rob_da_jambo Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hearts Of Glory Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks for that. I've seen a lot of stuff on 9/11, I for one believe the US government planned the whole thing. Call me crazy, but that's only because i've studied the evidence, which most people have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jambovambo Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I thought it might have been a conspiracy, or at least been allowed to happen, until I saw the BBC programmes over the last couple of weeks. The US was caught, bending over for the soap, in the showers, that morning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks for that. I've seen a lot of stuff on 9/11, I for one believe the US government planned the whole thing. Call me crazy, but that's only because i've studied the evidence, which most people have not. Not crazy - just deluded: If you have seen the evidence and drawn that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flecktimus Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks for that. I've seen a lot of stuff on 9/11, I for one believe the US government planned the whole thing. Call me crazy, but that's only because i've studied the evidence, which most people have not. You are crazy. If the US goverment wanted a war against terror, i am sure there are easier ways to go about it. I watched the programmes and yes some circumstances looked dodgy,but for the state to organise something as massive as 9/11, is a way beyond comprehension IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chewbacca Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 the only conspiracy was the one that ****ed up my 26 birthday! try gettin people to go out for a couple of beers when THAT was on the TV! also got made redundant 2 days after that too, great week that turned out to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig R Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks for that. I've seen a lot of stuff on 9/11, I for one believe the US government planned the whole thing. Call me crazy, but that's only because i've studied the evidence, which most people have not. I for one don't believe the US goverment planned the whole thing, but that's only because I've studied the evidence properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_da_jambo Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 I for one don't believe the US goverment planned the whole thing, but that's only because I've studied the evidence properly. LOL... So please enlighten me... what does the 'evidence' suggest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jamie_the_Jambo Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 All planned I believe. They wanted their "very own Pearl Harbour" quote unquote. Jamie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Not this old chesnut again. Do people not realise the sheer number of people that would be required for the American government to coordinate such an attack against itself? There is no doubt the US screwed up as they should have listened to the intelligence that told them Al Qaeda operatives were living within their borders. The conspiracy theory in this case is for people lacking (or perhaps hyperactive) in deductive logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 "The central belief of every moron is that he is the victim of a mysterious conspiracy against his common rights and true deserts. He ascribes all his failure to get on in the world, all of his congenital incapacity and damfoolishness, to the machinations of werewolves assembled in Wall Street, or some other such den of infamy." Did the Bush administration have the wherewithal to orchestrate the world's most elaborate conspiracy theory and then ensure that each of the (at least) hundreds of 'accomplices' remain silent? Only a cretin could believe that. Could the Bush administration have been aware but allowed the attacks to happen? Possible but highly unlikely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The Americans have got a conspiracy theory for just about every major event in history:cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The strange thing is that the same tinfoil hat wearing weirdos who think the US government capable of pulling off the single greatest hoax in world history are the same people who always laugh about how stupid Bush is. Anyone who's studied the evidence properly can see that there's no conspiracy here. While we're talking conspiracies, here's one for you : http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 There are plenty of conspiracy theories out there. To think there are not you must be mental. Only thing is knowing which ones are the real ones. More importantly which ones are real that we don't even have a theory about... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nucky Thompson Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 While we're talking conspiracies, here's one for you : http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=saHs6J0OXVI I didn't realize it was a pish take untill about 30 seconds into it:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Serious post for the conspiracy theorists - if you're so interested in looking at the evidence, here's some reading material for you : http://wtc.nist.gov/pubs/factsheets/faqs_8_2006.htm http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military_law/1227842.html http://www.loosechangeguide.com/LooseChangeGuide.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The current American administration can't even control its economy let alone its woefully ill-advised foreign policy. How on EARTH could they be competent (or warped) enough to pull off the murder of 3000 people and the destruction of several buildings in Manhattan? I'd love to hear why the American governement would do it. As an excuse to invade Iraq? Then why would they have used Saudi bombers? I feel embarrassed for people that think there is a conspiracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Makween Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The current American administration can't even control its economy let alone its woefully ill-advised foreign policy. How on EARTH could they be competent (or warped) enough to pull off the murder of 3000 people and the destruction of several buildings in Manhattan? I'd love to hear why the American governement would do it. As an excuse to invade Iraq? Then why would they have used Saudi bombers? I feel embarrassed for people that think there is a conspiracy. ...and more to the point, if they're capable of keeping such a massive conspiracy quiet, how come they haven't been able to stop a bunch of spotty students starting websites about it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ulysses Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 ...and more to the point, if they're capable of keeping such a massive conspiracy quiet, how come they haven't been able to stop a bunch of spotty students starting websites about it? But that's part of the conspiracy, duuuuuuude. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makateer Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Charlie Brookers comments in the Guardian the other day pretty much sums up my opinion on the 9/11 conspiracy theories, and the people that honestly believe them. Get a life. http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/14/september11.usa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig R Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 LOL... So please enlighten me... what does the 'evidence' suggest? That the US government did not plan and carry out the attack themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The popularity of the US administration has also undoubtedly had an effect on the conspiracy theorists minds. If Gore had become president, right wing pundits would have pointed to the (perceived) lack of national security. Instead, we have fringe lunatics who create their own explanation in order to rationalise horrific acts. There are conspiracies out there, most likely, but 9/11 certainly isn't one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_da_jambo Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 The truth is out there somewhere..... so many questions still unanswered. The American administration has a lot to answer for IMO. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4943159957437049387 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badly drawn boy Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks for that. I've seen a lot of stuff on 9/11, I for one believe the US government planned the whole thing. Call me crazy, but that's only because i've studied the evidence, which most people have not. Crikey , you should be sanctioned or made to stay in the big hoose Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 The truth is out there somewhere..... so many questions still unanswered. The American administration has a lot to answer for IMO. http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4943159957437049387 I think I'm right in saying that 9/11 provides the only example of commercial airliners being used as weapons in a terrorist attack. The questions are unanswered because they've never been asked before, nor has there been an opportunity to really test the various hypotheses. There is more of a conspiracy surrounding the invasion of Iraq (particularly when the VP has a significant share in Haliburton who have significant defence contracts in the middle east... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coppercrutch Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think I'm right in saying that 9/11 provides the only example of commercial airliners being used as weapons in a terrorist attack. The questions are unanswered because they've never been asked before, nor has there been an opportunity to really test the various hypotheses. There is more of a conspiracy surrounding the invasion of Iraq (particularly when the VP has a significant share in Haliburton who have significant defence contracts in the middle east... Does that even count as a conspiracy anymore? Is it not simply a 'successful business plan'... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alwaysthereinspirit Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Thanks for that. I've seen a lot of stuff on 9/11, I for one believe the US government planned the whole thing. Call me crazy, but that's only because i've studied the evidence, which most people have not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_da_jambo Posted July 15, 2008 Author Share Posted July 15, 2008 http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm Watch and make you own mind up...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Craig R Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/main.htm Watch and make you own mind up...... Then read this and make your own mind up: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/zeitgeist/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamboinglasgow Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think I'm right in saying that 9/11 provides the only example of commercial airliners being used as weapons in a terrorist attack. The questions are unanswered because they've never been asked before, nor has there been an opportunity to really test the various hypotheses. There is more of a conspiracy surrounding the invasion of Iraq (particularly when the VP has a significant share in Haliburton who have significant defence contracts in the middle east... there hasn't been a case of commerical airline actully being used like this but it has been a idea of islamic terrorists since the 70's when it was thought of. I am glad there are alot of sane people on this board. I am one who feels it is ridculas. As many have said for the bush administration to do this they have to keep many people quiet and plan such a major plan in less than a year. The problem is these conspiarcy theroists will never accept the truth unless it is what they think it is. So if the government produces a clear explanation for what happened even if it is done by an independent enquiry they will say its what the government wanted and want count it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest juvehearts Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 To call it a foregone fact that 9/11 was an inside job is wrong. their is SO many unanswered questions that really need answered. the 1st one is: how come their is not a goverment review as to what happened on that day. start by answering that! Thank *** we live in the UK, where we have a goverment that sets up reviews on everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
269miles Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 there hasn't been a case of commerical airline actully being used like this but it has been a idea of islamic terrorists since the 70's when it was thought of. I am glad there are alot of sane people on this board. I am one who feels it is ridculas. As many have said for the bush administration to do this they have to keep many people quiet and plan such a major plan in less than a year. The problem is these conspiarcy theroists will never accept the truth unless it is what they think it is. So if the government produces a clear explanation for what happened even if it is done by an independent enquiry they will say its what the government wanted and want count it. I've just been reading 'Young Stalin' : avaiable in all good Tescos for about ?3. According to the author , anyone wanting flying lessons in or around Moscow had to register and all flying lessons logged. This was just before the Revolution when planes were seens as a major bomb threat. 80 years later , the biggest military force on the planet got caught with it's pants down and has been looking for a scapegoat ever since. Someone on JKB has a signature something like 'never underestimate the ability of stupid people in large groups'. In the case of the Arabs , it's true but for the Americans , obviously false. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest juvehearts Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 there hasn't been a case of commerical airline actully being used like this but it has been a idea of islamic terrorists since the 70's when it was thought of. I am glad there are alot of sane people on this board. I am one who feels it is ridculas. As many have said for the bush administration to do this they have to keep many people quiet and plan such a major plan in less than a year. The problem is these conspiarcy theroists will never accept the truth unless it is what they think it is. So if the government produces a clear explanation for what happened even if it is done by an independent enquiry they will say its what the government wanted and want count it. Yeah IF. it will never happen. they lied & dont want to be seen as liars as no-one would ever trust another goverment official again. saying that who does trust a goverment official? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JWL Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 there hasn't been a case of commerical airline actully being used like this but it has been a idea of islamic terrorists since the 70's when it was thought of. I am glad there are alot of sane people on this board. I am one who feels it is ridculas. As many have said for the bush administration to do this they have to keep many people quiet and plan such a major plan in less than a year.The problem is these conspiarcy theroists will never accept the truth unless it is what they think it is. So if the government produces a clear explanation for what happened even if it is done by an independent enquiry they will say its what the government wanted and want count it. I give you JFK for that one, unless you believe that it was Lee Harvey himself, you surely don't do you? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest juvehearts Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Wheres part two of this??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
siegementality Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 the only conspiracy was the one that ****ed up my 26 birthday! try gettin people to go out for a couple of beers when THAT was on the TV! also got made redundant 2 days after that too, great week that turned out to be. I'm sure 100% of the people who died in the WTC would swap places with you though. Somehow having a shiete birthday and no job seems the better option of the two. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wibble Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 You've got to take the middle ground. It is accepted fact that Bin Laden was an American creation. Sponsored by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan he was funded to create an elite fighting force. Somewhere he turned rogue against his sponsors and went into hiding - plotting against them. The USA (especially the CIA) knew what sort of attack he was planning AND they knew he was capable of carrying it out. When 911 happened it has been proven that Israel knew all about it and it has been acknowledged that warnings had been given to the USA. Where the conspiracy lies is in the neo-con administrations documented desire for a single event to galvanise the American people and the Western world in their hatred of all things islamic. The desire of the neo-cons was to justify over-running the middle east to take full control of oil reserves there. Rumsfeld had, for years, talked about the need for a "Reichstag Fire" (his words) to create support for an assault on the rogue nations in the middle east. Is it pure stupidity of America that allowed it to happen, or was it a few key people who deliberately chose to ignore the warnings given? That is the key to the conspiracy. A conspiracy of this nature requires very few conspirators, but all at the right levels. A dedicated group of neo-cons in key positions, Secretary of State and President would just about cover it. Everyone below those people know to pull their heads in when the law is laid down and only an idiot would speak out. Look what happened to Britains weapons inspector who said the intelligence was flawed. The yanks didn't have to carry out the mission, they just had to ignore all the planning and the warnings and Bin Laden did it for them. Win-win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbos Right Peg Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 To call it a foregone fact that 9/11 was an inside job is wrong. their is SO many unanswered questions that really need answered. the 1st one is: how come their is not a goverment review as to what happened on that day. start by answering that! Thank *** we live in the UK, where we have a goverment that sets up reviews on everything. I think our government should start a review into why so many people cannot use the proper spelling of their/there. **** me we bloody well invented the language Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robbos Right Peg Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 You've got to take the middle ground. It is accepted fact that Bin Laden was an American creation. Sponsored by the CIA to fight the Russians in Afghanistan he was funded to create an elite fighting force. Somewhere he turned rogue against his sponsors and went into hiding - plotting against them. The USA (especially the CIA) knew what sort of attack he was planning AND they knew he was capable of carrying it out. When 911 happened it has been proven that Israel knew all about it and it has been acknowledged that warnings had been given to the USA. Where the conspiracy lies is in the neo-con administrations documented desire for a single event to galvanise the American people and the Western world in their hatred of all things islamic. The desire of the neo-cons was to justify over-running the middle east to take full control of oil reserves there. Rumsfeld had, for years, talked about the need for a "Reichstag Fire" (his words) to create support for an assault on the rogue nations in the middle east. Is it pure stupidity of America that allowed it to happen, or was it a few key people who deliberately chose to ignore the warnings given? That is the key to the conspiracy. A conspiracy of this nature requires very few conspirators, but all at the right levels. A dedicated group of neo-cons in key positions, Secretary of State and President would just about cover it. Everyone below those people know to pull their heads in when the law is laid down and only an idiot would speak out. Look what happened to Britains weapons inspector who said the intelligence was flawed. The yanks didn't have to carry out the mission, they just had to ignore all the planning and the warnings and Bin Laden did it for them. Win-win. Did you mean that MJ ? I find it quite amusing after reading so much rubbish or have I missed this as another bleedin part of a conspiract theory ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Tin(Foil) hat on again. There are agencies operating in the US which don't give a flying frick what the Administration is doing or thinking. Why do most people dismiss this as the Government couldn't have done this. That much is bleedin obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pants Shaton Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 When 911 happened it has been proven that Israel knew all about it and it has been acknowledged that warnings had been given to the USA. I have never seen any credible evidence to support that claim. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick Bateman Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Tin(Foil) hat on again. There are agencies operating in the US which don't give a flying frick what the Administration is doing or thinking. Why do most people dismiss this as the Government couldn't have done this. That much is bleedin obvious. Care to name these agencies and their reasons for operating outwith the parameters of their government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I enjoy a good conspiracy myself, but after the claim resurfaced that the Apollo moon landings were faked I think the Conspiracy theorists have run out of material to chew on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 I for one don't believe the US goverment planned the whole thing, but that's only because I've studied the evidence properly. High School Physics Prooves Towers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. WTC Tower Exploding Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. well, mmmm, that has put the cat amongst the pigeons eh;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 High School Physics ProovesTowers were Demolished with Explosives. When I talk to people about the building collapses on 9/11/2001, most people have never even heard about the destruction of World Trade Center Building No. 7, the 47 story steel office tower that fell into its own footprint at 5:20 on the evening of 9/11. But even people who know about building 7 will indicate that they don't feel competent to have an opinion about the plausibility of the official explanation for the twin towers collapse. They will say things like "I'm not a structural engineer." or "I'm no architect." I contend that you don't have to be a structural engineer or architect to see that the official story, to the extent that there is one, is strictly impossible. Even knowledge of basic High School physics is enough to prove that the official explanation can not be squared with the rapidity of collapse or the plumes of concrete dust observed on 9/11. 9/11 Commission Report Fails High School Physics Test Newton's law of gravity tells us exactly what to expect from falling bodies. A falling object experiences a constant acceleration of 32ft/sec^2. We can calculate that the time it would take for an object to fall from the top of one of the 1350ft WTC towers is 9.2 seconds without accounting for air resistance. When air resistance is included, for example, for a brick falling from that height, we would expect it to take about 12 sec. This is very close to the approximately 10 seconds it took for the towers to fall as reported in the official Kean-Hammilton-Zelikow report or the 10 to 13 seconds as independently measured from observation of various videos of the collapses. The bottom line is that the towers fell at essentially free fall speed. WTC Tower Exploding Another fundamental law of physics is the conservation of energy and it applies to falling bodies as well. An object, as it falls, converts its gravitational potential energy (due to height above ground) into kinetic energy (speed). If that object has to use some of its energy for something else, like pushing air out of the way, then there will be less energy available as kinetic energy so it will take a bit longer to reach the ground. As we've seen in the example of a brick falling from the top of the tower, even just the energy required to move air out of the way is enough to slow the free fall time from 9.2 seconds to 12 seconds. In the "official" explanation of the collapse, the so-called "pancake theory", the floor above gives way and crashes into the floor below it, which gives way and together they fall on the next floor below, and so on. The falling floor must use a considerable amount of its energy to break loose the floor below. In addition, to account for the observed dust plumes, the crashing together of the floors has to crush the concrete floor slabs into a fine powder and that takes a very substantial amount of energy as well. Additional energy is then required to eject those tons of crushed concrete at high speed in all directions because that's what was observed on 9/11. All of this energy must be subtracted from the original potential energy of the falling floor, which means there is much less energy available as kinetic energy(speed) so the floors must be falling much slower than they would otherwise. How much slower? You don't have to be an engineer to realize that the energy required to crush the concrete into fine powder and blow it out of the buildings at high speed is many times more energy than what is required just to move air out of the way. If the energy required to move air out of the way of a falling brick could increase the fall time from 9.2 sec. to 12 sec, the requirement to not only move air, but also crush concrete, and eject tons of crushed concrete dust laterally at high speed, should have increased the fall time considerably. The fact that the buildings were observed to fall at essentially free fall speed, means that all of the gravitational potential energy of the building was in fact converted to the kinetic energy of falling. The fall speed accounts for all of the gravitational potential energy available. There is no gravitational energy available to break steel, crush concrete, eject dust or do anything else but just fall. The Conservation of Energy Law forces us to conclude that there had to be some additional source of energy. Some source of energy to pulverize the concrete and send it in all directions at high speed as a fine powder. Some additional energy to knock out the heavy steel beams that had supported the building for 40 years so that the top of the building could free fall unimpeded to the ground in just over 10 seconds. What was the source of the additional energy? Since the 9/11 commission neglected to investigate the mater, that has been left to your imagination, but large quantities of high grade explosives fit the bill. well, mmmm, that has put the cat amongst the pigeons eh;) Those pilots must have been good then. They managed to crash their planes exactly into the floor with the explosives in them, then the explosives survived the impact and the subsequent fire which burned for quite a while before the buildings collapsed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Those pilots must have been good then. They managed to crash their planes exactly into the floor with the explosives in them, then the explosives survived the impact and the subsequent fire which burned for quite a while before the buildings collapsed. Pilot who flew planes used on 9/11 says official story is nonsense 'Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory.' And of course, he's right. 'Arab pilots' did not fly those planes - remote-control technology did Click here to watch ... now tell me in a court of law and you were a juror listening to evidence from this man ,would you not have to take his story more seriously than say the media or people who KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FLYING PLANES, The first report i posted about the laws of physics did not say anything about planes with explosives in it it merely proved that the building could not collapse because of a plane hitting it , it explained the LAW OF PHYSICS , like it or not that is the way physics works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deesidejambo Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Pilot who flew planes used on 9/11 says official story is nonsense 'Former Air Force fighter pilot Russ Wittenberg, who flew over 100 combat missions in Vietnam, sat in the cockpit for Pan Am and United for over 30 years, and previously flew two of the actual airplanes that were allegedly hijacked on 9/11 (United Airlines Flight 175 & 93), does not believe the government's official 9/11 conspiracy theory.' And of course, he's right. 'Arab pilots' did not fly those planes - remote-control technology did Click here to watch ... now tell me in a court of law and you were a juror listening to evidence from this man ,would you not have to take his story more seriously than say the media or people who KNOW NOTHING ABOUT FLYING PLANES, The first report i posted about the laws of physics did not say anything about planes with explosives in it it merely proved that the building could not collapse because of a plane hitting it , it explained the LAW OF PHYSICS , like it or not that is the way physics works. Thanks for the lesson, but as a Civil Engineer I'm OK with the laws of phyisics and structural engineering for that matter. You didn't bother to respond to my comment about the explosives and detonation systems withstanding the impact and fire. That is my problem with Conspiracy theorists- they just jump to a different argument once they get challenged on any specific aspect. As for the pilots, of course it is theoretically possible that the planes were wired to fly by remote control, but it is also quite possible that they were piloted. The evidence of a single pilot who says hijackers could not fly a plane has to be balanced against many other pilots who say it is possible, especially as the hijackers were known to have already taken flying lessons. You choose to believe one guy, I choose to believe the others. Finally - dont get me wrong - I love a bit of conspiracy and I still believe Kennedy was assasinated with CIA knowledge or support, but the Apollo and Twin Towers theories are based too much on flimsy evidence that is not sufficiently balanced against the other aspects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uberjambo Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Care to name these agencies and their reasons for operating outwith the parameters of their government? Shhhh. It's a secret. I think the reasons for it have already been mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maroonlegions Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 Thanks for the lesson, but as a Civil Engineer I'm OK with the laws of phyisics and structural engineering for that matter. You didn't bother to respond to my comment about the explosives and detonation systems withstanding the impact and fire. That is my problem with Conspiracy theorists- they just jump to a different argument once they get challenged on any specific aspect. As for the pilots, of course it is theoretically possible that the planes were wired to fly by remote control, but it is also quite possible that they were piloted. The evidence of a single pilot who says hijackers could not fly a plane has to be balanced against many other pilots who say it is possible, especially as the hijackers were known to have already taken flying lessons. You choose to believe one guy, I choose to believe the others. Finally - dont get me wrong - I love a bit of conspiracy and I still believe Kennedy was assasinated with CIA knowledge or support, but the Apollo and Twin Towers theories are based too much on flimsy evidence that is not sufficiently balanced against the other aspects. okay, what explosives are you talking about , are we to accept that they were on the plane that crashed in to the building, now thats flimsy evidence , the buildings collapsed due to controlled explosions and came down the exact way they would that controlled explosions would create, we have engineers, pilots, military experts and architects who have came forward and explained why it just does not add up but their evidence is taken apart and debunked to suit the official story or to appease peoples own fears or views of events, such is human nature one tends to see things (or not) one wants to see, there is so much research and information done by so many learned and dedicated people that suggests there is too much smoke for there not to be a big lied fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
makateer Posted July 16, 2008 Share Posted July 16, 2008 okay, what explosives are you talking about , are we to accept that they were on the plane that crashed in to the building, now thats flimsy evidence , the buildings collapsed due to controlled explosions and came down the exact way they would that controlled explosions would create, we have engineers, pilots, military experts and architects who have came forward and explained why it just does not add up but their evidence is taken apart and debunked to suit the official story or to appease peoples own fears or views of events, such is human nature one tends to see things (or not) one wants to see, there is so much research and information done by so many learned and dedicated people that suggests there is too much smoke for there not to be a big lied fire. I remember a programme on channel 4 that was on about 6 months to a year after 9/11. The architects of the WTC buildings themselves explained why the building had gone down the way it did. Unfortunately I can't remember the name of the programme, but someone else here might. And your whole theory about the planes being flown by remote control? WTF? Seriously do you believe this *****? What is the purpose of the plane hijack if the planes were being controlled remotely? Did the terrorists just hijack the plane and then siti in the cockpit while some government minion got his remote control out? What about flight 93, did the remote control run out of batteries or something? Why not just fly all commercial planes with 'remote control'? What is the point in this theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.