Fascinating film

[Armleywhite]

http://www.bbc5.tv/eyeplayer/video/scie ... g-collapse

[Telepres]

Had this debate before. These people always leave one huge aspect out. The fact that the Towers were hit by Jet Planes. They seem to take great pleasure in comparing with other skycraper fires. But that's all they were, fires.

It's also worth pointing out that no major Government would create a conspiracy based around something as ridiculous as the events that took place that day. And if they did, they wouldn't create it with as many obvious "flaws" that can easily be spotted by Dave Slackface from Jacksonville while watching a Youtube clip.

Now the Kennedy Assassination. The loopholes in that wouldn't be so obvious were it not for the recollections of people in the vicinity on that day. The men spotted on the Grassy Knoll. Also the fact that "the killer" was killed shortly after. Bin Laden and Al Qaeda have proudly claimed these attacks since Day 1.

My feeling on JFK, Lyndon Johnson was involved heavily somewhere down the line.

[Armleywhite]

Many a false flag incident has "kicked off" world events. They all fake as well? the guy on the film is an architect and I think he knows a little more than most. Like he states, he's NOT accusing the govmnt, but someone has had intent to carry out that day, but hey, if the govmnt tells us it's real then it must be??

Also, fire is fire, the building in Madrid, THATS STILL STANDING was hit by a plane, still standing!!! Yes I know that the WTC was hit at speed by bigger planes, but even those planes are all engine and the rest thin alluminium. WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane however, and still fell, through small isolated fires in the building.

[Telepres]

Many a false flag incident has "kicked off" world events. They all fake as well? the guy on the film is an architect and I think he knows a little more than most. Like he states, he's NOT accusing the govmnt, but someone has had intent to carry out that day, but hey, if the govmnt tells us it's real then it must be??

Also, fire is fire, the building in Madrid, THATS STILL STANDING was hit by a plane, still standing!!! Yes I know that the WTC was hit at speed by bigger planes, but even those planes are all engine and the rest thin alluminium. WTC7 was NOT hit by a plane however, and still fell, through small isolated fires in the building.

You seem to be creating the idea though, with "if the Government tells us it's real then it must be", that they always lie. What I say is that yes, there are without a doubt some very odd events to have happened (the JFK Assassination being one major incident), but that things like 9/11 just happened. Some f*cked up extremists proudly claimed responsibility for that day, so the first step for conspiracy theorists is that they must be in on it too. Fact is, while conspiracy theories have been around for centuries, the Internet has blown it to ridiculous levels where everything must be a conspiracy. Well no. The US Government, however "mad" they can be at times, wouldn't construct something like 9/11. This isn't burying my head in the sand, they just wouldn't. If it was found they had, the U.S would be dead as a world power (if not a power of any kind), due to the impact on other countries economies/people etc.

And to describe a jet plane as "all engine" is a bit simplistic. While the wings are allowed to flex (it's part of the design), the rest has to be very structurally strong to cope with the heavy stresses. This isn't a giant cola can we are talking about here.

[Armleywhite]

Govmnt don't lie, research the Bay of Tonkin incident!! Might surprise you. There are many other instances of what are called false flag incidents. All designed to make the masses aware of an incident that has other intentions.

As to your supposition that a govmnt wouldn't do such a thing, sorry, but I firmly believe they would. Even JFK was killed by it's own govmnt because of his refusal to tow the line. Take a look at the deris from 9/11. Steel pillars cut (or damaged at an angle???) Oh aye, totally acceptabe that isn't it? Yes the planes did hit their target, but the fire that brought down those buildings raged at approx 1500 degs FACT, hot enough to soften steel, but certainly not enough to make it molten, so what was used to melt the steel to make it run like water???

Thermite WAS found at the site.. Mmmmm, I suppose there is Thermite in the production of aeroplanes now? Also, why was the order to invade the countires of Iraq AND Afghanistan made BEFORE the attacks? Again, another fact that is "out there" for those that wish to look them up.

Have you never heard who formed the organisation of Al Qaeda? Or who trained them or how they funded them??? Sorry, but there is far too many questions unanswered, but the masses utterly believe that what the govmnts tell them without question. Have we sunk so far that we no longer have the ability to question, when evidence is staring them in the face!

You seem to be creating the idea though, with "if the Government tells us it's real then it must be", that they always lie. What I say is that yes, there are without a doubt some very odd events to have happened (the JFK Assassination being one major incident), but that things like 9/11 just happened. Some f*cked up extremists proudly claimed responsibility for that day, so the first step for conspiracy theorists is that they must be in on it too. Fact is, while conspiracy theories have been around for centuries, the Internet has blown it to ridiculous levels where everything must be a conspiracy. Well no. The US Government, however "mad" they can be at times, wouldn't construct something like 9/11. This isn't burying my head in the sand, they just wouldn't. If it was found they had, the U.S would be dead as a world power (if not a power of any kind), due to the impact on other countries economies/people etc.

And to describe a jet plane as "all engine" is a bit simplistic. While the wings are allowed to flex (it's part of the design), the rest has to be very structurally strong to cope with the heavy stresses. This isn't a giant cola can we are talking about here.

[Telepres]

Govmnt don't lie, research the Bay of Tonkin incident!! Might surprise you. There are many other instances of what are called false flag incidents. All designed to make the masses aware of an incident that has other intentions.

As to your supposition that a govmnt wouldn't do such a thing, sorry, but I firmly believe they would. Even JFK was killed by it's own govmnt because of his refusal to tow the line. Take a look at the deris from 9/11. Steel pillars cut (or damaged at an angle???) Oh aye, totally acceptabe that isn't it? Yes the planes did hit their target, but the fire that brought down those buildings raged at approx 1500 degs FACT, hot enough to soften steel, but certainly not enough to make it molten, so what was used to melt the steel to make it run like water???

Thermite WAS found at the site.. Mmmmm, I suppose there is Thermite in the production of aeroplanes now? Also, why was the order to invade the countires of Iraq AND Afghanistan made BEFORE the attacks? Again, another fact that is "out there" for those that wish to look them up.

Have you never heard who formed the organisation of Al Qaeda? Or who trained them or how they funded them??? Sorry, but there is far too many questions unanswered, but the masses utterly believe that what the govmnts tell them without question. Have we sunk so far that we no longer have the ability to question, when evidence is staring them in the face!

You seem to be ignoring that I said some suspicious events do occur and I suspect Johnson to be involved in the JFK assassination.

And yes, al-Qaeda was funded by the US Government at one stage. Situations change do they not. In order to get ahead in one conflict, they had to assist a group they weren't 100% comfortable, but at that stage, far better them than the Russians. "My enemies enemy is my best friend".

Bay of Tonkin. Yes, well exposed as a lie, yet no direct American deaths. A rather different sequence of events.

Small bit of research and it turns out the columns were cut after the event, thus the clean cut. Also, from a good hunt round, it doesn't appear confirmed that thermite was found at the site at all. Most of the argument seems to be based on the visible reaction in the tower before the collapse, yet this type of reaction can be found in many combinations that would be involved in the construction of the towers.

Of course, the Government have got to me too, probably. But seriously, on the subject of sinking low, "The masses". Rather patronising in my opinion.

[Armleywhite]

Bay of Tonkin was a lie that the US govmnt used to drag the US into a war, that JFK was agianst from day one, and cost the lives of nearly 50,000 Us service personnel, not to mention the deaths of innocent vietnamese during the near 7 year long war!

Thermite was found in the dust, fact, ive already put a thread about the evidence of it on here. Those girders were not cut after the event, because you can quite easily find images in the net that shows there not the bits from the ground, but sections which form part of the upper areas. Why did FEMA take away the vast majority fo the debris and point blank refused any inspection fo the debris by independant testers?

Firemen seeing molten metal many many hours after the event in the subways. Standard fires do NOT producwe anywhere near the temp needed to do that. Also, who was carrying out structural work on several floors months / weeks before the attack.

I wasn't trying to be "low" as you claim, but pointing out that majority of people will accpet anything if told to them by officialdom. Apologies if it came across any other way.

These may be questions that some find irksome, but their also questions that have been ignored by those that claim to be able to prove their theories. To be fair, we'll never learn the truth so in the grand scheme of things it doesn't really matter, but I for one will never accept the story i've been fed. Just too many questions left unanswered imo. Each to their own, but I certainly don't accept the official line.

You seem to be ignoring that I said some suspicious events do occur and I suspect Johnson to be involved in the JFK assassination.

And yes, al-Qaeda was funded by the US Government at one stage. Situations change do they not. In order to get ahead in one conflict, they had to assist a group they weren't 100% comfortable, but at that stage, far better them than the Russians. "My enemies enemy is my best friend".

Bay of Tonkin. Yes, well exposed as a lie, yet no direct American deaths. A rather different sequence of events.

Small bit of research and it turns out the columns were cut after the event, thus the clean cut. Also, from a good hunt round, it doesn't appear confirmed that thermite was found at the site at all. Most of the argument seems to be based on the visible reaction in the tower before the collapse, yet this type of reaction can be found in many combinations that would be involved in the construction of the towers.

Of course, the Government have got to me too, probably. But seriously, on the subject of sinking low, "The masses". Rather patronising in my opinion.

[Telepres]

Thermite was found in the dust, fact, ive already put a thread about the evidence of it on here. Those girders were not cut after the event, because you can quite easily find images in the net that shows there not the bits from the ground, but sections which form part of the upper areas. Why did FEMA take away the vast majority fo the debris and point blank refused any inspection fo the debris by independant testers?

Firemen seeing molten metal many many hours after the event in the subways. Standard fires do NOT producwe anywhere near the temp needed to do that. Also, who was carrying out structural work on several floors months / weeks before the attack.

A video that shows the "clear-up crew" detailing what needed to be done, including how they are cutting the columns. I don't like the fact that the video hoster is "Debunking911", but it seems a legitimate piece.



And has it occurred that FEMA might just want to keep it "quiet" rather than having scavenger hunters on the loose. This is a product of the Internet world unfortunately. Everyone wants access to everything. Well unfortunately, some things have to be kept private. Bin Laden's death pictures not being released was a sure sign he wasn't really dead, until his sons admitted it. The heat died down a fair bit after that.

And as has been said, this wasn't a standard fire. This was heavily loaded jet planes smashing into buildings that had already been damaged by a bomb around 10 years earlier. I'm not suggesting that could have weakened the building, but just that this was not in any sense a standard fire. Some of the innocent materials found used in construction of the WTC were found to be reactable given a certain situation.

[Armleywhite]

I cant view the film as at work, but will watch it later. As to the previous bomb, sorry, but all that dis was crack a few tiles.

Yes the planes were fully loaded with fuel, but the vast majority of that fuel burnt off in impact. Hence the massive fireballs when the planes hit. Even if the planes were the sole cause of the building collapse of WTC1 & 2, what made WTC7 fall, straight down like a standard controlled explosion? if the little fires that were going on in there truley caused the collapse of sucgh a structure, then it must have been built to the worlds worst standards and built with the worst materials know to man.

Remember the line in the film? NO CONCRETE / STEEL BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE!! EVER!! So even if wtc 1&2 did fall due to planes, what about wtc7 which wasn't even close to the impace site?

[Telepres]

I cant view the film as at work, but will watch it later. As to the previous bomb, sorry, but all that dis was crack a few tiles.

Yes the planes were fully loaded with fuel, but the vast majority of that fuel burnt off in impact. Hence the massive fireballs when the planes hit. Even if the planes were the sole cause of the building collapse of WTC1 & 2, what made WTC7 fall, straight down like a standard controlled explosion? if the little fires that were going on in there truley caused the collapse of sucgh a structure, then it must have been built to the worlds worst standards and built with the worst materials know to man.

Remember the line in the film? NO CONCRETE / STEEL BUILDING IN HISTORY HAS COLLAPSED DUE TO FIRE!! EVER!! So even if wtc 1&2 did fall due to planes, what about wtc7 which wasn't even close to the impace site?

7 was heavily hit by debris from one of the other towers when they collapsed. The fire was bad, but the bigger damage was done by the collapse of the other tower, and the design of the building aided the collapse.

[Armleywhite]

7 was heavily hit by debris from one of the other towers when they collapsed. The fire was bad, but the bigger damage was done by the collapse of the other tower, and the design of the building aided the collapse.

As many building experts will testify, for such a building to collapse in the way it did would have had to have a catastrophic collapse of ever single joint on every floor for it to freefall. If that building was heavily damaged then it would have collapsed in the place where most damage occured, not in its entire mass. Take a look at controlled demolitin and building collapse through damage, either fire or other. Massive diffrence, massive. Those buildings were in freefall, not the typical collapse due to stress point damage. Also, if you look at the front there is no damage. Yes the back was heavily impacted, but again, the building should have collapsed at those points, not an entrie free fall. Even the firemen that attended WTC7 state that it should never have fallen in the manner it did.

[JonTheBassist]

wtc building 7 was a controlled demolition. There is absolutely NO doubt about that. wtc7 was brought down with explosives for goodness sake!

[Telepres]

wtc building 7 was a controlled demolition. There is absolutely NO doubt about that. wtc7 was brought down with explosives for goodness sake!

[MOTDallas]

Fascinating.

[drsdadsotherson]

There are some fascinating and very plausible thoughts that the conspiracy theorists use when they argue that 9/11 was an inside job. That is unarguable. In my opinion, however, what you have to consider is WHY the US government would do this?

The results of 9/11 have been economic crisis after economic crisis. Some directly due to insurance spin-offs, some due to rising crude oil costs, and some due to the massive financial pressures of waging a war. All things that have had a negative impact on the US and the rest of the western world, and all things that any half-witted economist could have worked out before the event. Where is the motive?

And as far as the collapse of the towers goes... You take any structure supported by pillars and you weaken a proportion of them through impact. The load has to be taken on by the rest of the pillars, which endure great stresses and will naturally be weakened. Steel is a metal. Metals are malleable. You put enough stress on a metal and it will bend or snap.
Now picture the fact that it is just one or two floors of a much larger structure that have the greater stresses upon them. Where is it going to fail? Each subsequent pillar that fails puts a greater stress on the pillars that remain and you get a cascade effect that travels HORIZONTALLY through the structure - i.e. one or two floors fail almost simultaneously. In the case of the WTC, this was only exacerbated by the fact that there were a number of floors ABOVE the fail point which accelerated the stress failure before the pillars had time to cool and perhaps regain enough rigidity to keep the building standing.

Why did they fall straight down? Because the cascade stresses caused the failure to be transmitted horizontally, effectively cutting through the building. The enormous mass of undamaged floors falling onto the floor below at each stage caused the same horizontal failure on each subsequent level, though this time from vertical impact instead of horizontal stresses. The amount of steel cladding on the outside of thebuilding ensured that each crushing force was transmitted down instead of in any other direction.

Now, I am no engineer or architect. Just someone who has looked at what has happened and thought about possibilities. I do not know for certain that my theory is correct any more than I know the conspiracy theory is wrong. But isn't it equally plausible?

[Drs.Dad]

There are some fascinating and very plausible thoughts that the conspiracy theorists use when they argue that 9/11 was an inside job. That is unarguable. In my opinion, however, what you have to consider is WHY the US government would do this?

The results of 9/11 have been economic crisis after economic crisis. Some directly due to insurance spin-offs, some due to rising crude oil costs, and some due to the massive financial pressures of waging a war. All things that have had a negative impact on the US and the rest of the western world, and all things that any half-witted economist could have worked out before the event. Where is the motive?

And as far as the collapse of the towers goes... You take any structure supported by pillars and you weaken a proportion of them through impact. The load has to be taken on by the rest of the pillars, which endure great stresses and will naturally be weakened. Steel is a metal. Metals are malleable. You put enough stress on a metal and it will bend or snap.
Now picture the fact that it is just one or two floors of a much larger structure that have the greater stresses upon them. Where is it going to fail? Each subsequent pillar that fails puts a greater stress on the pillars that remain and you get a cascade effect that travels HORIZONTALLY through the structure - i.e. one or two floors fail almost simultaneously. In the case of the WTC, this was only exacerbated by the fact that there were a number of floors ABOVE the fail point which accelerated the stress failure before the pillars had time to cool and perhaps regain enough rigidity to keep the building standing.

Why did they fall straight down? Because the cascade stresses caused the failure to be transmitted horizontally, effectively cutting through the building. The enormous mass of undamaged floors falling onto the floor below at each stage caused the same horizontal failure on each subsequent level, though this time from vertical impact instead of horizontal stresses. The amount of steel cladding on the outside of thebuilding ensured that each crushing force was transmitted down instead of in any other direction.

Now, I am no engineer or architect. Just someone who has looked at what has happened and thought about possibilities. I do not know for certain that my theory is correct any more than I know the conspiracy theory is wrong. But isn't it equally plausible?

Well argued Iain, that appears to have stopped the arguments dead in their tracks!!!!
:mrgreen:

[Armleywhite]

Well argued Iain, that appears to have stopped the arguments dead in their tracks!!!!
:mrgreen:

Not at all Dr's Dad, just that there is a massive void between the two tall towers and that of wtc7! However, majority seem to believe the official line without qustion. When a building is brought down by controlled demolition then there is a systematic controlled collapse of every joint through explosive devices. That results in a free fall throughout the building all at the same time and speed.

Now, if a building falls down through fire alone (and lets point out here that in the ENTIRE history of concrete / steel buildings, none ever have) It would happen in partial state, speak to any architect for proof if you require. Heres the thing, building 7 was on fire at one end only, not the entire building so if the steel softened, as they continue to cliam it did, then it would have collapsed at the hottest point, leading to partial collaps, not all over. What happened to wtc7 was a catasrophic collapse of EVERY single joint on EVERY single floor of the building for it to go the way it did. If you look at ANY film of wtc7 you will see that there is no fire in the majority fo the building. A fire in a minority of the building, but it collapsed freefall????? Still, the govmnt would never lie, would they?

[Drs.Dad]

Not at all Dr's Dad, just that there is a massive void between the two tall towers and that of wtc7! However, majority seem to believe the official line without qustion. When a building is brought down by controlled demolition then there is a systematic controlled collapse of every joint through explosive devices. That results in a free fall throughout the building all at the same time and speed.

Now, if a building falls down through fire alone (and lets point out here that in the ENTIRE history of concrete / steel buildings, none ever have) It would happen in partial state, speak to any architect for proof if you require. Heres the thing, building 7 was on fire at one end only, not the entire building so if the steel softened, as they continue to cliam it did, then it would have collapsed at the hottest point, leading to partial collaps, not all over. What happened to wtc7 was a catasrophic collapse of EVERY single joint on EVERY single floor of the building for it to go the way it did. If you look at ANY film of wtc7 you will see that there is no fire in the majority fo the building. A fire in a minority of the building, but it collapsed freefall????? Still, the govmnt would never lie, would they?

Armley, I admit I'm no fan of conspiracy theories or theorists per se, my main exception being the death of Dr David Kelly, there are too many unanswered questions about that which arise out of evidence from convincing witnesses. However, that is another argument! I just refuse to believe that the US Government would sanction the illegal killing of so many of their own citizens, when they are so willing to do anything to protect their citizens abroad (a bit like our gunboat diplomacy in many years gone by). I also cannot believe they could or would order such an action. It's one thing a rogue politician or Government official being willing to do this, and another thing entirely taking that action...... who would be willing to do the job?

[Armleywhite]

Thing is, im not advocating a govmnt conspiracy, or conspiracy one way or the other. However, I do not believe the official story, too many discrpencies and unproved theories either way. However, my eyes do not lie, neither do certain facts (for want of a better word) Not going to mention WTC1 or 2, but just mention certain things aabout wtc7

1. It collapsed in freefall in about 7 seconds, totally. (as mentioned above )and fell into it's own footprint
2. Why had the NY emergencey room been moved on that day. Normally that building was used by the emergency services for such disasters in the city, but on the morning BEFORE the attacks all staff were told to go elsewhere to do their job??
3. It housed, among many, the Internal revenue service. Strangely enough they were investigating the Bush family for incidents relating to massive financial misdemeanours and their involvement in the Enron affair.

Another bit of evidence is that the US has used false flag incidents many times in the past. Now, im NOT saying that the govmnt did do this, but flimsy argument to try to convince the populous doesn't make sense to me. US needed an excuse and on that fateful morning they got it. Massive coincidence eh? Lets not forget, you mention Kelly, he was a major player in the exposing the lies and that would never do would it. Just ask yourself the serious question, why? Do you really think it was all seperate? We all know now that the govmnts lied to get us into war. so why believe them over other things. The only reason you can't believe that such a thing can be carried out is human good will. The greed of the power elite knows no bounds im afraid. The only ones that will ever benefit are the power elite. Billions to be made in war and they have been making more money than you can imagine over the last 10 years.

[Drs.Dad]

Just take your time and read, watch and listen to the following:-

http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Says it all as far as I am concerned!