9/11 conspiracy theorists unite!

Status
Not open for further replies.

Xhar

Cadet
Joined
May 3, 2006
I think you people are forgetting something:

In the wreckage of the WTC Towers, they found wing and fuselage parts, after the planes exploded and fell hundreds of feet, mixing in with the rubble.

None have been reportedly found or seen at the Pentagon.

Also, the wings wouldnt have fit in that hole (a hole, btw, that WAS to small to have fit an entire plane of that size in), they would have shredded off upon impact if the plane buried itself in the building. This argument also applies to the tail section and rudder. In the footage of ANY other plane crash site you see, the tail section is almost always intact, or at least leaves very discernable pieces intact (as the tail section recieves the least amount of stress or impact from any head-on crash). NONE of these plane parts are seen in any of the footage.

As for the engines, does anyone know how dense the machinery inside a turbine engine is? Inch per inch, they are the heaviest part of any machine, yet there are no impact points by them, and the only "part" recovered from the site is a rotor plate, the flimsiest part of a turbine engine, that is far too small to have been an outer rotor part of a turbine from the plane they are saying crashed there. The odds of the engines being so totally destroyed as to be unrecognizable at a crash site yet leave an inner rotor intact is so infantesimile as to be accurately labeled as "impossible".

Yes, there is more to this story than the official report.

Yes, the WTC Towers were strong enough to withstand that impact, and the substructure was strong enough not to have completely caved in like it did.

Yes, the WTC Towers collapsed in freefall, without tumbling over to the side. No structure is built to allow such a fall from happening due to an accident.


This time, its not just my oppinion I am posting, nor is it supposition or theory, it is pure fact.

Xhar
 
F

frostydf2

Guest
Originally posted by Xhar@May 19 2006, 07:22 PM
I think you people are forgetting something:

In the wreckage of the WTC Towers, they found wing and fuselage parts, after the planes exploded and fell hundreds of feet, mixing in with the rubble.

None have been reportedly found or seen at the Pentagon.

Also, the wings wouldnt have fit in that hole (a hole, btw, that WAS to small to have fit an entire plane of that size in), they would have shredded off upon impact if the plane buried itself in the building. This argument also applies to the tail section and rudder. In the footage of ANY other plane crash site you see, the tail section is almost always intact, or at least leaves very discernable pieces intact (as the tail section recieves the least amount of stress or impact from any head-on crash). NONE of these plane parts are seen in any of the footage.

As for the engines, does anyone know how dense the machinery inside a turbine engine is? Inch per inch, they are the heaviest part of any machine, yet there are no impact points by them, and the only "part" recovered from the site is a rotor plate, the flimsiest part of a turbine engine, that is far too small to have been an outer rotor part of a turbine from the plane they are saying crashed there. The odds of the engines being so totally destroyed as to be unrecognizable at a crash site yet leave an inner rotor intact is so infantesimile as to be accurately labeled as "impossible".

Yes, there is more to this story than the oficial report.

Yes, the WTC Towers were strong enough to withstand that impact, and the substructure was strong enough not to have completely caved in like it did.

Yes, the WTC Towers collapsed in freefall, without tumbling over to the side. No structure is built to allow such a fall from happening due to an accident.


This time, its not just my oppinion I am posting, nor is it supposition or theory, it is pure fact.

Xhar
And every single one of your points was made through a no-name conspiracy movie.
 

Xhar

Cadet
Joined
May 3, 2006
Dismissing something just because it doesnt come from FOX news isnt exactly a counterpoint frosty... would you care to make a point, or just say "nyah-nyah"?

You dont seem to be making any counter points at all. If you want me to see your side of this so called conspiracy theory, or to debunk it, point out some facts to disprove the accusations or answer some of the questions asked.

Calling us conspiracy theorists like your back in grade school calling us "doodieheads" doesnt help your case at all.

Xhar
 

JonDDA

Cadet
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Originally posted by frostydf2+May 19 2006, 07:06 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (frostydf2 @ May 19 2006, 07:06 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Sabastian@May 19 2006, 04:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-HJ-Diviana
@May 19 2006, 05:43 AM
If you look at pictures before the building collapsed though, there is just a little hole. No major debris, no hole for the wings (yes I know they are designed to fold back, but I think they would have ripped off or made the hole a lot bigger)..


But like I said before, the pentagon.. that's a hard one, I'm on the middle of the line for that one. The towers though, I'm very sure that there was a lot more to it.

LoL. I love these types of post. The "little hole" argument has to be one of my favorits. Anyone that has even seen the size of the pentagon would know that the hole made by that plane was NOT little. I have lived in the DC area my entire life. People just don't seem to realize how damn big the pentagon is. It's fricken HUGE. It's the largest office building in the world. The hole the plane made was HUGE. I know, I had to drive by the site every day on my way to work.

Another thing the conspiracy theorists like to ingnore is that the Pentagon is right in the middle of a cross section of three major throughfares. The plane hit right at the end of rush hour. If you've never been to DC, I can't even beging to explain how much traffic is on those roads around the Pentagon. If it was anything other than a plane that hit the building, you would have hundereds of people comming fourth to tell what they saw, espically in this town.

Time for some of you to get off your couch and take a trip to DC.

S.
Wow, owned! [/b][/quote]
Im not saying the hole was little, and yes I do know how big the Pentagon is, never been there, but ive seen pictures. When Diviana says "little hole" im sure she means little compared to the size of a hole needed to fit the supposed air plane that crashed into it.

And adding to Xhar's post.

Ok the WTC buildings fell. The towers fell because "the fire had weakened the structure of the building" but why would you build a building that is able to be taken down because of a fire? And they were built to take that kind of hit. The one that was burning for longer fell second. A building that did not get hit at all (Trade Center 7, the small building) collapsed...WHY? Why would a building that has no reason to collapse do so? Why would two buildings designed to take that kind of hit and withstand those temperatures fall? Because it was planned.

Just because you didn't see it on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or w/e doesnt mean it's instantly false.

And please, be sensitive.

WOW OWNED
^no more of this^
 

Sabastian

Cadet
Joined
May 15, 2006
Location
Chocolate City
Originally posted by Xhar@May 19 2006, 07:22 PM
I think you people are forgetting something:

In the wreckage of the WTC Towers, they found wing and fuselage parts, after the planes exploded and fell hundreds of feet, mixing in with the rubble.

None have been reportedly found or seen at the Pentagon.

Also, the wings wouldnt have fit in that hole (a hole, btw, that WAS to small to have fit an entire plane of that size in), they would have shredded off upon impact if the plane buried itself in the building. This argument also applies to the tail section and rudder. In the footage of ANY other plane crash site you see, the tail section is almost always intact, or at least leaves very discernable pieces intact (as the tail section recieves the least amount of stress or impact from any head-on crash). NONE of these plane parts are seen in any of the footage.

As for the engines, does anyone know how dense the machinery inside a turbine engine is? Inch per inch, they are the heaviest part of any machine, yet there are no impact points by them, and the only "part" recovered from the site is a rotor plate, the flimsiest part of a turbine engine, that is far too small to have been an outer rotor part of a turbine from the plane they are saying crashed there. The odds of the engines being so totally destroyed as to be unrecognizable at a crash site yet leave an inner rotor intact is so infantesimile as to be accurately labeled as "impossible".

Yes, there is more to this story than the official report.

Yes, the WTC Towers were strong enough to withstand that impact, and the substructure was strong enough not to have completely caved in like it did.

Yes, the WTC Towers collapsed in freefall, without tumbling over to the side. No structure is built to allow such a fall from happening due to an accident.


This time, its not just my oppinion I am posting, nor is it supposition or theory, it is pure fact.

Xhar
yea yea yea. And the Pentagon is just another average building, built like all the rest, right? It's not special in construction or design, right? It's not made to absorb and withstand attacks, right? Those walls were made to take missle attacks, but a plane should just cruse on through, right?

When you come to Washington and drive toward the 14th street bridge at the tail end of rush hour, you will understand how many people had a clear view off the whole thing. And thats why we didn't have any jackasses running around yelling about a missle, weather ballon, or any other craptastic nonsense on the evening news.

I guess the people on that flight are now on some island with Biggie, Elvis, Tu Pac and Hoffa now.

S.
 

cordy_CinVin

Cadet
Joined
May 19, 2006
Well I can give ya a first hand view on why we are in Iraq and Afgan and why it was necessicary since I've spent the better part of 3 years in Iraq. With being a soldier you hear all types of negative press and a little good but I think the media has a demented look on things at times and doesn't really portray whats really happening. Did we go into Afgan for the right reason yes imo Iraq....well I personally thought so at the time but now looking back on it the reason we came over to Iraq and why we are still here now are 2 totally different reasons.

Let me try to explain. We went to Iraq for of course the elusive wmd that was never found. But the reason we are still here is because the country is and always has been in a state of turmoil. Bombings, killings whatever happens daily and its not just against U.S. troops but more so against the Iraqis because what they really want is to just live in peace like we do back in the states. So we are now trying to provide that for them while trying to not allow terrorists to have another country to dwell in. Don't really know if that sheads any light on the subject at all for you but maybe it does.

I'd personally like to have all of us come back tomorrow but the long term ramifications of it wouldn't be something you nore I would ever want to happen imo.
 

Xhar

Cadet
Joined
May 3, 2006
Originally posted by Sabastian@May 19 2006, 07:50 PM
And thats why we didn't have any jackasses running around yelling about a missle, weather ballon, or any other craptastic nonsense on the evening news.

I guess the people on that flight are now on some island with Biggie, Elvis, Tu Pac and Hoffa now.

S.
Dude, we can live without the "your a jackass" inferences, and the snideness.

As to your argument about the construction qualities of the pentagon, I agree with you wholeheartedly. But no matter how well and sturdy a buiding is constructed, it doesn't completly disintegrate an entire plane and leave one flimsy rotor intact.

One last thing... with the amount of people who were potential witnesses to your vanishing airplane, dont you think more people would have come out to say they saw one?

Again, less insult, more counterpoint. Just because someone views something differently than you do, that does not mean that person is of less intelligence than you. None of you guys saying were nuts still havent put forth any theory as to why there is no wreckage...

BTW, Biggie, Elvis, TuPac and Hoffa are all dead. (but Bruce Lee and Jim Morrison are living in seclusion :D )

Xhar
 
F

frostydf2

Guest
Xhar what your suggestion is, is that the WTC were bombed. Why would the building tip over on it's side if it was hit up high? Wouldn't you expect it to collapse downward?

Yes, the WTC Towers were strong enough to withstand that impact, and the substructure was strong enough not to have completely caved in like it did.
The WTC towers were built to withstand a Boeing 757 traveling HUNDREDS of miles per hour, with hundreds of thousands of gallons of Jet Fuel?

Oh yea, Jet Fuel is I belive 125~ octane rating. That's 50% higher octane rating then the fuel you fill your car up with. It burns HOTTER, and LONGER. Wouldn't you think it would damage the structure with just a fire? Not to mention a giant airplane crashing into the building, again at HUNDREDS OF MILES PER HOUR.

No, you wouldn't. It was the United States that planned its doom on 9/11. It was the President who ordered an attack on thousands of civilians, and the CIA, FBI, and other areas were involved on it. The military had perfect knowledge of its happening, and the United States sent FBI agents to plant bombs inside the WTC to make sure it collapsed going straight down. Then some US warship launched a missile into the pentagon, where at the same time figher jets shot down a Boeing 757 carrying 154 passengers, only minutes before the missile flung itself into the Pentagon. All the while hundreds of witness's noticed the missile, and reported it to police, but they were quickly rounded up, shot in the head, and thus the conspiracy begins. That is what you are suggesting. Sounds probable in my eyes.

About the Pentagon. To me it seems as if a plane smacked straight into it, and the ceiling collapsed on top of it. I may be wrong, but from the perspectives given thats what it looks like. I also don't see how you can hide so many victims, and shut so many people up about it if it was a missile. People also always always always speak about how the grass was 'perfectly cut', that you could 'play golf' on the yard. Did you expect the terrorists to hit the ground before they hit the Pentagon? They were trained pilots, why would you want to hit the ground before you hit the building? Isn't it possible to of missed the ground, and hit a 4(?) story high building instead? Let me ask this, where were the scrapings on the ground when a plane flew into the WTC? Same concept.

To Jon's reply about 'why would you make a building that would succumb to fire?'. Why do you live in a house that could be ignited in flames with the drop of a match? Buildings aren't indestructable. Especially if an airplane hits it traveling hundreds of miles an hour, filled with jet fuel. Nope, it should of stood it's ground.

When you go to college, and your write a report. Do you think your professor is going to let you use any reference you want? HELL NO. Why? Becuase the internet is full of bull-felgercarb, it alwyas has been, and it always will be. A credible source is one of the things to look for.

Sorry, but news stations may lie, but I'd trust CBS, FOX, ABC, NBC, CNN, Time, and every other magazine, news station, and newspaper over any online non-credible Flash movie.

Wouldn't you? Wait....you wouldn't.
 

Sabastian

Cadet
Joined
May 15, 2006
Location
Chocolate City
Originally posted by JonDDA+May 19 2006, 07:45 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JonDDA @ May 19 2006, 07:45 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by frostydf2@May 19 2006, 07:06 PM
Originally posted by Sabastian@May 19 2006, 04:34 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-HJ-Diviana
@May 19 2006, 05:43 AM
If you look at pictures before the building collapsed though, there is just a little hole. No major debris, no hole for the wings (yes I know they are designed to fold back, but I think they would have ripped off or made the hole a lot bigger)..


But like I said before, the pentagon.. that's a hard one, I'm on the middle of the line for that one. The towers though, I'm very sure that there was a lot more to it.

LoL. I love these types of post. The "little hole" argument has to be one of my favorits. Anyone that has even seen the size of the pentagon would know that the hole made by that plane was NOT little. I have lived in the DC area my entire life. People just don't seem to realize how damn big the pentagon is. It's fricken HUGE. It's the largest office building in the world. The hole the plane made was HUGE. I know, I had to drive by the site every day on my way to work.

Another thing the conspiracy theorists like to ingnore is that the Pentagon is right in the middle of a cross section of three major throughfares. The plane hit right at the end of rush hour. If you've never been to DC, I can't even beging to explain how much traffic is on those roads around the Pentagon. If it was anything other than a plane that hit the building, you would have hundereds of people comming fourth to tell what they saw, espically in this town.

Time for some of you to get off your couch and take a trip to DC.

S.

Wow, owned!
Im not saying the hole was little, and yes I do know how big the Pentagon is, never been there, but ive seen pictures. When Diviana says "little hole" im sure she means little compared to the size of a hole needed to fit the supposed air plane that crashed into it.

And adding to Xhar's post.

Ok the WTC buildings fell. The towers fell because "the fire had weakened the structure of the building" but why would you build a building that is able to be taken down because of a fire? And they were built to take that kind of hit. The one that was burning for longer fell second. A building that did not get hit at all (Trade Center 7, the small building) collapsed...WHY? Why would a building that has no reason to collapse do so? Why would two buildings designed to take that kind of hit and withstand those temperatures fall? Because it was planned.

Just because you didn't see it on FOX, CNN, MSNBC, or w/e doesnt mean it's instantly false.

And please, be sensitive.

WOW OWNED
^no more of this^ [/b][/quote]
The building was built to withstand missle attacks. The walls did just what they were made to do, absorb. You can see all the picture in the world, but I used to ride my bike around it when I was little and acess was still open. It's fricken huge! The hole was huge! You could fit a large house into that hole and while planes are long the body is not all that wide. As for the wings, onces again, those walls were built to take missle attacks. Wings would just fold, but even then you could still fit a house in the hole that was created.

As for the WTC, I have no clue. I do know the building was built with suspended floors/ceilings. Thus no major support structure running down the middle of the upper floors. These floor were built this way to support stock trading floor. They required entire floors to be wide open spaces. When a suspended floor falls it lands square on the floor below it and can start a domino effect, thus the building would fall straight down and not to a side. But I am no engineer.


If you want real conspiracy your looking in the wrong place. The fact that you honestly believe someone could cover up a planned attack on our own country is astounding to me. NOW that is real conspiracy! Not the attack it self, but honestly believing it could be covered up. There would be too many players with too many political agendas to keep something like this quiet. There is just way to much to be gained politically and monatarilly. People that live outside the beltway, really just don't get how this town operates.
 

Xhar

Cadet
Joined
May 3, 2006
Im not going to bother putting quote boxes in here, I will just say this...

1) Thank you Frosty, for posting a rebuttal instead of just an insult. As to your question (rhetorical or not), YES, the WTC Towers WERE built to withstand the impact of a large aircraft moving at "hundreds of miles an hour" as you put it. The guy who designed the towers himself was on a history channel documentary saying exactly that. A skyscraper is designed to withstand the collapse of upper floors without destroying the entire building. My point was that while up to (at the most) 60% of the building could have collapsed below the impact point, to build a tower that is expected to completely collapse after the impact of an airline in an area where hundreds of planes fly around it all week is ludicrus. Also, when a tower collapses, it doesnt go straight down. there is allways a stress differential in the sides, causing it to fall to one side of the other. Thats why demolition professionals make so much money, they are paid to make a building fall straight down without endangering other buildings around it.

As for the rest, you are putting words in my mouth. I never said anything about witness repression or a government conspiracy to attack its own country. In all my posts I have never waxed on the subject of who probably did what or why. All I have ever said is that there is more to the 9/11 incedents than what is being portrayed by the popular media, and pointed out why I think so.

Sebastian, Your contradicting yourself. A building constructed to withstand a missile attack would not allow a much flimsier aircraft made of hollow alluminum to penetrate it, it would explode on impact, leaving most of its wreckage outside the building. Even if it did penetrate, the wings would not go into the hole made by the fuselage, they would shred off, and the engines would have been lying outside the walls.

The easiest way to get me to shut up would be to introduce me to someone who was standing right outside the pentagon when it happened who can show me prooof that there was a plane. as for the WTC, nothing will convince me that the towers werent intentionally imploded, because all the evidence points to the fact that they were, including people who were in the lower floors that heard explosions (plural) in the lower floors just before they collapsed.

Xhar
 

Sa_Semax

Cadet
Joined
May 6, 2006
Location
Copenhagen, Denmark
Now I'm not an American, but I've seen the "conspiracy" movie on the net too, and I gotta say, it's quite convincing. And as I don't find the American goverment the least bit trustworthy, I'm compelled to think that they're hiding something. The "conspiracy" theory has a lot of good points. The weakest spot though, is how many people who would have to be involved for such a scheme to work and how to keep them quiet. But I've started sending the link to the movie to my friends, 'cause I think it's a movie that makes you think. I'm glad someone took the time to make it and I think it's a good thing not to believe everything you hear.

Ps. please stop being so inpolite to Xhar and the other "conspiracy theorists". We have a right to believe what we want without you being rude to us. Freedom of speech and everything...
 

Jaraeth

Cadet
Joined
Feb 28, 2006
Everyone is entitled to their opinions. I am one who thinks something else went on w/ the towers, Xhar is correct, towers of those size don't fall straight down without planned thinking and proper placement of explosives at key structural points. Demolition experts are paid heavily for the kind of thought that needs to do that. Ever play Jenga?

Now, as far as this thread is concerned, do we really need to be talking politics in a gaming forum? Is there any relevance in this thread to Hero's Journey the game? Let's stay on track with the game here, plzkthx.

I know it's an off-topic forum... but politics really can stir some hatred, and we're trying to build a community for HJ. Screensavers and desktop wallpaper, now there's something off topic, but a bit less likely to stir up heat ;)

~ Jaraeth
 
F

frostydf2

Guest
Of course you do, I'm just stating my opinion that contradicts them. Not trying to be rude, and I was out of line before, for that I'm sorry.
 

Foxeye

Cadet
Joined
Mar 9, 2006
Originally posted by Jaraeth@May 19 2006, 10:03 PM
Now, as far as this thread is concerned, do we really need to be talking politics in a gaming forum?
QFT.

The only time I've seen political discussion NOT be harmful to a forum is if the mods had an iron fist about disallowing personal attacks.
 

Daax

Cadet
Joined
May 10, 2006
Does it really matter what hit the pentagon? This felgercarb blew up and killed people. It's over. I don't care anymore.
 

Sabastian

Cadet
Joined
May 15, 2006
Location
Chocolate City
"Sebastian, Your contradicting yourself. A building constructed to withstand a missile attack would not allow a much flimsier aircraft made of hollow alluminum to penetrate it, it would explode on impact, leaving most of its wreckage outside the building. Even if it did penetrate, the wings would not go into the hole made by the fuselage, they would shred off, and the engines would have been lying outside the walls."

Your wrong. The building construction was designed to reduce the dammage and degree of penetration. No one would expect an object moving at that speed to hit the wall and stop. The wings would also be sucked into the vacum created, if it was not for all the fuel in them. However, since they are filled with fuel they are more likely to go boom and add to the hole. Thus the hole was LARGER than just the main body of the plane. It's the payload that goes boom, not the construction of the plane/missile. In the case of the plane we know that to be the fule in the wings. I will add that I am not 100% sure about fule being stored in the wings, but I have read that in a number of places.

As for the towers, how many cammeras were recording the entier event. How many people lived through the event. Where are the people claiming they heard bombs/explosions go off at the base of the tower? I've watched buildings get demoed. You see and here the explosions. But if you all want to believe they somehow hid this from hundreds of cammeras, so be it.

Again, there is just no way anyone could tie up or keep the lid on the number of people it would take to pull something like this off.

S.

PS. I did not call anyone here a jackass and there are plenty of people that have recorded eye witness accounts of the plane.
 

Xhar

Cadet
Joined
May 3, 2006
You are correct, the fuel is stored in the wings.

You are incorrect, there is no vacum created by the impact of a large flying object into a solid struture that would suck in large wings supporting tons of engine equipment.

You are contradicting yourself by saying a building built to withstand the impact of a missile with a deliberate penetrating explosive payload cannot withstand an impact with a secondary explosion.

There have been several eyewitness statements from emergency personell as well as civilians at the WTC site that stated they heard exposions within the building before its collapse, as well as the video documented damage to the interior of the lower floors before the collapse.

And no, I am not just getting these facts from the one video posted in the other forum thread, the information is out there if you look for it.

To avoid animosity from building on the boards, I will refrain from replying anymore on this thread.

Just keep in mind, ever since 9/11, personal liberties have been chipped away at slowly but surely in the name of national security. The cry of "they're out to get us" in one form or another has been the rallying cry of what turned out to be manipulative and/or repressive governments for centuries.

I remember a bumper sticker I once read: "Closed minds dont need drugs, they're allready wasted"

Be safe all

Xhar
 

JonDDA

Cadet
Joined
Apr 19, 2006
Amen Xhar, and I hope this thread closes with this.

We believe what we believe, you believe what you believe.

And to be quite honest, none of the "conspiracy theorists" have made personal attacks. I rely on fact, not insult for my arguments.

We OBVIOUSLY can't change each others opinions. I am in no way a jackass, saying that based on something I believe is, in itself, jackassish.

I have been wanting to close all threads on this topic, not because I'm afraid of the truth or argument, but because some people are getting a little heated, and im sick and tired of politics and arguing. Life is short to be mad.

I'm afraid we will never know the exact truth, and I've accepted that.

I hope that this smashing and bashing hasn't created hates or hostilities.

And with that, I take my leave.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom