Jump to content

9/11 conspiracy theories


Geoff

Recommended Posts

Originally posted by headup

Gah! the Neocons have struck again.....Dick Cheney has been reading the forum again. Poor Carole...off to Gitmo. :(

 

Actually it doesn't appear she has been banned. Does not say that in her profile (mind you not sure if i would if she was?). Somebody PMed me that she had.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by tulip

No, I got your point.

 

If our governments did this to it's own people is there evidence to prove this?

 

I was trying to say the IRA were small scale compared to Al Queida. But if the conspiracies stories are true then they don't exist as we know it and our governments are wasting millions trying to catch them. It doesn't make sense at all.

 

There's no evidence that I'm aware of that is in the public domain that explicity links Bush and members of his government with 9/11. However, there's a wealth of information that strongly suggests that there is something very 'odd' about what happened. These oddities suggest that those in power were complicit (to whatever degree) in the attack.

 

Multiple architects have stated that the towers should not have collapsed the way that they did (the towers were actually built to withstand just such an impact). Witnesses at the scene reported explosions and fire at the base of the towers. The fireball that supposedly caused one of the huge towers to collapse (by melting steel supports) somehow allowed one of the bombers' passports to survive unharmed. There's more and it just does not add up to the accepted chain of events.

 

I really cannot prove that 9/11 was the result of a conspiracy - if anyone could, it'd be a world-changing event to say the least! All I will say is that there's too much out there to ignore the possibility that this was not the 'simple' act of terror that we are lead to believe in.

 

In one way or another - the events we see unfolding are affecting us all (our freedoms are slowly being eroded to 'protect' us) and I for one will not sit back and accept everything that I'm told.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by headup

Multiple architects have stated that the towers should not have collapsed the way that they did (the towers were actually built to withstand just such an impact). Witnesses at the scene reported explosions and fire at the base of the towers. The fireball that supposedly caused one of the huge towers to collapse (by melting steel supports) somehow allowed one of the bombers' passports to survive unharmed. There's more and it just does not add up to the accepted chain of events.

 

I think you'll find they did withstand the impact of a plane hitting them - as they were designed to. It's what happened after the impact that caused the collapseNobody has said that the steel melted, they actually said that it failed due to it weakening - to weaken it only needs to reach half the temperature that it does to melt. There were 244 supports on the inside perimeter of each floor thus giving redundant support in the event of some failing - the planes did a good job of taking many of these out but the remaining supports held until weakened by the burning aviation fuel which explains the delay in the towers falling. As for it falling straight down as people keep mentioning - it weighed 500,000 t, was 95% air and had no lateral load - the only place it was ever gonna fall was straight down. A buidling of that weight generally will.

 

If the explosion(s) mentioned did in fact happen in the basement(s) and were not a direct result of the plane impact then why the delay in the towers collapsing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by fnkysknky

 

If the explosion(s) mentioned did in fact happen in the basement(s) and were not a direct result of the plane impact then why the delay in the towers collapsing? [/b]

 

A good point, and also if you look at the footage they collapse from the top. The momentum builds from the top and forces the rest of the building down. It does not start form the bottom as a demolition would. We didn't see any secondary explosions at the top of the towers directly prior to them falling. Some of tyhe videos show a secondary flash, just after the planes hit.. but that was quiet some time before they fell.

 

Besides i just do not buy it, why would they select the Twin towers for this conspiracy? Terrorist clearly selected them for maxiumum damage to the economy and people.

 

If they were looking for some justification for a war, why not just bomb a power plant or military target. The effect would have been the same without displacing 10,000 highly paid workers and reducing office space in NY by a large percent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do me a favor, those of you so inclined. PLEASE. Don't quote statistics.

 

You have no real idea what 40%, or 60% of the American people think, believe, or feel. NO IDEA.

 

The population of the US is 296 million. 60% of THAT is 177 million. There is NO possible way that the statistics you are using to make your point, are a truly accurate representation of the political views of 177 million people. It just isn't possible.

 

And to those of you who live in the states? The opinions of your co-workers, your spouse(s), your spouse's extended family, the guy who mows your lawn, the kid who bags your groceries etc, are just that. ONLY THEIR OPINIONS.

 

They cannot and do not speak for the other 295,999,000 Americans.

 

And headup, I think that what you wrote: "In one way or another - the events we see unfolding are affecting us all (our freedoms are slowly being eroded to 'protect' us) and I for one will not sit back and accept everything that I'm told."

 

Isn't a bad way to be at all. Just, you know. We shouldn't let ourselves get carried away. Some of Carole's "conspiracy theories" were so wild and out there, that the truth really did make more sense.

 

*Off Topic*

 

And just for the heck of it, I'm not usually a "conspiracy theory' person, but when I heard that Princess Diana had been killed, it immediately crossed my mind that this would make things so much easier for Prince Charles and the Royal Family. I mean, she'd been behaving like a Palm Beach floozie, what with the flaunting of the boyfriend and all, and become a major embarrassment to them.

 

However, in spite of that, I still believe that what happened to her was an accident...they say she would likely have survived the crash if she'd been wearing a seatbelt. Something that was entirely under HER control.

 

:) Sierra

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.