9/11

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 2:44 pm

We've got firefighters from that day describing extensive, gaping damage to the bottom of building 7, raging fires, visible bulging, creaking, withdrawing all of the firefighters from the building because of the expectation that it will collapse.

343 of these peoples colleagues and friends died that day, but there are people in this thread that would have us believe that the surviving firefighters would then make all this up to cover up the "truth" of an attack that killed so many of their friends. There is just no way, no way whatsoever, that these people would do that. The idea is absolutely absurd, and quite disgusting.

Artists impression of that little convo:

"I know all your mates have just died but can you say these things about that building that just collapsed? Cheers"

"why?"

"cos we did it. Shhhhhhhhhh. Oh, sorry for your loss"

"sure. No problem"

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:09 pm

You used to post on it?

Well, I'm shocked

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:09 pm

""Why did the news agencies (BBC) report that WTC 7 collapsed almost 1/2 hour before it did, even though it was not hit by a plane, only had a few floors on fire, and gave no indication that it was in any serious danger?"

Well, I doubt it was because George Bush held a press conference announcing that the US Government had done it but please don't tell anyone. Do you think that this highly secret conspiracy was announced in advance to the BBC?

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:18 pm

dsr

"... Do you think that this highly secret conspiracy was announced in advance to the BBC?..."

What do you think?

Because the BBC did announce its collapse beforehand!

...comprende

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:22 pm

The man has an answer for everything

Is it just possible in that the confusion of a brilliantly planned and perfectly executed Kamikaze attack by some unhinged loons, that the government of country of a democracy might not have reacted in the perfect way, therefore allowing terrorist apologists years later (using tremendous hindsight and crackpot theories) to be able to construct a highly elaborate fantasy and then present it as fact?

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:25 pm

bluelabrador16 wrote:What do you think?

Because the BBC did announce its collapse beforehand!

...comprende

Yes, and that's because the chief fireman on the scene told them it was going to. It had been damaged by debris and had a big hole in the side, among other things. NOT because the world's press was in ont he "conspiracy".

dsr · Post by **dsr** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:27 pm

nutsinmay wrote:The point, though, is that fire from burning kerosene doesn't melt steel into a liquid.

But even if by some amazing set of circumstances the steel had melted, the buildings would have toppled over like trees being felled, not collapse at freefall speed into their own footprints as they would in a controlled demolition. This would have resulted in a lot more casualties in adjacent buildings.

I just think that there was a lot of contingency planning after the 1993 truck bomb.

Do you think that's how horseshoes are made? By melting iron? Or do you think horseshoes are a myth, because they can't be made because it isn't possible to melt iron in a smithy forge?

If the pillars became not strong enough to support the top 50 storeys or whatever it was, the building would collapse straight down. as indeed they did.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:29 pm

bluelabrador16 wrote:What do you think?

Because the BBC did announce its collapse beforehand!

...comprende

So the US government told the tv networks wtc7 was going to collapse. Months of keeping the attacks quite they blow the cover 30mins before it happened. Right.

Ive been quietly reading this thread and not commenting but it's getting more ridiculous by the minute.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:32 pm

Keep commenting on it, its comedy gold

claretdom · Post by **claretdom** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:33 pm

It was Israel

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:38 pm

I think the computers have complicated lives very greatly. The whole, you know, age of computer has made it where nobody knows exactly what's going on.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:40 pm

How the US government left this man in charge of their most secret operation is beyond me.

http://youtu.be/Gjqf2OU0i8I" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 3:57 pm

nutsinmay wrote:The point, though, is that fire from burning kerosene doesn't melt steel into a liquid.

But even if by some amazing set of circumstances the steel had melted, the buildings would have toppled over like trees being felled, not collapse at freefall speed into their own footprints as they would in a controlled demolition. This would have resulted in a lot more casualties in adjacent buildings.

I just think that there was a lot of contingency planning after the 1993 truck bomb.

Do you think that steel maintains 100% of its strength right up until melting point?

And if the floors are pancakeing then yes, of course the building will collapse vertically. The buildings started collapsing from the point of impact. Do you think the floors they are collapsing onto can possibly each hold the entire section of building falling onto them for any amount of time?

harpers_perm · Post by **harpers_perm** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:08 pm

The problem with these intellectually challenged conspiracy theorists is that they never have a theory of their own.

They froth at the mouth whilst reading poorly researched internet sites but never seem to be confident enough to articulate an alternative theory.

So what happened? How were the towers brought down? How were the thousands of civilians who saw both planes mistaken? Why has nobody of the thousands of people involved in the cover up ever come forward?

Be specific, tell me your theory without providing links to internet crackpots. Convince me.

Ps: Princess Diana was killed by a p1ssed up driver and Neil Armstrong walked on the f4cking moon.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:11 pm

Regarding Princess Di, Mitchell and Webb summed it up best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

keith1879 · Post by **keith1879** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:22 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Regarding Princess Di, Mitchell and Webb summed it up best

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b4meFC1ee7Q" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'd never seen this !! The moon landing one is tremendous. This thread has been worthwhile for me. (At least - that's what I want you all to believe).

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:30 pm

They are all brilliant to be fair.

The Laboratire Garnier (Spelling) one is exceptional btw

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:47 pm

How long was the report into 9/11? How soon did it be t published? How quickly was the wreckage disposed of and evidence seized?

It wasn't planned by the US government but there are so many holes in it you have to question the given story.

What about the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't it some weird/impossible plane manoeuvre (esp in a passenger jet, flown by a terrorist)?

How many people were killed from the pentagon? I believe it damaged around 1/5 of the building which was not in use at the time.

Why were none of the planes investigated when they didn't reply to radio signs or they let off distress signals? Would the US not have had time to send jump jets to investigate? Especially after the first crash?

These are just questions I have.

harpers_perm · Post by **harpers_perm** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:48 pm

This thread is littered with amateur aviation and jet fuel experts, there is no credibility.

It's easy to google 'What temp does kerosene and steel burn at' and build a limp conspiracy on it.

It's easy to quote Internet articles from crackpots but most are poorly researched and easily debunked.

Again, id like somebody to offer an alternative theory, who, how and why including information to explain what thousands of people witnessed.

I'm not being argumentative either, a 9/11 thread has appeared on here countless times and nobody has ever offered an alternative theory.

nutsinmay - what's your theory? I am genuinely interested in what you think.

harpers_perm · Post by **harpers_perm** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:56 pm

Claretmatt - the answers to those questions are incredibly well documented.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 6:59 pm

harpers_perm wrote:Claretmatt - the answers to those questions are incredibly well documented.

I'm on the bus home from work, you able to answer one quickly? I must have missed it at the time and since.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:06 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:How long was the report into 9/11? How soon did it be t published? How quickly was the wreckage disposed of and evidence seized?

It wasn't planned by the US government but there are so many holes in it you have to question the given story.

What about the flight path of the plane that hit the pentagon wasn't it some weird/impossible plane manoeuvre (esp in a passenger jet, flown by a terrorist)?

How many people were killed from the pentagon? I believe it damaged around 1/5 of the building which was not in use at the time.

Why were none of the planes investigated when they didn't reply to radio signs or they let off distress signals? Would the US not have had time to send jump jets to investigate? Especially after the first crash?

These are just questions I have.

There has been several documentaries playing actual recordings of the calls made to Air Forces. They were on a training mission at the time and there response time from 'training to real life mode was impeccable'.

Now thats relive that day differently
Passenger Planes hijacked
Air Force called
How do you stop said hijacked plane? Shoot it down?
Ok, go ahead, shoot them down
US government announces several planes shot
down which were intended to hit the WTC.
Many lives saved.
Conspiracy Theorists arrive.

harpers_perm · Post by **harpers_perm** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:10 pm

The official 911 report is in the public domain in a PDF and answers those questions, its 600 pages but I managed to find that 125 people were killed at the Pentagon. Honestly those questions are easily available from a host of credible sources.

If the US government couldn't hide the fact their president jizzed on his secretary's dress then lord knows how they'd find the aptitude to cover 911 up.

Have a safe journey home.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:12 pm

Dyched wrote:There has been several documentaries playing actual recordings of the calls made to Air Forces. They were on a training mission at the time and there response time from 'training to real life mode was impeccable'.

Now thats relive that day differently
Passenger Planes hijacked
Air Force called
How do you stop said hijacked plane? Shoot it down?
Ok, go ahead, shoot them down
US government announces several planes shot
down which were intended to hit the WTC.
Many lives saved.
Conspiracy Theorists arrive.

Not sure you've answered one question there.

I didn't doubt the air force were called, just seems odd to have zero planes within any distance of the capital capable of making an attempt to recon with the plane. Especially as it occurred after the first plane hit (?) so surely that's when the training drills would be canceled and everyone told to return to base?

It's not like it came as a surprise either was it? I'm sure there were loads of CIA Intel both questionable and perhaps a bit more reliable that mentioned an attack on US soil? Of course they didn't know when where or how but to have no jump jets with that specialism anywhere near seems very suspect.

That being said with tragedies like this there are usually a lot of what ifs and a series of mistakes leading to it.

Also, why was nobody from the CIA fired after this gross and catastrophic failure?

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:14 pm

nutsinmay wrote:And if someone gives you a theory you'll then say 'prove it'

Waste of time if it's already been thoroughly disproven.

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:17 pm

harpers_perm wrote:The official 911 report is in the public domain in a PDF and answers those questions, its 600 pages but I managed to find that 125 people were killed at the Pentagon. Honestly those questions are easily available from a host of credible sources.

If the US government couldn't hide the fact their president jizzed on his secretary's dress then lord knows how they'd find the aptitude to cover 911 up.

Have a safe journey home.

I didn't say they covered it up. I only asked questions!

600 seems rather short for an atrocity of this magnitude

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:22 pm

Nobody but no one had ever thought of what happened that day being possible. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it IMO.

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:30 pm

Claretmatt4 wrote:Not sure you've answered one question there.

I didn't doubt the air force were called, just seems odd to have zero planes within any distance of the capital capable of making an attempt to recon with the plane. Especially as it occurred after the first plane hit (?) so surely that's when the training drills would be canceled and everyone told to return to base?

It's not like it came as a surprise either was it? I'm sure there were loads of CIA Intel both questionable and perhaps a bit more reliable that mentioned an attack on US soil? Of course they didn't know when where or how but to have no jump jets with that specialism anywhere near seems very suspect.

That being said with tragedies like this there are usually a lot of what ifs and a series of mistakes leading to it.

Also, why was nobody from the CIA fired after this gross and catastrophic failure?

You questioned why none of the planes investigated and if the Air Force had time too. I answered that.

The US is a pretty huge place. Boston is where the Jets were based on the day. At the time they heard about the attacks the Jets were on training drills somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean.

PWBFC · Post by **PWBFC** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:31 pm

Saxoman wrote:Nobody but no one had ever thought of what happened that day being possible. Anyone who says otherwise is full of it IMO.

Apart from the people that planned it!

Saxoman · Post by **Saxoman** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:32 pm

PWBFC wrote:Apart from the people that planned it!

Yep.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:38 pm

PWBFC wrote:Apart from the people that planned it!

And Rick Rescorla.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:49 pm

harpers_perm

9/11.....Inside job by the Neoconservatives!

Osama stated that 9/11 was done by a "Junta"...

They had the Means, Method and Motive.

"Lies will enslave you."

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 7:53 pm

So true

feel free to stop posting them whenever you want

harpers_perm · Post by **harpers_perm** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:20 pm

bluelabrador16 wrote:harpers_perm

9/11.....Inside job by the Neoconservatives!

Osama stated that 9/11 was done by a "Junta"...

They had the Means, Method and Motive.

"Lies will enslave you."

The Neo conservative theory is a discredited and and an utterly laughable fringe movement.

bluelabrador16 · Post by **bluelabrador16** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:30 pm

harpers_perm

"The Neo conservative theory is a discredited and and an utterly laughable fringe movement."

Discredited by whom? Please elucidate why you regard it as an "utterly laughable fringe movement."

Rileybobs · Post by **Rileybobs** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:54 pm

nutsinmay wrote:So, over a period of years, nanothermite charges were planted in the towers so that, as an absolutely last-ditch scenario, they could bring the towers down into their own footprints so as to minimise wider damage. Of course, people in the towers would be killed, but in the wider context of the 'war on terror', they would be 'collateral damage'. Nanothermite produces temperatures in excess of 4000F. This theory is the one put forward by ‘Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’, and if anyone challenges this I'll refer them to their website.

How many people do you think would have to be involved in the planting of so many charges? Strange that not one person involved has come forward to back this theory up.

Secondly, in your scenario, who flew the planes into the buildings?

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 8:55 pm

Ahh that aluminium argument.

It wasn't an empty can of coca cola. We're talking about an commercial airliner.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:14 pm

Its amazing on threads like this how you find out that what seem perfectly normal posters reveal themselves as bad **** mental

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:35 pm

Its not credible

My father in law is a really intelligent man, but he believes in stuff that has no basis in historical accuracy. I don't talk to him anymore about it because he's so not willing to see that his very few examples are completely destroyed by the vast amounts of actual, real evidence.

You want to believe, so you do. Its doesn't make it anymore right.

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:37 pm

Dyched wrote:You questioned why none of the planes investigated and if the Air Force had time too. I answered that.

The US is a pretty huge place. Boston is where the Jets were based on the day. At the time they heard about the attacks the Jets were on training drills somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean.

Just skimming through the thread and this stood out.

What an absolute crock of shite. I guarentee there is not one air base on planet earth that empties out for training drills so wherever you read that no aircraft where available is completely incorrect

Vegas Claret · Post by **Vegas Claret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:43 pm

yeah because all the other stuff has been discussed a thousand times before and i'll add is open to conjecture and debate

Air Force Bases NEVER empty out during training so I was just correcting the ********

Dyched · Post by **Dyched** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:47 pm

Vegas Claret wrote:Just skimming through the thread and this stood out.

What an absolute crock of shite. I guarentee there is not one air base on planet earth that empties out for training drills so wherever you read that no aircraft where available is completely incorrect

Hey I never said the entire fleet where out. I just said what Id seen.

boiledclaret · Post by **boiledclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:48 pm

Chin up nutsinmay, don't let it bother you, its the internet.

You've made your points very well, tbf.

I only hope we're not all into baring grudges or we're going to be ****ed after this one.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:48 pm

2 x 737s piloted by religous nutjobs flew into the twin towers at high speed, into structures never designed to deal with that size of impact.

They killed over a 1000 people, including hundreds of US citizens.

You want to believe in bat **** conspiracy theories, thats completely your right in a democratic and free society.

Its also my right to call you bat **** mental for believing in the bits that suit your narrative and ignoring the heaps and heaps of stuff that doesn't fit it.

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:55 pm

And some people think we became a "post truth" society in 2016.

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:08 pm

So?

So have millions of people, and the vast majority don't make your conclusions, including a shed load of experts.

Like I said before, you are just like my father in law, except his beef is aliens and the illuminati. He's got books galore on the subject

I'm sure it all makes perfect sense to him, but it doesn't to me, and neither do you.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:13 pm

nutsinmay wrote:for believing in the bits that suit your narrative and ignoring the heaps and heaps of stuff that doesn't fit it.

Like ignoring the burning temperature of kerosene and the melting point of steel? You keep ignoring that!

I've asked this before and you haven't answered, so i'll ask you again.

Do you believe that steel maintains 100% of it's strength at all temperatures below its melting point?
Do you understand that metals don't have to reach melting point for them to become significantly weaker than they are are normal temperatures?

When others are talking about people like you ignoring important and simple pieces of information in order to keep making an argument, this is what they're talking about.

Jet fuel burns at 1500C. Steel melts at 2300 celcius. If you believe that at, or even close to, 1500C steel will still have all of its strength from about 30C then you're not someone who should be allowed in a room alone with sharp objects,

Claretmatt4 · Post by **Claretmatt4** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:17 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:I've asked this before and you haven't answered, so i'll ask you again.

Do you believe that steel maintains 100% of it's strength at all temperatures below its melting point?
Do you understand that metals don't have to reach melting point for them to become significantly weaker than they are are normal temperatures?

When others are talking about people like you ignoring important and simple pieces of information in order to keep making an argument, this is what they're talking about.

Jet fuel burns at 1500C. Steel melts at 2300 celcius. If you believe that at, or even close to, 1500C steel will still have all of its strength from about 30C then you're not someone who should be allowed in a room alone with sharp objects,

If it loses its strength at that temperature would it not bend rather than suddenly snap?

If one floor collapsed onto another it would cause a domino effect, what has been described on an earlier page is a free fall effect.

All very interesting

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:22 pm

nutsinmay wrote:More of the personal stuff, and still no comment on the temperatures of burning kerosene and melting steel!

Do the 'shed load of experts also think that burning kerosene can melt steel? They don't sound like they're very expert!

Oh my god. You really are going to just ignore that simple, fundamental fact of physics while complaining that others are ignoring facts to fit their argument. And then complain about being called a ******* moron.

I don't give a **** about the melting point of steel being higher than the temperature of burning kerocene. What has that got to do with it? No one is suggesting that steel melting is what caused the towers to collapse.

AAre you going to answer my question? Do you believe that metals maintain their strength when heated to extreme temperatures, but stay below their melting point? It's a yes or no question.

ClaretEngineer · Post by **ClaretEngineer** » Wed Jan 04, 2017 10:28 pm

Oooh some engineering.

I know what I'm doing at work tomorrow.