9/11

[Dyched]

I think you're rlp-ying to the wrong person, but hey-ho.

The answer is 'yes', but in that case the towers would have toppled over.

How?

[Claretmatt4]

I think everyone is misquoting each other here. I was saying what happened doesn't seem to add up with the metal losing its rigidity under high temperatures - I was saying that wouldn't explain why the towers fell freely.

[bluelabrador16]

Not a shred of evidence that any 9/11 ‘hijackers’ boarded any planes

By Craig McKee

"To believe the official story of 9/11 you have to swallow an awful lot. You have to believe the laws of physics can be suspended for a day, that planes can disappear after crashing, and that Muslims accused of being suicide hijackers can still be alive after the deed is done....."

... as researcher Elias Davidsson demonstrates in his book Hijacking America’s Mind on 9/11: Counterfeiting Evidence, there is not one shred of authenticated evidence that any of the 19 men blamed for the “attacks” ever boarded any planes. And even if there were, this would not prove they participated in any hijackings.

....Davidsson shows that evidence proving that the guilt of the accused hijackers simply does not exist. Beyond that, the names on the official list have changed multiple times with no adequate explanation for why or how. Several accused even turned out to be alive after 9/11, a fact that is not mentioned in the 9/11 Commission Report even though it was known long before the report was written. The North American media have also ignored this critical fact.

In his analysis, Davidsson lists five ways that guilt could have been proven but was not:

Authenticated passenger lists or flight manifests that feature the names of the alleged hijackers;
Authenticated boarding passes showing that they boarded the planes;
Sworn testimonies of anyone who witnessed any of the accused boarding;
Authenticated security videos showing them boarding the planes and;
Physical remains with chain of custody reports.

Davidsson contends that not only has the government not proven its case against the 19, it has not even established probable cause.

https://truthandshadows.wordpress.com/2 ... rd-planes/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cui Bono...

Kevin Barrett ...".the purpose of 9/11 was to hijack the US military and take out “seven countries in five years”  — the seven countries that posed a threat to Israel — in accordance with the Oded Yinon Plan and the 1996 Clean Break document? Does he not know who PNAC was, which country’s extremist leadership it really represented, and why it called for a “New Pearl Harbor” in September, 2000 and got it one year later?"

Gosh.

Who can challenge Elias Davidsson?

[Vintage Claret]

[quote="nutsinmay"]f

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

But structual steel doesn't have to melt to become ineffective, it begins to soften at around 425 C and loses about 50% of it's strength at 650 C much less than the temperatures in many parts of the building.

Once the steel supports start to buckle (and variances in temperatures within the building would exacerbate this) it can't keep supporting the weight of the floors above it so they collapse which in turn causes all the floors below to collapse on top of each other.

Under those circumstances a 500,000 ton structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down which is why it 'looks like' a controlled explosion.

[Paul Waine]

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.

The latest idea why the Titanic sunk is that there was a fire in the bunkers from before the ship left Southampton. The heat of the fire is suggested to be enough to make the steel in the Titanic's hull brittle - so that when it hits the iceberg the damage is much more extensive than it otherwise would have been - and a rapid sinking results.

I know the Titanic has nothing to do with WTC. My understanding is that the twin towers - the tallest buildings in the world when they were built - used a particular structural design to achieve the height. This design proved the weakness when the, unforeseen, collisions from two aircraft, both with near maximum fuel loads, smashed into them.

I lived near the WTC for a few months in 1993. I walked through one of the towers once or twice almost every day. The towers were very broad. It's no puzzle to me that the towers, to some extent, fell vertically rather than fell outwards. Of course, some of the higher floors did fall away from the towers - and WTC7 suffered as a consequence.

[Imploding Turtle]

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

It will bend slightly, but not for long before the weight above the point of it bending forces if to snap. This can be seen by the first tower collpasing. The section above the impact starts to collapse and fall sideways slightly before gravity overcomes any horizontal movement and all collapses into the floors below. It didn't all suddently just go, and it didn't all go from one floor in an even manner. You can actually see it in videos that it collapses at one corner first and then you see the load-bearing exterior buckled and give at an angle across many floors. (https://youtu.be/qhyu-fZ2nRA?t=55" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;)

The idea that someone can arrange to fly planes into a building that big, and have them both hit just the right floors at and at such a perfect angle that demolition charges can be set off to have the building buckle and collapse right where the plane hit it is just absolutely insane.

[Lancasterclaret]

I think the only way to be sure Claretmatt4 is if someone flew 2 737s into the twin towers enough times to produce a statistically accurate result.

Thats only possible in computer simulations, NOT in real life, which is why conspiracies abound about it.

[Claretmatt4]

Once the steel supports start to buckle (and variances in temperatures within the building would exacerbate this) it can't keep supporting the weight of the floors above it so they collapse which in turn causes all the floors below to collapse on top of each other.

Would it though? If one floor gave way, the area under the most heat pressure, it would bend, buckle and break under the immense weight, but would that necessarily make the entire building suddenly and completely collapse on itself, every floor falling on top of the next in perfect sequence?

If that can be proved by someone who is knowledgeable of such matters then it would settle that for me.

I believe nutsinmay said the central spine was made from different metal(?) that would have remained after the rest fell away?

[Claretmatt4]

Seems you've answered the above already Mr Turtle. Cheers.

[geopancake]

Blah, blah, blah your mum, I respond with yer dad. Unfortunately, the whole picture as with many of these issues needs to be taken into account. Not one. You are correct the structure of steel would most likely change.

However, the weight of all the evidence suggests serious discrepancies occur from the official narrative.

Remember, Saxo brought this up, just to divert attention from his troubles to our worldly ones.

[dsr]

Would it though? If one floor gave way, the area under the most heat pressure, it would bend, buckle and break under the immense weight, but would that necessarily make the entire building suddenly and completely collapse on itself, every floor falling on top of the next in perfect sequence?

If that can be proved by someone who is knowledgeable of such matters then it would settle that for me.

I believe nutsinmay said the central spine was made from different metal(?) that would have remained after the rest fell away?

Yes, it would. Remember that if one floor collapses, the fifty or so floors above it would collapse as well. If a fifty storey skyscraper drops just 10 feet onto an 80 storey skyscraper, the whole lot falls quicksticks. I don't know exactly how heavy the fifty storeys were, but I sure as heck know that the 89th floor wasn't designed to have the strength to resist a fifty storey skyscraper landing on it.

And that's connected with nuts' puzzlement over the molten steel. One of the things he (or she) evidently doesn't remember from school physics, or at least isn't able to bring it immediately to mind, is that pressure generates heat. How many pounds per square inch are produced by the dropping of a skyscraper? More than enough to melt steel, I'm sure.

[harpers_perm]

I never realised there were so many experts on this forum on the tensile performance of steel.

Let's move on to the suspicious death of Ronnie Corbett now, I've heard it involved 2 bottles of Gin, a 14 inch cucumber, a 12v car battery, a large copper plated frying pan and Una Stubbs.

That's what I've seen on internet anyway.

[Paul Waine]

At last! A properly thought out post with no personal abuse.

I don't agree with the theory because it overlooks the central core, but good post.

Thanks, nutsinmay.

I assume you mean the central core of the two towers?

I'm no architect or structural engineer. My understanding is that the twin towers used the outer walls as part of the structural strength - and didn't get all their structural integrity from the central core. The towers weren't designed to maintain structural integrity in the event of an aircraft (never mind two) flying under power into the tower. Engineering standards have been revised now in response to this new risk.

September 9, 2001 was a tragic day. Just like there have been many other tragic days.

[dsr]

Of course horseshoes can be made, but it's the temperatures that are the key. A modern blacksmith's forge uses 'blacksmith's coal' (bitumen and anthracite) that can heat the horseshoe to about 2000F, easily enough to bend it.

So are you now contending that horseshoes are a modern invention, only capable of production with bitumen forges? I'm afraid this time I can prove you wrong. In the 1929 Grand National, Golden Miller's shoe was partly ripped off and dug into his hoof on the second circuit - causing him to lose the race to a 100-1 outsider. Point being, he had a shoe. A horseshoe, made of bent iron, bent in an old-fashioned forge.

For what it's worth, I've seen it done. A forge, run by one man with a powered bellows (though in the olden days it would have been an apprentice on the bellows) and a coal furnace, heating iron (not steel) to a high enough temperature that that same man could bend it using only a hammer and anvil. That would be at about 1.000 degrees F, perhaps just a little more. Well below the burning temperature of jet fuel.

Of course, a blacksmith's furnace even then could heat the coal fire to temperatures higher than an average coal fire. It's called the adiabatic effect, where in effect you're putting a roof over the fire and blowing air through it. Pretty much as happened in the Twin Towers, in fact. Kerosene under ideal conditions burns at about 3,800 degrees F - quite a long way above the 1,000 degrees at which iron loses its strength. (Steel, with carbon added to the iron, loses strength at an even lower temperature.)

And finally, could you explain more about the thousands of people working in the Towers while the explosives were being fitted over the months that it must have taken? Were all those thousands in on the conspiracy, or did they just make sure that none of the thousands were allowed into any of the spaces where the explosives were kept? Or did none of the thousands recognise an explosive when they saw it?

[Bin Ont Turf]

I never realised there were so many experts on this forum on the tensile performance of steel.

Let's move on to the suspicious death of Ronnie Corbett now, I've heard it involved 2 bottles of Gin, a 14 inch cucumber, a 12v car battery, a large copper plated frying pan and Una Stubbs.

That's what I've seen on internet anyway.

I used to stick metal together for a living.

The experts at the time called it welding, but to me it was always known as sellotaping.

[Dyched]

How do you explain the damage to the elevator shafts and stair wells which blocked people including firefighters? You've already said sm aluminium aircraft cant do damage to a steel structure.

I'm only questioning so much because for these theories to be real there has to be thousands of people keeping there mouths shut. Eye witness, including fire fighters.

[dsr]

The thing is though, dsr (overlooking the patronising stuff , that the floors were independently connected from the central core to the outer 'frame' by 'hat trusses'. One floor collapsing might have an effect on lower floors, but not the ones above.

And the 'pancake' theory of floors collapsing on to each other doesn't work when you see the timing of the collapse - it's free fall speed. The only rational explanation I've seen for this (and it's just my view, supported nonetheless by 2,700 architects all over the world), is that the central core was 'sliced' into pieces by nanothermite charges working like lasers, thus providing no resistance to the collapse. That's how they demolish steel buildings into their own footprint.

The structure of the building collapsed, not just the floorboards. If the 89th floor collapsed, then the 90th floor has only two options - to collapse straight down with the 89th, or to hang floating in the air with no means of support. It chose the former.

The way nanothermite charges would have worked is by removing the support for a lower floor so that the floor above would pancake straight down on top of it. Which is exactly what happened in New York. The nth floor (I've been saying 89, but I don't know if that's the exact number - it doesn't affect the principal) lost its structuarl support, so all the floors above it fell on to number 88. This caused the whole structure to pancake downwards.

As for the freefall effect, what do you expect? As I said above, the 88th floor wasn't designed to support the weight of a fifty storey skyscraper being dropped on it. It collapsed in no time. It's resistance against that tremendous momentum was negligible.

[jedi_master]

I find conspiracy theories a mixture of hilarious and terrifying, but in the case of 9/11, I'll be honest, I find them disrespectful and shameful.

That day is one of the blackest the world has seen, some of the horrifying things that happened that still make me literally well up seeing, even 15+ years on (i.e, the people making a decision between burning to death in 2000 degree heat or jumping, telephone calls from the towers etc) should not be associated with the ridiculous agenda driven ******** put forward by spotty no marks on the Internet. It is an absolute disgrace.

I am sure there are plenty of things about 9/11 (intelligence etc) that are not known or in the public domain, they most likely never will be nor should be. I am also of the absolute opinion that many mistakes were made in the actual management of the incident (i.e, 911 operators telling people in the second tower to be hit to return to their desks as they were at no risk, etc - although admittedly, this was a situation they could not ever have been prepared for). What needs to be considered here is that the buildings, regardless of whatever the hyperbole the architects may have stated in the 70's stated, were not capable of withstanding a Boeing 747 flying into them at the speed they did. All the discussion since about the melting point of steel, the integrity of the structure etc, surely this is irrelevant? The bottom line is (just like the Titanic) the building was not infallible to this type of attack. World Trade Centre 7 - again, this is a common source of discussion from conspiracy theorists, they choose to disregard the many many eye witness reports of substantial fire damage to the rear and the fact it was evacuated (please see the link here for someone walking around the inside of WTC 7 after it's evacuation and prior to it's collapse - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uLqGRv7CQlc - it is clearly not in a good state) in favour of saying it was detonated.

The one indisputable truth that should never be argued or even discussed is who the perpetrators of the attacks were - they were terrorists taking innocent lives for 'religious' reasons. If you do not believe that, you are doing a disservice to the victims and also may I add, to yourself, as you instantly lose so much respect from me (not that you would care, I am sure). I seriously hold these opinions in such contempt. I am sorry I have gone off on a tangent with this, but I have had this same argument in real life with so many people, and after approaching 16 years it really is still unbelievable to me that anyone could even CONSIDER the things suggested as 'what really happened'.

[Imploding Turtle]

It didn't collapse at freefall speeds from the visable beginning of the collapse.

You can see in this video that the left corner buckles and collapse before anything else. And as it begins to fall, if you slow the video down, you can see the exterior buckling spreading starting from the left and up to the right.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9SSS0DDqfm0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Am i really expected to believe that not only were the core pillars severed by thermite, but that they were severed across many different floors and at the exact angle the plane flew into it?

I'm still waiting to learn if you (nutsinmay) thinks that steel maintains all its strength right up until boiling point.

[Imploding Turtle]

A. But the steel did melt! There were orange rivers of it flowing out of the second tower. What melted it?

B. The floors didn't collapse on top of each other - the building collapsed at freefall speed.

C. Also, if it did fall straight down, why wasn't the central core left standing like a tree trunk with no branches? It was a continuous length of 1000 feet or so connected from the bedrock to the top - what happened to it?

A. How do you know it was steel?

B. What is your evidence that the buildings definitely did fall at exactly freefall speed? Please don't tell me it's just the Loose Change guy with his stopwatch.

C. You have no clue, do you? Using this diagram please point to the one continuous 1000 feet (or so) piece of steel that you think alone can remain standing without any lateral support whatsoever.

[Dyched]

The damage wasn't done by just the planes. No-one is disputing that fires were raging - you only have to look at the footage.

Right, so what damaged the outside if the buildings?

[dsr]

A. But the steel did melt! There were orange rivers of it flowing out of the second tower. What melted it?

B. The floors didn't collapse on top of each other - the building collapsed at freefall speed.

C. Also, if it did fall straight down, why wasn't the central core left standing like a tree trunk with no branches? It was a continuous length of 1000 feet or so connected from the bedrock to the top - what happened to it?

A. If you had read post 177, or remembered what it said, you would know the answer. Pressure generates heat. Drop the world's tallest building on its own footprint, and there is a lot of pressure, and hence a lot of heat.

B. And if you'd read post 185 you'd know the answer to this one too.

C. And this one.

[Vegas Claret]

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

"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."

this bit "At the time they heard about the attacks the Jets were on training drills somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean"

I was just pointing out that even if that is correct then it had zero relevance to any response capabilities - I've no idea if they were called etc, just pointing it out

[Imploding Turtle]

I've answered your last point about steel melting - of course it was weakened, but in such a case the building would have toppled over, or the outer 'tube' would have collapsed into (or away from) the central core, leaving it like a tree trunk with no branches.

I would suggest that the central core must have been severed in many places - if not, what happened to it? No-one knows, because the debris was removed pdq.

With respect to everyone, I wish you'd read the posts - I have replied to the same point several times from different posters, without personal abuse and with reference to an expert website. If you don't believe it, fine, but please stop shooting the messenger.

It did topple over. Look at all the columns going at an angle compared to the columns below where it began to collapse.




Jesus ******* Christ.

[Dyched]

"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."

this bit "At the time they heard about the attacks the Jets were on training drills somewhere above the Atlantic Ocean"

I was just pointing out that even if that is correct then it had zero relevance to any response capabilities - I've no idea if they were called etc, just pointing it out

Ive rewatched abit of the documentary on YouTube earlier. The Jets where infact based in Langley and headed out to the Atlantic as its normal procedure to do so because that's where an attack is most likely to becoming from.

I was wrong

[Saxoman]

Blah, blah, blah your mum, I respond with yer dad. Unfortunately, the whole picture as with many of these issues needs to be taken into account. Not one. You are correct the structure of steel would most likely change.

However, the weight of all the evidence suggests serious discrepancies occur from the official narrative.

Remember, Saxo brought this up, just to divert attention from his troubles to our worldly ones.

It was a joke.. How was I to know you'd all go off on one like freaks?

[Dyched]

Surely the plane had to hit the lower floors to 'topple' over?

[Imploding Turtle]

That's just the top section - by 'toppling' I mean falling over on it's full length, like, you know, toppling

No-one has yet explained what happened to the central core.

What the actual ****? You think it would topple from the bottom?

You cannot be this stupid. This has to be a brilliant troll.



Edit: Or do you think the top part would somehow go entirely horizontal before any of it breaks up? That's not any less stupid. do you think the building was built with hinges for walls?

And the central core collapsed. it was laterally supported by the floors and guess what happened when those floor no longer supported it. It ******* collapsed.

[Darnhill Claret]

How come the all the people on the ground that day, hereby to be known as the witnesses, have not attested to the fact that they saw the buildings explode and did not see anything resembling a plane crashing into the towers. Or have the American security forces assassinated each and every one of them??

[Vegas Claret]

How come the all the people on the ground that day, hereby to be known as the witnesses, have not attested to the fact that they saw the buildings explode and did not see anything resembling a plane crashing into the towers. Or have the American security forces assassinated each and every one of them??

More nonsense

There were plenty, firemen included, on video that kibosh the official story on the day - I'm not posting links to the videos as nobody will watch them as you've all decided that anyone who doesn't believe a word the media say are idiots (they are on youtube though)

I personally have no idea what happened BUT I 100% believe that the official story is utter twaddle. If there are far too many anomalies for the families to remain silent then I'm with them.

[Imploding Turtle]

More nonsense

There were plenty, firemen included, on video that kibosh the official story on the day - I'm not posting links to the videos as nobody will watch them as you've all decided that anyone who doesn't believe a word the media say are idiots (they are on youtube though)

Translation: I can't risk having my opinion debunked, because that would make me feel sad , therefore I won't be backing up what i'm saying with sources.

[Vegas Claret]

Translation: I can't risk having my opinion debunked, because that would make me feel sad , therefore I won't be backing up what i'm saying with sources.

No, I meant exactly what I said. You and I have been down this road before turtle and you clearly didn't bother watching the videos I posted last time around.

Like I said, I'll not bother this time around.

What makes me feel sad is that a huge proportion of the families will clearly never get justice or find out the truth, some bloke trying his hardest to debunk every world topic on a football forum doesn't even measure on the richter scale.

[Bordeauxclaret]

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories however if I did, judging by how angry turtle gets about it, I'd think he was in on it.

[Imploding Turtle]

I found the video you're on about. I did watch it back then, and i've watched it again, did what i did back then and found the same information. The video is using as proof that it couldn't possibly be from a 767 engine the fact that it has the "wrong" type of cooling duct. That is its entire argument.

As proof it shows two different things. a cooling duct and a cooling duct assembly. The video is claiming that 767 engines have one of these items, but never the other. The fact is they have both because one screws onto the other. Here's where this became apparent - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... stcount=87" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Here's the post that led me to that one - http://www.internationalskeptics.com/fo ... ostcount=8" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Imploding Turtle]

I don't believe any of the conspiracy theories however if I did, judging by how angry turtle gets about it, I'd think he was in on it.

I'm not angry about the theory. It's stupidity that pisses me off, but there comes a point when it just becomes funny and this thread has many examples of that.

[scamander]

Apologies if any of what I’m writing has already been covered. I’ve read a fair bit on this and the sad truth is that any debate is usually aligned to the more extreme views, so if you state that there are numerous gaps in the information, that some aspects don’t quite add up you’ll inevitably have stats involving the melting point of steel thrown back at you. You’ll also be somehow associated with the really bizarre claims some folk have made.

I’ve read some conspiracies which seem ridiculous at best, but these aren't homogenous not everyone who asks questions thinks that the Twin Towers don't exist and we are all in a Bobby Ewing dream sequence.

But let’s go back a bit, in 1962 the US government suggested Operation Northwoods (google it, it’s on wiki btw). This was a false flag operation (these are covert operations which intend to direct blame at a group who weren’t responsible for the act) in which terrorist bombings in Florida would give the US cause to declare war on Cuba. So if you dismiss any 9/11 conspiracy theory on the basis that the US would never harm its own citizens, well, there was, in theory, a precedent. This doesn’t mean 9/11 was as per some of the conspiracy theories or even that the US govt knew (I state this as someone may take this out of context - stick with me).

But would the US use a false flag incident as justification for invading or declaring war? Well, again google the Gulf of Tonkin Incident (on wiki btw). It occurred in 1964 and served as part of President Johnson’s legal justification for war with North Vietnam. In short the US faked two confrontations with enemy vessels thus lending momentum to Johnson (and the legal muscle).

Neither of these directly feed into 9/11 but they serve to remind that govts, particularly the US will consider quite extreme acts to achieve a political effect. There is a lot of aspects to 9/11 which are, at best, ignored, the survival of the passports is one example. I watched a documentary (102 Minutes that Changed the World), it’s a montage of the various surviving footage and is quite terrifying in some respects. A lot of the footage involves people fleeing from the debris, which is largely ash and tiny pieces of paper. Now somehow a passport survived all of this, survived the intense heat, the force of the explosion and fluttered down intact. The black boxes of the plane didn’t survive.

If you accept that the passport may have been planted and didn’t really survive the blast you aren’t suggesting that the aliens did it, but you move from a position where everything is explained to one which has gaps. There are several more of these which I would be keen to understand more. 9/11 did provide the US with the momentum to invade Iraq, something the Bush administration had been wanting to do for some time (check out Rumsfeld).

However, comedy says it best and who better than Peter Griffin

Brian Griffin: Peter, this is the site of the 9/11 terrorist attacks.
Peter Griffin: Oh so Saddam Hussein did this?
Brian Griffin: No.
Peter Griffin: The Iraqi army?
Brian Griffin: No.
Peter Griffin: Some guys from Iraq?
Brian Griffin: No.
Peter Griffin: That one lady who visited Iraq that one time?
Brian Griffin: No, Peter Iraq had nothing to do with this, it was a bunch of Saudi Arabians, Lebanese, and Egyptians financed by a Saudi Arabian guy living in Afghanistan and sheltered by Pakistanis.
Peter Griffin: So you're saying we need to invade Iran?

[boiledclaret]

Exactly, we've had the iluminati mentioned along with the usual Zionists and the Jews did it etc etc.

What has any of that got to do with not being satisfied with a botched report?

[Lancasterclaret]

One thing we can all agree with is that the US, with its thickest president of all time (so far!) drew the wrong conclusions from it.

[quoonbeatz]

its pretty obvious that the guy flying the plane chucked his passport out of the window just before it hit the tower.

[Lancasterclaret]

"Quick Mehmet, get off the phone to the CIA, what button do we press to open the window, we have to leave an evidence trail just before we crash the plane into the tw........."

[scamander]

One thing we can all agree with is that the US, with its thickest president of all time (so far!) drew the wrong conclusions from it.

There's a strong line of argument which places place Rumsfeld/Cheney (particularly the latter)as the main agitators with Bush as a bit of a patsy to it all. There's an excellent podcast called 'Last Podcast From the Left' and they do two episodes on 9/11 (what happened and debunking some of the extreme conspiracy theories). They focus more on the political links and motivations for war with Iraq etc.

[bluelabrador16]

Former ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent Alan Hart talks about 9 11 and the media

Respected former ITN and BBC Panorama correspondent Alan Hart talks to Re-investigate 9/11 about 9/11 and the control of the media.
Alan worked at both ITN and BBC as a correspondent and journalist, forming close relationships with world leaders including Margaret Thatcher, Jimmy Carter, Golda Meir and Yasser Arafat.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hy4vhpFE4w" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

"Short but sweet...4minutes"

[claretdom]

Can you imagine labradors browsing history

[claretdom]

No need to imagine.

lab.jpg

Even the 2 poor labs have the "can we stop reading this **** yet" expression

[Lancasterclaret]

Aliens nicked it

What do you think happened to it?

[Vegas Claret]

have we signed anyone yet ?

[HatfieldClaret]

have we signed anyone yet ?

If we don't, that'll be another conspiracy theory... !!


Where are the Illuminati when you need them ?

[keith1879]

This is not even going to start to convince the conspiracy theorists - but to anybody who hasn't read a detailed technical explanation of how the WTC collapsed (oh all right - is alleged to have collapsed) it might be interesting. http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/01 ... -0112.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rileybobs]

I'm getting pretty sick of your anger-driven abuse - it's you who is the troll!

As we know, the core was a 1000ft length of box sections welded together. Assuming that it didn't sink 1000 feet into the ground, what happened to it?

You do know that a 1000ft length of steel sections welded together is likely to end up as a number of unwelded steel sections after being hit by a passenger plane? Would you expect the steelwork to remain intact protruding 1000ft into the air without any lateral support?

[bluelabrador16]

The challenge...15 minutes and you will be convinced!

Essential viewing: Look at the evidence and decide for yourselves!

Architects and Engineers: Solving the Mystery of Building 7 - w/ Ed Asner 1.6m views

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

video also included below....

A&E 911 Truth: Beyond Misinformation -download

What Science Says About the Destruction of World Trade Center Buildings 1, 2, and 7

"This 50-page primer provides a comprehensive overview of the evidence regarding the World Trade Center destruction and a careful examination of the hypotheses that researchers have put forward to explain what caused it.
With references to dozens of scholarly papers and videos, it is both a perfect starting point for those who are new to the subject and a valuable resource for those already immersed in it..."

http://www.beyondmisinformation.org/#be ... nformation" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Are you brave enough to watch it!