievable you then have to hope when these people are watching bodies of fellow Americans falling from the skies and their widows and children crying over their burning corpses not one of them feels a slight twinge of conscience and decides to tell the truth. Just simple common sense should tell us this is not particularly plausible surely?

I completely respect that point of view Rowley. And yes, I am unfortunately surrounded by levels of moronic incompetence in my every day life.

I suppose I cannot explain away what you are saying and Im not going to pretend I have all the answers. But I would counter it with the fact that I don't believe it would be impossible. For your counter argument we are also making a fair few assumptions are we not?

Bang on Rowley, you then have the issue of flying two planes in to the buildings unless we're led to believe that didn't happen and the countless eye witnesses were also lying.

Not really. Not everyone is an active participant - most people just follow orders without asking questions. That's our culture, maybe even human nature. Your boss tells you to do something you know instinctively not to question too much. Besides, we've seen much worse.

Lest we forget, a whole war, resulting in the invasion of a country, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, mass displacement, plundering of resources etc, etc has been carried out - based on a lie. If it's possible to do that, then flying a couple of planes into buildings doesn't seem so fantastic.

Besides, there is plenty of evidence that something fishy was going aside from the clear impossibility of buildings collapsing at free fall after short fires. One example is the fire proofing upgrade that was taking place at the time. Incredibly, the floors that were upgraded were the same ones that the planes crashed into. Just one example, there are hundreds more.

Lots of people have objected to the official story including thousands of experts in construction, engineering, aviation etc. They're just ignored by the media. If a lie is repeated often enough..

The real conspiracy is construction firms not building to specification - cutting corners to maximise profits. They know catastrophes rarely occur so they can get away with it, especially if the building collapses, as it's different to prove it wasnt built to standard after the event.

If a Bush-linked company ran security at the Trade Centers thus giving it free reign to the buildings, then just theoretically over say the course of a few weeks or months you'd only need to get in one or two individuals to plant the devices could keep the web very small

Another aspect of it that I find suspicious is the establishment's (American) reluctance to address some of the very genuine and pertinent questions. The 9-11 commission ignored all the controversial elements and all other evidence indicating nefarious doings. The government only spent 16 million dollars investigating the events of 9-11. In comparison, the Clinton-Lewinsky shenanigans were allocated over 60 million dollars to investigate.

Hammersmith - you profess to have a brain but I don't think you've even read half of these posts. You come across to me as really unintellegent dullard that can't form his own opinion. Who said there were no planes? And what about the countless eye witnesses that also reported explosions. What about the New York firemen that can be quoted saying that the buildings coming down looked and sounded like a controlled demolition ? There are eye witnesses that contradict official events, but obviously you wouldn't know because you haven't done a single piece of your own research have you?

Somebody watch the video of the planes blasting through those buildings and if you would expect to find a passport in the rubble from a passenger on that plane? Not only a passport, but a fully intact passport. And not only a fully intact passport, but a fully intact passport of one of the HIJACKERS! We are just racking up coincidences at this point aren't we.

Somebody explain why there were pools of molten steel still burning days and weeks after the incident?

Somebody explain the steal girders found sliced at perfect angles?

Somebody explain why the third building collapsed despite not being hit by a plane?

Somebody explain why there was not a single piece of wreckage found at the pentagon from the plane that hit there? And not even a skid mark on the lawn.

Somebody explain why there was not a single piece of video footage of said plane hitting the pentagon, in a building with hundreds if not thousands of CCTV cameras. The only video evidence just happens to 'skip a frame' where you would have expected to see the plane.

Somebody explain why no other buildings in history have collapsed due to fire damage? Even when we remove the twin towers from that equasion because I will accept the fact that some people will believe that planes hitting them was enough to collapse like that. You still cannot explain why WTC7 collapsed at free fall speed.

Somebody explain how the BBC managed to report the collapse of WTC 7 BEFORE it actually collapsed?? This was explained away as merely....yep, you guessed it, a coincidence. What are the chances of that eh? Mistakenly reporting the collapse of a building, only for it then to go ahead and collapse.

Some of this would be hilarious if it wasn't such a tragedy.

Or the fact that no jets were scrambled to take those planes down, discarding all known military protocols.

Eye witnesses at the Pentagon clearly stating that the thing which hit the building was not a plane. It was a missile. The hole it created in the wall was far too small for a plane and a plane could not have penetrated that far into the building (which if I remember correctly has something 5 layers of re-inforced concrete.

The trajectory of the hole at the pentagon would require a plane to skid along the lawn before impact - yet there are no marks on the lawn.

Where is the debris from the plane? The flight recorders? Nothing, just a tail wing that mysteriously appears in photographs.

Or what about Bush stating that he was watching live as the first plane crashed into the WTC? The only live footage of this was recorded by a ?French TV company and they only released that footage after the event.

Just before the two towers collapse you can see explosions exactly one after another running down the buildings even as they collapse. Looks like a perfectly controlled demolition.

EX7EY wrote:Hammersmith - you profess to have a brain but I don't think you've even read half of these posts. You come across to me as really unintellegent dullard that can't form his own opinion. Who said there were no planes? And what about the countless eye witnesses that also reported explosions. What about the New York firemen that can be quoted saying that the buildings coming down looked and sounded like a controlled demolition ? There are eye witnesses that contradict official events, but obviously you wouldn't know because you haven't done a single piece of your own research have you?

I don't need to read the ramblings of a mad man nor do I need to research these things myself, like I said before it would require me to entertain the thought that there may be a shred of truth to any of it and I do not. There's been numerous conspiracy documents on TV about it and at no point did I believe a single word of what was said, you can live in an alternate reality where conspiracy theorists are those in the know but i'll carry on believing the truth. You can come up with numerous questions or all the conjecture in the world I still won't take you seriously.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:

EX7EY wrote:Hammersmith - you profess to have a brain but I don't think you've even read half of these posts. You come across to me as really unintellegent dullard that can't form his own opinion. Who said there were no planes? And what about the countless eye witnesses that also reported explosions. What about the New York firemen that can be quoted saying that the buildings coming down looked and sounded like a controlled demolition ? There are eye witnesses that contradict official events, but obviously you wouldn't know because you haven't done a single piece of your own research have you?

I don't need to read the ramblings of a mad man nor do I need to research these things myself, like I said before it would require me to entertain the thought that there may be a shred of truth to any of it and I do not. There's been numerous conspiracy documents on TV about it and at no point did I believe a single word of what was said, you can live in an alternate reality where conspiracy theorists are those in the know but i'll carry on believing the truth. You can come up with numerous questions or all the conjecture in the world I still won't take you seriously.

Alright then, this is the last you and I will ever speak. I don't entertain closed minded fools liek yourself. You live in a World where the BBC etc tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Not like they covered up Jimmy Saville buggering little children and still carried on paying his wages with our TV licence money is it? Foed

So, who shot JFK?

I thought this was a boxing thread?

I agree with Rowley. It's so difficult to deliver complex plans when everything is going for you. Doing it covertly, is unlikely. Not impossible but unlikely.

What is the Sherlock homes phrase about the obvious usually being the right answer.

Scientific-Engineering studies have shown fire alone was sufficient to bring down the towers including WT7. A key process was thermal expansion. They also tested the "demolition" theory. Explosive charges would cause a distinct explosion sound which wasn't heard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=paF0rBNksDM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collapse_of_the_World_Trade_Center#Investigations

The problem Nore Staat is that you are quoting the official garbage to me. I will never believe that fires alone caused the buildings to collapse in the manner that they collapsed. Unless soebody provides me with clear and concise proof that this is possible i will never ever believe it. Because I ask again, why do we bother with controlled demolitions?

And as I keep saying, there are many unanswered questions that surround 9/11. Not just the way the buildings came down.

Nobody ever wants to address those points though because they can't.

I just rapidly googled why do we need controlled demolitions, didnt even reference 9/11, clicked on the first link, and read through the first paragraph and withn 30 seconds I was reading this....

[i]
In this article, we'll find out how demolition crews plan and execute these spectacular implosions. The violent blasts and billowing dust clouds may look chaotic, but a building implosion is actually one of the most precisely planned, delicately balanced engineering feats you'll ever see.[/i]

Read the bold.....twin towers and WTC 7 were obviously exceptions to that rule though.

LOL.

I'll also point out that the article is talking about the demolition of a TWENTY story skyscraper. the twin towers were 5 times that....

http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion.htm


Timing detonations, 3D blast models, accurately placed charges....need I go on?

'In this case, the blasters proceed with a true implosion, demolishing the building so that it collapses straight down into its own footprint (the total area at the base of the building). This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it.'

Do go on, none of this has any relevance.

This feat requires such skill that only a handful of demolition companies in the world will attempt it. Just read that again. They are discussing a TWENTY story skyscraper here everyone. Not 110 stories. TWO 110 story skyscrapers.

im going to set up my own demo company tomorrow that specialises in imploding meg structures. Apparenly the competition isn't that stiff, and it's not as hard as http://science.howstuffworks.com/ believes it to be. Think I've still got a box of king size matches in my glove box and a can of peccy in my boot. I'll be a millionaire CEO this time next week. Anybody want shares in my new company? Im selling a million as of today for the bargain price of £10 each. Get them quick.

Aren't you just disputing your own theory.