9/11 conspiracy debate

**Quasievil** · 3rd May 2011, 11:18

Fuck some of you lot are sensationalistic conspiritists of the highest order.

Of course the fucking planes took it down,if "they" where wanting to bring the buildings down why bother throwing 2 planes full of people at it that could open them up to the scrutiny of the Kiwibiker plonkers , why not just plant a bigger bomb in the undergroung carpark like they did once before, you think "they" did that to just make the show look bigger and better..........stoopid bastards

Bloody terrorists flew plane loads of people into the towers and killed fuck loads of innocents ,end of story , get over it

dickheads lol

**mashman** · 3rd May 2011, 11:18

Originally Posted by DEATH_INC.

I think the fuselage bit is easy, take into account the height of the fuselage and the distance between 2 floors....see if you can get it through at 800kmh

Fair point...

**oneofsix** · 3rd May 2011, 11:22

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Fuck some of you lot are sensationalistic conspiritists of the highest order.

Of course the fucking planes took it down,if "they" where wanting to bring the buildings down why bother throwing 2 planes full of people at it that could open them up to the scrutiny of the Kiwibiker plonkers , why not just plant a bigger bomb in the undergroung carpark like they did once before, you think "they" did that to just make the show look bigger and better..........stoopid bastards

Bloody terrorists flew plane loads of people into the towers and killed fuck loads of innocents ,end of story , get over it

dickheads lol

you missed a big point there Quasievil. Hollywood had to delay the release of Spiderman whilst they reshot a sequence where they had had spidey spinning a web between the towers. Now there is no way the USA would have dared spoil the release of a Hollywood 'block baster' by deliberately bringing the towers down themselves.

**Quasievil** · 3rd May 2011, 11:23

Originally Posted by oneofsix

you missed a big point there Quasievil. Hollywood had to delay the release of Spiderman whilst they reshot a sequence where they had had spidey spinning a web between the towers. Now there is no way the USA would have dared spoil the release of a Hollywood 'block baster' by deliberately bringing the towers down themselves.

Yes they would the east coasts thinks the west coast are a bunch of dickheads, which is fairly accurate in my opinion.

**avgas** · 3rd May 2011, 11:25

Originally Posted by nodrog

I blame David Copperfield.

Is it wrong that I laughed at the thought of DC making the WTC disappear?
I mean imagine in, he thows up a curtain, then opens it to what we call ground zero.

Sick, but funny in the worst kinda way.

**oneofsix** · 3rd May 2011, 11:26

Originally Posted by Quasievil

Yes they would the east coasts thinks the west coast are a bunch of dickheads, which is fairly accurate in my opinion.

yeah but its East coast that provides a lot of the money they would have been wasting. And isn't New York on the east coast, guess there wasn't anything on the west coast worth destroying to make big enough statement.

**Insanity_rules** · 3rd May 2011, 11:29

Originally Posted by racefactory

In order to have the structure collapse like it did you would have to cut the beams at the very bottom not unlike the method used in a controlled demolition where the beams are cut on a diagonal. You can see this for yourself on the photos of the core beam remnants- they have been cut on a diagonal causing molten metal to sit around the edges... molten metal far higher in temperature than any jet fuel.

Not buying into all the collusion rubbish but there is something that doesn't add up...

I see no one has mentioned the 1993 car bomb that went off in the underground carpark, that more than likely weakened the sub structure somewhat. Geez guys put your tinfoil hats away now eh?

**nodrog:Me** · 3rd May 2011, 11:31

Originally Posted by avgas

Is it wrong that I laughed at the thought of DC making the WTC disappear?
I mean imagine in, he thows up a curtain, then opens it to what we call ground zero.

Sick, but funny in the worst kinda way.

No, you got it wrong, he just made the planes disappear.

Pee Wee Herman planted the bombs.

**avgas** · 3rd May 2011, 11:33

Originally Posted by nodrog

No, you got it wrong, he just made the planes disappear.
Pee Wee Herman planted the bombs.

And this is why we need to fix depression in the world.
Heal the world people

**nodrog:Me** · 3rd May 2011, 11:37

Originally Posted by avgas

And this is why we need to fix depression in the world.
Heal the world people

thanks, you just reminded me of something i needed to do.

**Oscar** · 3rd May 2011, 11:57

Originally Posted by allycatz

Documentary on Nat Geo looked extensively into why the twin towers failed even after the planes hit, as they had been designed to take the hit of an aircraft (one already had, albeit a small one), being so high. The buildings were designed in such a way as to reduce sway and the floors literally rested on shelf like brackets. Tests of the metal, holding those brackets, showed an inferior substance/weld held those brackets and were not as heat resistent as was originally designed. Thus, when the temp rose from the fire, the floors concertinered.

Reading conspiracy theory books, I've have always wondered if the planes were aimed as high as they were, with the intention that the buildings were designed to stay upright and thus affecting only the top floors. That, and the timing of the hits so early in the morning when later on in the day there would of been so many more people inside.

The Towers were designed to withstand a 707 hitting at cruising speed (it was a requirement due to the B25 hitting the Empire State Building during WW2).

The problem was that 1) the planes hit the buildings with the throttles to the stops (about 20% faster), and that b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

**Crasherfromwayback** · 3rd May 2011, 11:59

Originally Posted by Oscar

b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

Which I reckon we can forgive them for...

**oneofsix** · 3rd May 2011, 12:05

Originally Posted by Oscar

The Towers were designed to withstand a 707 hitting at cruising speed (it was a requirement due to the B25 hitting the Empire State Building during WW2).

The problem was that 1) the planes hit the buildings with the throttles to the stops (about 20% faster), and that b) the Engineers failed to factor in the heat generated by that much burning avgas.

and the 747s were much bigger and carried much more gas than the 707, the 707s were the biggest around when the buildings were designed.