Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 78

Thread: 911 conspiracy?

  1. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by JumbalayaJet View Post
    I never listened to any conspiracy theorists and won't until I get a concrete reason to. The impact nor bombs is what brought those buildings down. HOT jet-fueled fire can't melt steel beams?
    Well, when you design a tower to withstand the impact of a 747. A reasonable person might take into consideration a fire resultant from the fuel that keeps that 747 in the air. It's disingenuous to declare a building able to withstand the impact of a 747, if the only way it survives such an impact is if the plane is hurled by a trebuchet.

    So far as your first sentence goes... How are you going to get a concrete reason to listen to someone's arguments, unless you listen to their arguments?

  2. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Well, when you design a tower to withstand the impact of a 747. A reasonable person might take into consideration a fire resultant from the fuel that keeps that 747 in the air. It's disingenuous to declare a building able to withstand the impact of a 747, if the only way it survives such an impact is if the plane is hurled by a trebuchet.

    So far as your first sentence goes... How are you going to get a concrete reason to listen to someone's arguments, unless you listen to their arguments?
    The Twin Towers were built to withstand a 707 not a 747. The 747 is roughly 2X the size of a 707 so there's no reason to believe the towers should've held up. Also, keep in mind the planes were flying much faster than they normally do and that the impact of the crashes blew the fire retardent materials off of the beams.

    The amount of man hours necessary to plant explosives in those buildings, without being caught mind you, is more than enough for any sensible person to understand that a conspiracy is not even remotely possible.

  3. #23
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,884
    An argument can be made either way on this subject. There are times when I believe that there was no conspiracy and there are times that I question it. We may never know one way or another. I think there is nothing wrong with questioning as to if it was a conspiracy or not. The fact that people had lost their life doesn't mean you can't have a discussion about it. With that being said, there are a lot of strange coincidences that just don't add up.

  4. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by SINYJets View Post
    The Twin Towers were built to withstand a 707 not a 747. The 747 is roughly 2X the size of a 707 so there's no reason to believe the towers should've held up. Also, keep in mind the planes were flying much faster than they normally do and that the impact of the crashes blew the fire retardent materials off of the beams.

    The amount of man hours necessary to plant explosives in those buildings, without being caught mind you, is more than enough for any sensible person to understand that a conspiracy is not even remotely possible.
    There is a difference between planting explosives that can take down a building on their own, and planting explosives (or adding explosives, a lot of people ran into and out of those buildings), that can contribute to the destruction of a burning building that has already absorbed the impact of a large aircraft.

    Insofar as the size of the aircraft involved are concerned you are correct, it was the 707 that was considered. However a 707's maximum takeoff weight was between 247,000 lb and 335,000 lb This according to wikipedia.

    Wikipedia lists the 767-200ER (the plane that was actually used in the attacks) as 395,000 lb. This is hardly double the anticipated weight.

    Now as I've admitted previously i haven't spent a great deal of time looking into all of the specifics involved in 9/11. I don't meant to assert that it is impossible that all of the damage was done purely as a result of the plane crashes, and that that damage would've been the expected result of those informed on the specifics of the WTC.

    What i am asserting is that reasonable human beings can disagree and discuss whether or not a airliner destroying a tower known to the public to be designed to withstand the impact of an airliner ought for skepticism regarding the official story.

  5. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    While i can't speak for the OP, my assumption is his comments were in response to the tone of all the responses in aggregate.


    Let's see, after his post we get.



    Non-constructive spam.



    Moderator support of non-constructive spam, and declaration this topic isn't fit for discussion on this forum (I guess 9-11 wasn't a "world event).

    Skipping past OP's response.



    Non-constructive / Mild personal attack.




    Non-constructive.




    Non-Construcive / Mild personal attack.




    Strange assertion i don't understand (this one i commented on)


    Reaonable dicourse. At last! It doesn't really address any of the points made by the OP, but hey, at least it's on topic, and a reasonable theory of the events under discussion.

    My post, questioning why this topic is off limits. Admittedly i add little to the discussion. Apologies OP.



    Your post. Thank you for mentioning what could be an important difference in regards to tower 7. I do not understand your assertion that "There should be no credence lent to any bit of a conspiracy where 9/11 is concerned." Why?

    I'm going to stop now. This is getting too long already.

    I'm disappointing with a userbase that i usually find to be very levelheaded and reasonable. There is no reason to banish discussion on the events that transpired on 9/11. There is nothing irreverent about questioning the story as it is presented to us by our government.

    My personal belief (and i have not to done a lot of research), is that up until the planes actually hit the towers everything happened as is portrayed by our government today. Afterwards, i have some trouble with some of the official conclusions. It was widely known that the WTC was designed to withstand the impact of a 747. I don't think it is reasonable to assume that no one ever considered that a fire would result after such an impact. Perhaps a mistake was made during the construction. Perhaps corners were cut to save money. Perhaps there was some sort of sabotage before or after the impact to further weaken the towers. These things all seem very possible to me.

    In general it is easy to believe there were additional Al Qaeda operatives on the ground causing additional destruction and chaos. There was an incredible amount of money, time and effort spent getting Al Qaeda pilots trained, aboard, and in control of commercial air liners. I think it's silly to believe there wasn't some additional support network helping them, up to, during, and after the attack.

    I don't believe our government has a full understanding over everything that happened during the 9/11 attacks. And i would not be surprised if certain facts that painted the government or even private American citizens in a bad light were covered up or the facts skewed.

    If that makes me a kook so be it, i rather think it makes me a rational individual.
    Its odd that the towers were constructed to withstand an impact from a 747 when that model aircraft hadn't been invented at the time of the construction of the towers. By the way ridiculing 911 truther conspiracy theories is good common sense coming from people that WERE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. This crap is good to peddle to morons that aren't in NYC and didn't watch the planes hit the buildings with their own eyes. If you think that the government needed to blow up buliding 7 because they wanted to start a war with Irag, well then I've got a bridge to sell you.

  6. #26
    Jets Insider VIP
    Charter JI Member

    Join Date
    May 1999
    Posts
    15,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    Well, when you design a tower to withstand the impact of a 747. A reasonable person might take into consideration a fire resultant from the fuel that keeps that 747 in the air. It's disingenuous to declare a building able to withstand the impact of a 747, if the only way it survives such an impact is if the plane is hurled by a trebuchet.

    So far as your first sentence goes... How are you going to get a concrete reason to listen to someone's arguments, unless you listen to their arguments?
    Where is it maintained that it was supposed to survive a 747? I did survive the hit but not the blaze.

    If someone comes up with something to peak my interest I will listen. It's been a while now. Not happening.

  7. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    Its odd that the towers were constructed to withstand an impact from a 747 when that model aircraft hadn't been invented at the time of the construction of the towers.
    you're right, read my previous post. It was a 707

    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    By the way ridiculing 911 truther conspiracy theories is good common sense coming from people that WERE THERE WHEN IT HAPPENED. This crap is good to peddle to morons that aren't in NYC and didn't watch the planes hit the buildings with their own eyes.
    Right, and since you were not in Benghazi you're not entitled to any opinion whatsoever regarding the events that took place there or your government's reaction to them. The "i was there" argument is nothing more than an emotionally based red herring that has no place in any logical debate.
    Quote Originally Posted by chiefst2000 View Post
    If you think that the government needed to blow up buliding 7 because they wanted to start a war with Irag, well then I've got a bridge to sell you.
    I don't believe that. I agree that doesn't make much sense. However I'm willing to listen to the assertion.

    Quote Originally Posted by JumbalayaJet View Post
    Where is it maintained that it was supposed to survive a 747?
    A quick google search comes up with this: http://www.myspace.com/video/vid/6711696 I believe it was asserted multiple times by quite a few people involved in the construction project, you're free to go look yourself if this clip isn't sufficient.

    Quote Originally Posted by JumbalayaJet View Post
    I did survive the hit but not the blaze.
    I guess... However again, i question the circumstances under which a jet crashing into a building doesn't produce a fire. That's like designing a bunker to survive an impact by an ICBM. "Well... it did survive the impact of the missle, however we never considered the resulting thermonuclear explosion."

    Quote Originally Posted by JumbalayaJet View Post
    If someone comes up with something to peak my interest I will listen. It's been a while now. Not happening.
    Fair enough.
    Last edited by Axil; 03-20-2013 at 04:23 PM.

  8. #28
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,997
    Quote Originally Posted by JetsfanfromtheBURGH View Post
    An argument can be made either way on this subject. There are times when I believe that there was no conspiracy and there are times that I question it. We may never know one way or another. I think there is nothing wrong with questioning as to if it was a conspiracy or not. The fact that people had lost their life doesn't mean you can't have a discussion about it. With that being said, there are a lot of strange coincidences that just don't add up.
    Not really

  9. #29
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Ruby2 View Post
    Not really
    Ok.

  10. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    There is a difference between planting explosives that can take down a building on their own, and planting explosives (or adding explosives, a lot of people ran into and out of those buildings), that can contribute to the destruction of a burning building that has already absorbed the impact of a large aircraft.
    Insofar as the size of the aircraft involved are concerned you are correct, it was the 707 that was considered. However a 707's maximum takeoff weight was between 247,000 lb and 335,000 lb This according to wikipedia.

    Wikipedia lists the 767-200ER (the plane that was actually used in the attacks) as 395,000 lb. This is hardly double the anticipated weight.

    Now as I've admitted previously i haven't spent a great deal of time looking into all of the specifics involved in 9/11. I don't meant to assert that it is impossible that all of the damage was done purely as a result of the plane crashes, and that that damage would've been the expected result of those informed on the specifics of the WTC.

    What i am asserting is that reasonable human beings can disagree and discuss whether or not a airliner destroying a tower known to the public to be designed to withstand the impact of an airliner ought for skepticism regarding the official story.
    So now you're saying the gov't, or whomever conspired to destroy the towers, flew planes into the buildings and when they realized that the buildings may not fall on their own they ran up 80 flights of stairs, with firemen present and people running down, mind you, and then put some explosives in to 'finish the job.'

  11. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by SINYJets View Post
    So now you're saying the gov't, or whomever conspired to destroy the towers, flew planes into the buildings and when they realized that the buildings may not fall on their own they ran up 80 flights of stairs, with firemen present and people running down, mind you, and then put some explosives in to 'finish the job.'
    I don't think you read my prior posts on the issue. I believe Al Qaeda flew the planes into the buildings. I don't think the government was involved. I do think it's possible the government ignored or even suppressed facts that might have painted it or some private citizens in a less favorable light.

    I think it's possible that Al Qaeda agents may have performed some sort of additional sabotage as firemen and people ran up and down the stairs yes. I really don't think the NYFD were carefully watching everyone and everything around them. They were busy trying to save as many people as possible. Maybe they had Al Qaeda had agents in the building already. Maybe some agents had infiltrated WTC maintenance crews and managed to weaken the building in some way the day before.

    I don't understand why any of these things are so unfathomable that posters feel the need to spew venom at anyone who suggests 9/11 didn't happen exactly the way the FBI says it happened.

  12. #32
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,772
    Just a horrendous job that this abomination of a thread was not tossed right into the dump immediately after "conception".

    There's nothing to question or discuss re: 9/11. Exploiting loopholes in our laws and immigration system, bad, sociopathic people from dystopian lands with clear motives plotted to commit devastating acts of evil against Americans and tragically carried out most of their sick plan.

    Their "reasoning" was and is not rational, only a self-loathing kook would begin to excuse or rationalize them or fantasise doubts about who committed the deeds. Perhaps not surprisingly, I count at least 3 of these said kooks in this thread ^^^ doubting the simple, incontrovertible laws of physics or "events" of the day - after all the debunking the idiotic conspiracy theories still live on over a decade later - pathetic

  13. #33
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Jerseystrong
    Posts
    18,997
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Just a horrendous job that this abomination of a thread was not tossed right into the dump immediately after "conception".

    There's nothing to question or discuss re: 9/11. Exploiting loopholes in our laws and immigration system, bad, sociopathic people from dystopian lands with clear motives plotted to commit devastating acts of evil against Americans and tragically carried out most of their sick plan.

    Their "reasoning" was and is not rational, only a self-loathing kook would begin to excuse or rationalize them or fantasise doubts about who committed the deeds. Perhaps not surprisingly, I count at least 3 of these said kooks in this thread ^^^ doubting the simple, incontrovertible laws of physics or "events" of the day - after all the debunking the idiotic conspiracy theories still live on over a decade later - pathetic
    +1

  14. #34
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Just a horrendous job that this abomination of a thread was not tossed right into the dump immediately after "conception".

    There's nothing to question or discuss re: 9/11. Exploiting loopholes in our laws and immigration system, bad, sociopathic people from dystopian lands with clear motives plotted to commit devastating acts of evil against Americans and tragically carried out most of their sick plan.

    Their "reasoning" was and is not rational, only a self-loathing kook would begin to excuse or rationalize them or fantasise doubts about who committed the deeds. Perhaps not surprisingly, I count at least 3 of these said kooks in this thread ^^^ doubting the simple, incontrovertible laws of physics or "events" of the day - after all the debunking the idiotic conspiracy theories still live on over a decade later - pathetic
    Easy chief. It's only a discussion. Step back from the ledge.

  15. #35
    9-11 was the primary reason for the war in Afghanstan not Iraq.

  16. #36
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Un-Pleasantville
    Posts
    6,772
    Quote Originally Posted by JetsfanfromtheBURGH View Post
    Easy chief. It's only a discussion. Step back from the ledge.
    Sure kid. "Only a discussion" is the refuge of intellectually lazy pukes who cannot begin to form a logical alternative theory to the factual occurrences.

    Why don't you construct a new irrefutable proof everyone can get behind instead of demanding others re-prove what's been proven to be true?

    Better yet, run on back to your Ronpaulstiltskin/truther fanboy meetup or wherever your paranoia, er, healthy skepticism takes you.

    BTW, stellar job keeping this crap thread alive Brooklyn Bound and Gagged...

  17. #37
    All League
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Pittsburgh
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Sure kid. "Only a discussion" is the refuge of intellectually lazy pukes who cannot begin to form a logical alternative theory to the factual occurrences.

    Why don't you construct a new irrefutable proof everyone can get behind instead of demanding others re-prove what's been proven to be true?

    Better yet, run on back to your Ronpaulstiltskin/truther fanboy meetup or wherever your paranoia, er, healthy skepticism takes you.

    BTW, stellar job keeping this crap thread alive Brooklyn Bound and Gagged...
    You clearly have some serious issues. Just chill man.

  18. #38
    All Pro
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Alexandria, VA
    Posts
    7,263
    Quote Originally Posted by Axil View Post
    I don't think you read my prior posts on the issue. I believe Al Qaeda flew the planes into the buildings. I don't think the government was involved. I do think it's possible the government ignored or even suppressed facts that might have painted it or some private citizens in a less favorable light.

    I think it's possible that Al Qaeda agents may have performed some sort of additional sabotage as firemen and people ran up and down the stairs yes. I really don't think the NYFD were carefully watching everyone and everything around them. They were busy trying to save as many people as possible. Maybe they had Al Qaeda had agents in the building already. Maybe some agents had infiltrated WTC maintenance crews and managed to weaken the building in some way the day before.

    I don't understand why any of these things are so unfathomable that posters feel the need to spew venom at anyone who suggests 9/11 didn't happen exactly the way the FBI says it happened.

    Why is this scenario implausible, and why does it make people so angry?

  19. #39
    Bewildered Beast
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    SF via Strong Island
    Posts
    31,341
    Quote Originally Posted by Jungle Shift Jet View Post
    Sure kid. "Only a discussion" is the refuge of intellectually lazy pukes who cannot begin to form a logical alternative theory to the factual occurrences.

    Why don't you construct a new irrefutable proof everyone can get behind instead of demanding others re-prove what's been proven to be true?

    Better yet, run on back to your Ronpaulstiltskin/truther fanboy meetup or wherever your paranoia, er, healthy skepticism takes you.

    BTW, stellar job keeping this crap thread alive Brooklyn Bound and Gagged...
    I'm not going to lock it; you expressed yourself vibrantly. People can express their opinions.

  20. #40
    Jets Insider VIP
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Staten Island
    Posts
    9,098
    Quote Originally Posted by brady's a catcher View Post
    Why is this scenario implausible, and why does it make people so angry?
    While there is no scenario that can be called implausible, this one certainly ranks near the top as far as improbable. It has all the earmarks; making up scenarios to fit an argument while not making an argument that explains/supports a scenario. If not for the subject matter, I am sure many people would be happy to entertain the finer points of conspiracy ___, but the lack of understanding regarding this particular subject on the part of a few posters is disappointing.
    Last edited by Jetworks; 03-21-2013 at 07:59 PM.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Follow Us