9/11 Conspiracy?

This is the place where you can vent whatever's on your mind. Feel free to go off on extended rants or brief blurbs about whatever's rocking your world.

Moderators: D. Phillips, Jake

Sugarcubes Forever
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1734
Joined: Thu Feb 21, 2002 8:00 pm

Re: 9/11 Conspiracy?

Postby Sugarcubes Forever » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:13 pm

Herb Tarlek wrote:
LionIndex wrote:I'd like to hear what evidence they have. Things I've heard revolve around the burning temperature of jet fuel not being sufficient enough to "melt" the bar joists in the floor structure of the buildings, but you wouldn't need to actually melt them--high levels of heat in a fire, even those fires not caused by jet fuel, are sufficient to turn structural steel into spaghetti, figuratively.

I'm an architect, so I've got a middling education in structural standards, and there was a PBS show recently after the attacks that mapped the whole cause of structural failure pretty well, and satisfied any curiosity I had about why the buildings went down.

There was another documentary on a cable channel about the Citicorp building, and an issue they had where one connection (repeated hundreds of times within the structure of the building) was changed during construction from a weld to a bolt. At some point afterwards, the structural engineer realized that making that change could result in the structural failure of the building in a 50mph wind, and they had to go back in and retrofit all the faulty connections. So, there's a situation where a measly 50mph wind could topple a skyscraper, but we're seriously supposed to doubt whether a 300mph jet plane full of fuel could cause a collapse? Come on. Is it easier to believe that the Bush administration conceived of and pulled off what would be the most daring and perfectly executed conspiracy the country's ever known, all in order to kill American citizens; or that they just fucked up?


Just take a look at the film, it's not that long (about 45 mins to an hour) and then judge. It's too much to summarize in detail here, but some of the things they point out include:

- The fireballs from the impact of the jets would have burned off most of the fuel, so there would not have been enough there to cause a large enough fire to result in such a collapse.

- The fire from the remaining fuel could not possibly have burned hot enough (even with extra fuel from office contents) to weaken the steel to the degree that it supposedly did - this is based on data from burning jet fuel in ideal conditions and the fire rating of the steel used in the towers

- And even if it WAS hot enough to weaken the steel near the top, there is no way it should have collapsed the entire building from the top down - considering that the steel at the top of any building has far less load on it than the steel at the bottom.

- And for the collapse to happen at freefall speed straight down? According to the experts - and common sense really - the only way that could happen is in a controlled demolition

- Trade Tower 7 (the 3rd building to fall at 5:30 that afternoon) fell the same as the twin towers (straight down at free fall speed) without having been hit by a plane and with fires on only 2 floors. Fires were caused by debris from the twin towers. They cited 2 recent high rise fires, 1 in Madrid and 1 in another place that I can't recall, where the fires burned much hotter than any of these fires and for much longer periods of time and neither building collapsed.

- The pulverization of all of the concrete and office contents of the buildings into a fine dust is apparently another sign that this had to be a controlled demolition. They show an interview with the Governor of New York State a week or so afterwards standing at Ground Zero where he is describing how when he first visited the site he expected to see some intact pieces of concrete but there was none to be seen, just pieces of steel and aluminum.

- They also state that a large majority of the structural steel from the buildings after the collapse was left in roughly 30 ft lengths, which conveniently allowed for quick loading onto trucks for disposal without the need for time-consuming and bothersome cutting.

- And although it is a federal crime to tamper with a crime scene prior to the completion of a full investigation, the site cleanup started almost immediately afterwards with full government support. This did not allow for any reconstructive analysis using the steel from the site to determine the actual cause - which is typically done in any major accident or catastrophe such as an airline crash. This analysis would have proven conclusively the actual cause of the collapse. They claim that this alone is clear evidence of a coverup.

I don't necessarily agree with everything in the film but it certainly raises alot of good questions. And Ed Begley Jr. is in it too - he introduces the MIT structural engineering professor who raises alot of these questions - and any film with (Spinal Tap drummer) John 'Stumpy' Pepys in it is definitely worth seeing.


Dude, you are fucking crazy just to waste you time on this. Wouldn't you get more entertainment out of Netflixing the first three seasons of The X-Files?

amighty
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:08 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Postby amighty » Fri Apr 07, 2006 5:20 pm

I've been hearing more and more stuff about this, and while I initially wrote it off as looney-tunes, my interest has become piqued. I watched those towers fall with my own eyes and it did happen amazingly fast... and right after all the news reporters and I think everybody else was saying "No one expected the towers to fall." But everybody changed their minds about that after the fact pretty quickly.

There was also a lot of talk about the towers being proofed against a 707 but this was a 767, so that's gotta be a lot worse, right? Apparently not, as a 767 carries less fuel and wrighs less (or something).

Fire and whatever, maybe the vibrations loosened the bolts, or maybe the buildings weren't built as well as they were supposed to be... either way I SAW what happened there. It's the other crashes, at the Pentagon and out in PA that are more mysterious. Where are those planes? And why was the hole in the Pentagon so much smaller than a jumbo jet?

It would have to be such a crazy conspiracy it is mind-boggling to even contemplate. Unlikely, but not to be written off so quickly I guess.

Herb Tarlek
GLONO Board Mack Daddy
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 2:24 pm
Location: The Great White North

Postby Herb Tarlek » Fri Apr 07, 2006 10:05 pm

I agree that looking strictly at the big picture, the likelihood that Bush & Co. were directly involved in planning or had prior knowledge of the attacks is a stretch, never mind how anyone would get the access required to place the explosives without anyone finding out. But I think the film raises enough issues that are not explained by the official version of the story to warrant a closer look. Not that it will ever happen of course......not until they reconvene the Warren Commision first.

Who knows what really happened? Maybe I AM crazy or I enjoy a good conspiracy too much, but truth, fiction or somewhere in between, this kind of stuff is very intriguing to me.

amighty
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:08 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Postby amighty » Sat Apr 08, 2006 12:08 pm

A conspiracy here would be even crazier than 9/11 itself!

trainwreck2
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1132
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 12:55 pm
Location: not sweden like some losers here!

Postby trainwreck2 » Mon Apr 10, 2006 9:31 am

there were bits of plane around the pentagon crash site, the hole was the size of a jet, i think it went in so fast or whatever that most of it was basically vaporized.

amighty wrote: Where are those planes? And why was the hole in the Pentagon so much smaller than a jumbo jet?

russ
GLONO Board Maniac
Posts: 1097
Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 10:38 pm
Location: New Joisey

WTC 911 CALL FROM MOUSSAOUI TRIAL

Postby russ » Wed Apr 12, 2006 3:34 pm

Conspiracy theories or not, I went to that nasty website
Ogrish today because I wanted to see if they had
any stuff from the Moussaoui trial, and they did.
2 "911" calls that were played at the trial are up
there, and this one is heartbreaking. The last 5
seconds of the clip are of the man screaming
as the tower collapses.

This is why I do not want to see FLIGHT 93
or any other movies about 9/11.
No amount of acting or storytelling will ever
equal the sobering reality of the horrible event.

This may annoy people that I am posting this here,
so please forgive me,
but I feel it is important to hear.
Do not listen unless you can stomach it.

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/disturbi ... _2006.html

amighty
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:08 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Postby amighty » Wed Apr 12, 2006 4:26 pm

trainwreck2 wrote:there were bits of plane around the pentagon crash site, the hole was the size of a jet, i think it went in so fast or whatever that most of it was basically vaporized.



Yeah... I don't think so. The hole was much smaller than a jet (I think it was 16 feet across). And I've never heard of any jet "vaporizing" anywhere outside of the that one and the one in PA. Torn up twisted metal and bodies, yes, vaporization, no.

Altho who knows... I'm reading now that there was a much bigger hole on the outer ring or something. Either way, I don't trust anything these guys say now, and they only have themselves to thank for my skepticism.


I did sewe the trailer for "Flight 93" before "Inside Man", and it was definitely disturbing. Not because it's a movie about 9/11... I'd like to see more things about it so that people don't forget what happened. It bothered me because it loioks like the movie is about sensationalizing and capitalizing on it. It looked like typical Hollywood action fare, and I think to ascribe higher motives than that to the film is probably misguided. Wait and see I guess.

Herb Tarlek
GLONO Board Mack Daddy
Posts: 388
Joined: Tue Jul 15, 2003 2:24 pm
Location: The Great White North

Postby Herb Tarlek » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:49 pm

amighty wrote:I did sewe the trailer for "Flight 93" before "Inside Man", and it was definitely disturbing. Not because it's a movie about 9/11... I'd like to see more things about it so that people don't forget what happened. It bothered me because it loioks like the movie is about sensationalizing and capitalizing on it. It looked like typical Hollywood action fare, and I think to ascribe higher motives than that to the film is probably misguided. Wait and see I guess.


I just wonder how they will make the requisite happy ending - no Hollywood action movie would be complete without one.

Are there any well known actors/actresses in it? I would guess that most A, B, C and even D-list Hollywood celebs wouldn't touch this with a 10 ft pole, but I could be wrong.

amighty
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 552
Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 7:08 pm
Location: Brooklyn

Postby amighty » Wed Apr 12, 2006 5:56 pm

Herb Tarlek wrote:
I just wonder how they will make the requisite happy ending - no Hollywood action movie would be complete without one.


In the movie they kill the terrorists and the passengers live after one of them lands the plane at the last minute with help from air-traffic control.

n8
GLONO Board Kingpin
Posts: 661
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:27 pm
Location: Oaktown

Postby n8 » Wed Apr 12, 2006 6:27 pm

amighty wrote:
In the movie they kill the terrorists and the passengers live after one of them lands the plane at the last minute with help from air-traffic control.


are you kidding me? they don't even stick with the facts? well then what's the point? i'm seriously boggled.


Return to “Rants and Raves”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest