https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv6_mdSvZwE
Comments on this?
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bv6_mdSvZwE
Comments on this?
The dude who's uploaded the video has several other rather suspect videos on his channel.
Furthermore the recently found audio tape collection has Bin Laden referring to the attacks indirectly.
I don't know why people want to see conspiracy theories everywhere. I guess it makes it easier for them to hate the government and blame them for everything wrong that ever happens along with the stuff the governments are actually guilty of.Quote:
It's only in one of the final recordings found in the collection that there is any allusion to 9/11, in a recording of the wedding of Osama Bin Laden's bodyguard, Umar, which was taped a few months before the attacks on New York City and Washington DC."There's a lot of mirth on the tape and then Bin Laden comes up, and it's no longer mirth. He talks about how celebration is important, but it mustn't overshadow more austere issues."
Bin Laden then makes an ominous reference.
"He talks explicitly about 'a plan' - he doesn't reveal details - and how we are 'about to hear news' and he asks God to 'grant our brothers success'," says Miller.
"I understand that to signify the 9/11 attacks [because] he is talking specifically about the United States at that juncture."
Given how often companies and governments shred or loose important information / information they no longer need,what exactly is expected? There was a watercolour on the wall saying "I planned it all" and signed in his own blood?
~:smoking:
No, with the blood of small puuppies and babies mixed with chemical weapons from Iraq of coruse.Quote:
Originally Posted by rory_20_uk
Conspiracy theories are always fun. The only question I have is building number 7, that looked like controlled demolition.
I don't know, I think Building 4 is the likelier candidate.
That was just fishy.
I don't think it fishy, I think they were allready expecting it and took measures. Inside-job believers are very high on my total-idiot list.
Edit, you can't do this without anyone knowing about it. Leads to conspracie-theories but it can all be explained, no way the US didn'f know that it was a target, no way the Mossad didn't know as well, and warned Israeli's who work there. Conspiracies are fundamentilay impossible if too many people are in it.
The US government can barley manage a functioning postal service. I doubt they planned 9/11. Not to mention, even if you did mange to pull it off, there are too many variables after the fact. It's not like installing an autocrat in Chile or Iran, you can't be certain all the moving parts are going to move the way you want them.
Have not watched the video yet. I will get to it as time allows.
All I will say is that it is the first time in history that a modern hi rise building has been brought down by fire and it, supposedly, happened several times on that one day. Oh, and jet fuel does not burn hot enough to melt steel.
What ever happened that day, the official explanation is not what happened. It is just what people would accept without too much explanation.
That's a funny argument given the NSA revelations. Maybe the postal service just isn't as high a priority.Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
That still doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job but to claim incompetence based on a single service when other services are incredibly competent is a bit much.
Well, it depends on what aspects of their performance that your talking about. The NSA isn't much different to the postal service, when comparing the scope of their activities and their budgets.Quote:
That still doesn't mean that 9/11 was an inside job but to claim incompetence based on a single service when other services are incredibly competent is a bit much.
The thing about the NSA is that they were doing what everyone suspected they were doing anyway, it was just that they appeared shocked that they actually did do it in front of the Media so they didn't let on they actually knew all along. It is a theme also present in a lot of Hollywood movies, even a Will Smith movie, Enemy of the State pretty much came out saying it was like that.
Anyone who was genuinely surprised and completely unaware was living under a rock.
Also keep in mind that the NSA thing got leaked. If 9/11 was an inside job, they had many more years to do so and it was presumably a far larger operation. No leaks.
There has been some research on that, if it gets into the shafts it will absolutily cause the damage that makes a collapse possible. I think people should get over it, no matter how horrible it was. That is a really horrible thing to say and I am perfectly aware of thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Actual, legitimate, peer-reviewed evidence says otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
Jet fuel burns at a minimum of 800 Celsius. Anyone who studies materials science will tell you that that steel was fucked. The yield strength of the steel beams was probably cut in half, which meant it was only a matter of time. Is this not common knowledge?
The lowest melting point of any steel is 1370° C. A high yield alloy would have a higher melting point. The fire was not hot enough nor was it long enough to generate a catastrophic failure like that seen that day.
As for peer reviewed papers you can always find people who will go along with most hypothesis. Like Clark said, for every expert there is an equal and opposite expert.
There are more than 2,000 engineers and architects who are members of Engineers & Architects for 911 Truth. Something that would spoil their careers. Before deciding what you believe it is best to examine both sides of the story with an open mind.
Twin towers where really high, so really heavy. Melting temperature of steel sounds kinda loose to me, bending should do it, temperature for that is much lower, the fire reached the elevator shaft, nothing odd going on
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth is an organization with questionable credibility at best.
You have no idea what you are talking about. You do not need to melt steel in order to have 80,000 tons of pressure come crashing down. By heating high strength steel even to 800 degrees Celsius the strength of the steel is reduced by a factor of two or more. This is not a government conspiracy, it is basic materials science. Do you even know that when making steel, the iron undergoes several internal structural phase transformations which allows the carbon atoms to penetrate the iron lattice, at which point quenching returns the iron lattice back to a tighter lattice which traps the carbon in interstitial gaps? Why are you trying to argue that steel needs to be heated to 1300+ degrees before failure, as if steel is homogenous and stable all the way up until its melting point? Please stop.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
^ what he says. Bending is enough it doesn't have to melt, melting temperature is irrelevant. It bends, the weight does the rest.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The trouble is that the steel was melted. The buildings pulverised themselves in mid air and came down at free fall speeds in their own footprint. Further, the heating and bending would have to have been uniform throughout the building for all that to occur. There are a great deal of things about the collapse that are highly questionable. Some even defy physics.
I don’t know how they were brought down or who was behind it but the government explanation is insufficient.
I know nothing about civil-engineering and, to be sincere, I doubt that the destruction of two sky-scrapers would be needed for a sufficient provocation. It looks like an overkill, doesn't it?
That being said, the official War on Terror narrative is definitely fragile and we are presented with a distorted image.
Firstly, I think that the reason behind it are geo-politic interests, like the Iraqi oil being sold and exploited by American companies and not the Iraqi state, not a crusage againt violence and bigotry, and secondly, movies have led us to view wars as a simplified stugggle between us and them.
Well, it usually is more complicated, with temporary alliances, cynical deals under the table, doube agents and conflicting interests.
Demolitian experts here completily ruled out controlled demolition on the Twins, number 4 and 7 are a different story, but wouldn't it be most likely that they already knew this was planned, but were caught by surpriseQuote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
No, the steel did not melt. The molten metal which was found was a slag composed of debris from the tower and aluminum alloy from the plane itself, which does melt at temps far below 800 degrees celcius. What is suspicious about the midsection collapsing under the weight of the top after extensive damage? The bending does not have to be uniform, if a beam or beams broke such that the remaining load exceeded the designed load for the rest, the failure would be cascading and quick. I can run a program to display the first 100,000 prime numbers and MATLAB will show it 'instantly'. But in reality it was generated in a sequence, one at a time.Quote:
Originally Posted by Fisherking
9/11 truthers are people who are so scared about chaos that they believe all actions must have been directed by some conspiracy in charge of events. The idea that 9/11 was an inside job is more comforting than confronting the idea that death can come at any time for no reason by actors with no interest towards those they effect.
You just had to reference that particular movie. Gene Hackman's character in that movie was born on Sept. 11th. :inquisitive:Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
There are other movies where people claim to have found patterns referencing the various combinations of 9 and 11. Life imitating art, imitating life. One can spend many hours falling down those rabbit holes.Quote:
"when buildings start blowing up, people's priorities tend to change"
As to the topic. I'm not convinced it was an "inside job" so much as "they" had foreknowledge of the plan and just allowed it to happen, only to take advantage of the situation. Much like Pearl Harbor, or the sinking of the Lusitania for example. Never let a good crisis go to waste.
I'm convinced most of the "news" now is just lies. Maybe 90%. Just remember, a good lie is mostly truth. It's probably been that way for a long time. I believe the only thing which has changed is that in the past TPTB used to try and suppress the truth from getting out. Along came other means of communication they couldn't as easily control (printing press, radio waves, internet). Now they obfuscate and deluge people with so much (dis)information anyone who really tries to unravel it end up chasing their own tail or going insane.
I do hope you fellows continue to discuss though. It's quite entertaining...and I'm here to be entertained.
This is asinine. A good lie is one that comes from a place of repetition and/or authority. People who are convinced the news is lying to them are just too dumb to understand that news has always been filtered through the perspective of those that present it. Today's media has an openness never seen before since sources are more open about their biases. Smarten up and realize that Murrow is not going to be holding your hand anymore. You are your own judge for interpreting the world, read both sides and let the adversarial process uncover the truth.Quote:
Originally Posted by Risasi
Hmm, interesting. So in other words you are calling me stupid? Why the vitriol? Just because I don't any accept any official story about the 9/11 incident? Whether it's a 9/11 "truther" or the mainstream news media? If I'm supposed to accept the mainstream media which one? The US? France? Al Jazeera? Pravda? BBC?Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Since you mention Murrow I'll assume for now you're American? So Brian Williams was unbiased? Yeah, he never lied. And Fox News is fair and balanced too... :rolleyes:
I think you miss my point. You say read both sides and then let adversarial process uncover the truth. Who has time to do that? There are only 24 hours in the day.
I'm saying there are no "both sides". It's all ice cream, you just pick your flavor. And every one of them tastes good, makes you feel good for awhile, but eventually you're going to regret eating it.
Every source is tainted to one degree or another. And the only real agenda you can follow is money, or power...or sex. They are interwoven and you can trade one for another.
As to my "a good lie" comment, that is self evident. If you can't see that I don't know how to help you. Perhaps you could explain why Snopes is rife with so many articles marked as status: "mixed" or "multiple"? Many people have fallen for those silly little chain emails. Just imagine how elaborate the lie if you have a media publisher in your pocket.
ACIN is basically correct - it the steel was heated it would buckle, it does not need to melt and the fact that we have TWO forum mods claiming it does or did is something I find disturbing.
Here's a quick vid of the collapse
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ft2uIYucsXo
See all the smoke? The towers were on fire for ages, what happened was the fire spread and as a certain point enough of the steel core of the building was hot enough that there was a cascade failure, then because the outside of the building is fairly rigid it appears to telescope into itself - you can actually see that's not exactly what happened, and n fac the Second tower is coming apart as it collapses.