9/11

When the other folders just won't do!

Moderators: mknott, NickThorpe, lcarlson, Darran@Retro Gamer, MMohammed

I think that...

...it is possible to burn down 3 steel frame buildings with 2 aeroplanes.
23
68%
...US military patented explosives, such as those evident in the projected dust, were used to demolish the 3 world trade centre buildings.
6
18%
...this isn't something I should be concerned about, no-one I know has been killed, I've never been to Iraq, why should I care? Pass me the joystick let's get back to Desert Strike.
5
15%
 
Total votes: 34

User avatar
David
Posts: 3865
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:05 am

Post by David » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:22 am

R. Prime wrote:


I'd rather stick to the facts, however uncomfortable. If you hit a steel core building at the top, the structure below it is still there. The idea that it would just give way, and be pulverised to dust, is ridiculous.
It's just not physically possible.

do you work in an industry where you know this to be 100% true?

or did someone on ParanoidInternetLosers.com tell you?

User avatar
Smurph
Posts: 2905
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2006 11:18 pm
Location: Co. Antrim
Contact:

Post by Smurph » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:24 am

R. Prime wrote:There are also some nut-jobs out there, who do discredit the whole idea.

I'd rather stick to the facts, however uncomfortable. If you hit a steel core building at the top, the structure below it is still there. The idea that it would just give way, and be pulverised to dust, is ridiculous.
It's just not physically possible.
Especially as the buildings were designed to sustain multiple aeroplane hits each. It's like poking a hole in a flyscreen and the whole thing disintegrating.

Just to make this clear - I know it is a sore point, I apologise if anyone is offended. I think that the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed in the middle east, as a result of retaliation for this, deserve some consideration.

Check out:
http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Right, point one: the link between 9/11 and going into Iraq is tenuous at best: they went into Afghanistan for the Taliban, or does that not fit with your argument? Iraq, they said, was about Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, not 9/11.

Point two: don't complain that you're being called names and then immediately call people, like me, who discredit this lunacy, nutjobs. I can think of a hell of a lot worse to call you, son.

Point three: The weight of the top floors imploding upon themselves when the structural integrity was compromised is enough to collapse an already weakened structure: the thing is, if you react with 'it was designed to withstand this kind of thing' can you not realise that sometimes things don't do what they're designed to? The steel core was weakened by aeroplanes full of f**king fuel hitting them at a couple of hundred miles per hour! You call us nutjobs but don't reckon that would weaken a building enough?
Last edited by Smurph on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:27 am, edited 1 time in total.
Antiriad2097 wrote:There is no in or out, just a constant state of retro gamer.
Nowloading.co.uk My Retrobate Profile

User avatar
David
Posts: 3865
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:05 am

Post by David » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:25 am

and the plane didn't hit at the top, it hit it in the middle.

but lets not let the truth get in the way of a good lie, eh?

psj3809
Posts: 18879
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:28 am

R. Prime wrote:True - apologies for the insinuation. It wasn't the smartest thing to kick off with. I agree.

Having studied physics though, I cannot accept that just planes did that.
It's not possible. Not in a million years.
Once you have one question, you look for the answer and just find another question.

To be honest I'd rather not have thought about it, my view of the world is forever tarnished.
Granted there will be a few nutjob professors (who i'm sure have sold many dvds and done okay out of this) by saying the government were behind 911.

How about the other millions and millions of scientists/physics bods who dont think its a conspiracy ? How about the ones in Iran for example who could join the 'the US is behind this' but they dont ?

But nope lets believe a retro gamer who has seen some wikipedia articles, read what he wants to believe on dodgy websites and now thinks the whole world is tarnished.

Go to the 'the world is flat' forum then and after reading that load of tosh you'll probably believe that also. Or perhaps go to the BBC or ITV (Or Al Jazeera) and report your news as top scientists havent found what you've discovered ! You'll be famous when you report this news with your great evidence !

User avatar
R. Prime
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:02 am

Post by R. Prime » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:29 am

If any of this had the slightest bit of truth to it why isnt Bin Laden milking it for everything ?
Well because he is basically the equivalent of the boogeyman. He's probably dead, but they wouldn't tell you that, then the "war on terror" would be over.

He was trained by the CIA, when the US was hiring terrorists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, so he is basically an employee.

User avatar
David
Posts: 3865
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:05 am

Post by David » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:31 am

R. Prime wrote:
If any of this had the slightest bit of truth to it why isnt Bin Laden milking it for everything ?
Well because he is basically the equivalent of the boogeyman. He's probably dead, but they wouldn't tell you that, then the "war on terror" would be over.

He was trained by the CIA, when the US was hiring terrorists to fight the Russians in Afghanistan, so he is basically an employee.
You should have your own tv show or something dude.

User avatar
FatTrucker
Posts: 4724
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Essex

Post by FatTrucker » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:31 am

psj3809 wrote:
R. Prime wrote:I think a lot of people base their opinion, and their level of offence, on the revulsion of the idea that the government would do such a thing, rather than the facts.

Most of the rebuttal here is not based on facts, but rather on name calling and denial. The easiest way to dismiss an uncomfortable reality is by slinging names about - "conspiracy nut" being an easy one to run with.

And to anyone who doesn't believe that the US government would stoop to such things, I would recommend studying some history.
A lot of people also base their opinion on what theyve heard from experts, granted there will be a few who say 'well actually someone must have been behind it from the government point of view...' kinda thing but i do find nuts (i believe they are) believe anything they read on the net, on a conspiracy website, or on wikipedia.

If any of this had the slightest bit of truth to it why isnt Bin Laden milking it for everything ?

Please answer me that. If Bin Laden wasnt behind it then he would be sending videos to Al Jazeera (which they would broadcast so none of this media conspiracy stuff) saying i didnt do it, your government are corrupt and did this themselves ?

Talk about pot kettle black, youre mentioning the usual 'nut' comments but its also the same for the 'non-believers' with all this 'dont you have a brain' or 'believe what the government tell you...' rubbish.

This is what happens when people watch way too many X Files.
I don't subscribe to the conspiracy argument either in terms of the WTC being pre-wired for collapse, but I also don't think Bin Laden and Co would publish a denial. Its a massive recruitment/propaganda weapon for them to be able to claim they did it, it plays into their hands, and the people that fund them. Bin Laden is well connected throughout the Middle East and the 'War on Terror' serves nations like Saudi just as well as it does Al Quaida.

The third building that came down housed part of an American government intelligence agency. Its not without reason that the building could have been pre-wired to fall in the event of it being compromised/overrun etc and the twin towers tragedy could well have provided a suitable excuse to destroy the building to satisfy some other agenda. Who knows?.

Its possible that intelligence was available about the potential for the 9/11 atrocities and that they were allowed to happen to satisfy the Bush administrations need for a credible reason to go into the Middle East, but I don't believe it was wired to fall (the attack would have had the same media value with or without the need to completely eradicate the buildings). I don't think it was engineered by the govt but I do think it was either the result of a major intelligence f**k up, or it was allowed to go ahead to serve as justification to jump into Afghanistan and Iraq and thereby providing a platform to go into Iran, Syria etc. The US gain control of massive oil assets, stabilise one of the worlds most unstable regions, and ensure security for Israel and compliance from Saudi....not a bad coup.....if they hadn't f**ked the whole situation up so royally.

But overall the 'War on Terror' is a corporate one,....don't let anyone tell you any different.
Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:I've played all the Bratz games and Barbia Horse Adventures, due to having two girls and they are not rubbish in the slightest.
Feel free to add me on XBL.
Image

psj3809
Posts: 18879
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:36 am

FatTrucker wrote:I don't subscribe to the conspiracy argument either in terms of the WTC being pre-wired for collapse, but I also don't think Bin Laden and Co would publish a denial. Its a massive recruitment/propaganda weapon for them to be able to claim they did it, it plays into their hands, and the people that fund them. Bin Laden is well connected throughout the Middle East and the 'War on Terror' serves nations like Saudi just as well as it does Al Quaida.
I dont know, just think that if Bin Laden and that came up with 'evidence' to al Jazerra that they werent behind it it would do a 1000 times more harm to the western world than their usual bomb attacks. People would be totally paranoid about their governments (It would be like R.Prime x millions) and it would be total chaos.

People would turn against the US, many many countries would do also. Would do more harm than any other '911' to the US.

User avatar
Emperor Fossil
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Already rockin the Christmas cap, WOOOOH!

Post by Emperor Fossil » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:39 am

R. Prime wrote:Having studied physics though, I cannot accept that just planes did that.
It's not possible. Not in a million years.
Hmm. That's weird, because when the planes first hit the WTC towers, before the actual collapse, my father (who was a civil engineer many years ago), said that the buildings would come down. How long it would take, he said, would depend on the type of steel used and how well it was insulated against fire.

When you studied physics... did you end up passing?

User avatar
R. Prime
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:02 am

Post by R. Prime » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:44 am

and the plane didn't hit at the top, it hit it in the middle.

but lets not let the truth get in the way of a good lie, eh?
Image
The steel core was weakened by aeroplanes full of f**king fuel
Laws of physics. Steel doesn't weaken in that way.
Most of the fuel burned off in the initial explosion. There was not enough heat. The testing done by N.I.S.T. and subcontractor Underwriters Laboratories to this day have not been able to replicate the failure, with actual physical tests even after massaging the parameters.
Last edited by R. Prime on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:52 am, edited 1 time in total.

psj3809
Posts: 18879
Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:28 am

Post by psj3809 » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:44 am

Emperor Fossil wrote:
R. Prime wrote:Having studied physics though, I cannot accept that just planes did that.
It's not possible. Not in a million years.
Hmm. That's weird, because when the planes first hit the WTC towers, before the actual collapse, my father (who was a civil engineer many years ago), said that the buildings would come down. How long it would take, he said, would depend on the type of steel used and how well it was insulated against fire.

When you studied physics... did you end up passing?
Dont believe your father whos done years of training and research in that field and who knows his stuff, these people have read it on wikipedia and www.crazyconspiracies.com so surely theyre telling the truth ! ;)

Seriously no jumbo jet has never flown full speed into a huge skyscraper before, who really knew what would happen ?
Last edited by psj3809 on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
FatTrucker
Posts: 4724
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Essex

Post by FatTrucker » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:45 am

No it wouldn't because the Western Media would bury it, destroy its credibility, and use it to prove that the terrorists were losing the battle and getting desperate add to that the fact that some grainy footage of a known terrorist prancing about in his Jim Jams saying America did it wouldn't serve any purpose.

Al Quaida want the War on Terror, its turned them from a marginalised radical group into a massive international terrorist organisation. As far as they are concerned it is a Holy war sanctioned by Allah and Allah is providing them with infidels to kill.

You're talking about a group or groups that actively train people to want to strap explosives to their bodies and obliterate themselves taking as many souls with them as they can....why would they then want to deny they were responsible for the largest wholesale assassination of the American populace anyone has ever been credited with?.

No the War on Terror is as important to Al Quaida as it is to anyone in the White House.

As for the rotating argument about how the planes couldn't bring down the buildings, it really doesn't matter how much psuedo science people quote arguing one way or the other, it really doesn't matter in theory whether its possible or whether it can be recreated by a computer model or in a lab. If you crash a massive aircraft, full of fuel at several hundred miles an hour into a tall building, then leave the building to burn, there's a good chance it will fall down. The weight of the building above the point of impact is massive and any compromise of structural integrity be it through impact, heat, defective materials or a combination of the three means that the building might become structurally unsound and fall over.....its not nuts...just a little tiny bit of real life.

The only way to properly test a building for impact from a fully fuelled plane is to crash a fully fuelled plane into it, anything else is theory.
Last edited by FatTrucker on Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:50 am, edited 1 time in total.
Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:I've played all the Bratz games and Barbia Horse Adventures, due to having two girls and they are not rubbish in the slightest.
Feel free to add me on XBL.
Image

User avatar
R. Prime
Posts: 173
Joined: Fri Jun 16, 2006 9:02 am

Post by R. Prime » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:49 am

When you studied physics... did you end up passing?
Actually I received a national scholarship.
I will go and scan it for you if you like.

Sure the buildings would come down, just not like that. They would have toppled sideways.

User avatar
FatTrucker
Posts: 4724
Joined: Sat Jan 07, 2006 12:23 pm
Location: Essex

Post by FatTrucker » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:53 am

R. Prime wrote:
When you studied physics... did you end up passing?
Actually I received a national scholarship.
I will go and scan it for you if you like.

Sure the buildings would come down, just not like that. They would have toppled sideways.
I would have though for something to topple sideways it would need to collapse from the bottom up, not the top down as the twin towers did?. If the point a few dozen feet below the impact or fire was still structurally intact then surely it wouldn't lean or fall over but collapse downward as each tier collapsed on top of the one below it, and with each collapse amplify the weight and speed with which subsequent tiers come down....no?.
Darran@Retro Gamer wrote:I've played all the Bratz games and Barbia Horse Adventures, due to having two girls and they are not rubbish in the slightest.
Feel free to add me on XBL.
Image

User avatar
Emperor Fossil
Posts: 1705
Joined: Wed May 02, 2007 7:23 pm
Location: Already rockin the Christmas cap, WOOOOH!

Post by Emperor Fossil » Fri Aug 29, 2008 11:55 am

R. Prime wrote:
When you studied physics... did you end up passing?
Actually I received a national scholarship.
I'm afraid that was money ill-spent.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests