Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Wtc

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Wtc

    So I'm wondering where people stand on the thoughts that Terrorism may not have been behind the collapse of the WTC buildings - particularly WTC7 (which wasn't hit by an aircraft).

    Kooky conspiracy theory, or worth som serious consideration?

    Oh, and for anyone that doesn't have any information, check out the Google video on Steve Jones' WTC Lecture at BYU. Over two hours long, but a fascinating watch if you can stand it all.

    If you want the short, hard-hitting version, try www.wtc7.net.

    There are a lot of very clever people starting to ask a lot of very necessary questions...I'll be interesting to see where this goes.
    7Shades

    How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
    And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
    - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

  • #2
    Re: Wtc

    http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

    Rosie O'Donnell thinks it was done by explosives, but Popular Mechanics says this was done from fire and debris from falling buildings. Guess it depends on who you think is more credible around engineering, Rosie or Popular Mechanics...

    Lucky Shot

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: Wtc

      Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
      http://www.popularmechanics.com/blog...s/4213805.html

      Rosie O'Donnell thinks it was done by explosives, but Popular Mechanics says this was done from fire and debris from falling buildings. Guess it depends on who you think is more credible around engineering, Rosie or Popular Mechanics...

      Lucky Shot
      Haha. My thoughts exactly. Also, a month or two ago, a truck carrying fuel wrecked on a San Francisco bridge. The burning fuel melted the steel and the bridge collapsed. But oh wait! Rosie specifically said that fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. We've heard nothing from her or other conspirators about the San Francisco incident. But then again, Rosie's an expert on physics and engineering who knows more about these things then all the engineers and scientists used in the Popular Mechanics article. BTW, I have that issue somewhere. Fantastic article. Thanks for bringing it up.
      "Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Wtc

        Considering the cloak & dagger mindset of this administration I would have to say any reasonable conclusion as to what may have caused the collapse of the towers is worth a look and a serious study. However, many of the conspiracies require too much faith and not enough fact in order to believe them. Alex Jones and the like are very much into the twisting of words and contextual statements to support their belief that 9/11 was an inside job.

        It may have been, it may not. There are stronger facts that are easier to confirm that suggest terrorism. But the way I see it is...the administration presents us one extreme and exaggerated version of the truth...making attempts to link the attacks to Saddam Hussein and his fictional pursuit of WMD's. But on the other hand the conspiracy theorists take us down another road of extremes by wishing us to believe the government itself (sometimes I've heard them blame Israel too) brought down the towers. Turns out, Saddam wasn't guilty...the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
        | | |

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Wtc

          Bottom line, not everything adds up. I took a course called understanding 9/11 in school. While my prof was more than willing to promote the conventional gov release of the events, he did concede on more than one occasion that there were inconsistencies.

          Personally, I'd like to know how a ghost air craft hit the pentagon. Many, many people claim that the pentagon hit was not done by a jet liner. I have to acknowledge that the event is suspicious at the least. The debris and structural damage are not at all consistent with the claim. --- Not to mention the complete and utter failure of the US air defense on every level.

          Also, since this was such a strong point of contention, it should have been a simple matter of releasing confiscated footage of the event in order to prove what happened. 1: Why was the footage confiscated? 2: Why not release it to shut up conspiracy theorists.

          There are a lot of well done ‘conspiracy videos’ out there if you’re curious.

          For those of you with long term memory, you remember going to war in Afghanistan. Most of you are probably saying Afghaniswhere? Its no theory that certain very connected people/companies have made BILLIONS of dollars thanks to our ongoing war on terror (?).

          Most simply, one needs to understand that the government has lied in the past about many many things. The most implausible claim possible is that they have been completely honest with us regarding 9/11. Things may not be the enormous web of lies that some think it is, but it only takes a few people in positions of power to manipulate a situation.
          |TG|Switch

          Better known as:
          That noob who crashed the chopper.
          That noob who ran over the mine.
          That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
          That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Wtc

            ****, the NSA is now scanning my hard drive. I hope they don't find the porn.
            |TG|Switch

            Better known as:
            That noob who crashed the chopper.
            That noob who ran over the mine.
            That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
            That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Wtc

              I'm going to side with reality on this one. I get plenty of fantasy from the movies.
              Peace through fear... since 1947!

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: Wtc

                Originally posted by icky View Post
                I'm going to side with reality on this one. I get plenty of fantasy from the movies.
                So which side do you advocate?
                |TG|Switch

                Better known as:
                That noob who crashed the chopper.
                That noob who ran over the mine.
                That noob who TK'd me with a sniper rifle.
                That noob who hit that APC at 300m with light AT! Our APC...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Wtc

                  Originally posted by War.mongeR1 View Post
                  Haha. My thoughts exactly. Also, a month or two ago, a truck carrying fuel wrecked on a San Francisco bridge. The burning fuel melted the steel and the bridge collapsed. But oh wait! Rosie specifically said that fuel doesn't burn hot enough to melt steel. We've heard nothing from her or other conspirators about the San Francisco incident. But then again, Rosie's an expert on physics and engineering who knows more about these things then all the engineers and scientists used in the Popular Mechanics article. BTW, I have that issue somewhere. Fantastic article. Thanks for bringing it up.

                  Except WTC7 wasn't hit by an aircraft, so there was no fuel involved. I understand the unwillingness to anything Rosie says, but there are plenty of "engineers and scientists" who sit on the other side of the fence.

                  Just an ordinary fire then? If so, that goes against the Governemnt's own theory that the "molten steel" in the towers was caused by burning fuel.

                  But this means you don't have all the facts - which is why I mentioned the lecture by Steve Jones. I'd challenge even the most hardened skeptic (of which I am generally one) to watch it and not come away with at least some questions...
                  7Shades

                  How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
                  And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
                  - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Wtc

                    Someone didn't read the article...

                    Tower 7 housed the city’s emergency command center, so there were a number of fuel tanks located throughout the building—including two 6000-gal. tanks in the basement that fed some generators in the building by pressurized lines. “Our working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time,” according to Sunder. Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.
                    At least 12,000 gallons of fuel potentially in tower 7 running through pipes throughout the building.

                    Lucky Shot

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Wtc

                      Originally posted by Switch
                      Personally, I'd like to know how a ghost air craft hit the pentagon. Many, many people claim that the pentagon hit was not done by a jet liner. I have to acknowledge that the event is suspicious at the least. The debris and structural damage are not at all consistent with the claim. --- Not to mention the complete and utter failure of the US air defense on every level.
                      Merge?....meow

                      Just for kicks... Pentagon Case Study video
                      WTC 7 Case study
                      General rebuttal to the film Loose Change
                      Last edited by USN_Squid; 05-25-2007, 12:06 PM.
                      New to TG?

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Wtc

                        Originally posted by Lucky Shot View Post
                        Someone didn't read the article...
                        Lol, ya got me. I'm at work, I'll give it a read when I'm home. ;)

                        Steel melts at about 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit—but it loses strength at temperatures as low as 400 F. When temperatures break 1000 degrees F, steel loses nearly 50 percent of its strength. It is unknown what temperatures were reached inside WTC7, but fires in the building raged for seven hours before the collapse.
                        True. But according to the laws of entropy, a 48-storey building collapsing due to weakened supports would go sideways - like any other failing upright structure. Only in controlled demolitons where the resistance below is removed, do buildings collapse straight down.

                        Incidentally, the 48-storey building collapsed completely within its own footprint, and the remains were only two storeys high. Incredible, huh?

                        ;)
                        7Shades

                        How sweet, thought lifeless, yet with life to lie,
                        And, without dying, O how sweet to die!
                        - from Thomas Warton's "Ode to Sleep"

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Wtc

                          Originally posted by Atomic Dog View Post
                          But the way I see it is...the administration presents us one extreme and exaggerated version of the truth...making attempts to link the attacks to Saddam Hussein and his fictional pursuit of WMD's. But on the other hand the conspiracy theorists take us down another road of extremes by wishing us to believe the government itself (sometimes I've heard them blame Israel too) brought down the towers. Turns out, Saddam wasn't guilty...the truth is probably somewhere in the middle.
                          I'm sorry, but you've bought into the conspiracy theorist's propaganda on Bush. The Bush administration never made any attempts to link those attacks to Saddam or Iraq. They linked them to Al-Qaeda, which they linked to Afghanistan. Iraq was nothing more than a sidenote until more than a year later, when it got a whole separate show of its own.

                          You cannot refute the official line about 9/11 ("the towers were brought down by those 2 giant planes that ran into them") simply by stating 9/11 wasn't carried out by Iraq. That's spurious logic. The 2 points have nothing to do with each other.

                          On a more general note, theres 2 basic scenarios that could be invoked by the conspiracists: That the US government was (1) actually complicit in planning and conducting the attacks, or (2) simply that they failed to take necessary and obvious steps to prevent the attacks. All "evidence" of strange events surrounding the actual building-collapse patterns can only support the first and more outrageous claim, not the second more moderate claim. So if you aren't prepared to make claim (1), then don't bore us with your "unanswered questions" about the fall of WTC-7. You can't sugarcoat that by just saying "the truth is probably somewhere in the middle". Our government either helped blow up the building, or they didn't, they couldn't have just planted half the explosives or something like that.

                          Edit: That last paragraph applies to your ideas too 7Shades.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Wtc

                            He never made any direct link or accusation toward Iraq/Hussein, but his constant referencing of 9/11, Iraq and Saddam...sometimes even in the same breath...lead to a good majority of the American people to believe that there was some how a relevant connection at the beginning of the war. That's changed now as people are showing more and more that they're fed up with being decieved.

                            It's also been said that immediately after 9/11 Bush set his people to the task of linking the whole affair to Iraq so he'd have a cause to send us to war there.
                            | | |

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Wtc

                              There was an emotional connection of "9/11 shows the kinds of things that can happen to us if we ignore problems overseas", but there was never a logical connection of "Saddam planned 9/11". I'll grant you Bush did make that first conenction, but not the second. And the first has never been shown to be wrong, I'd like to point out.

                              So again, how does that relate to the story that "the WTC were brought down by the 2 Jetliners that the entire world saw crash into them"?

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X