BF2S Forums Was 9/11 staged?

horny_trojan wrote:

Instead of basing your entire argument on a selectively edited, misleading, and erronius video, how about you check out real sources?  Enclosed below is a starting point.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science … 27842.html

The Popular Mechanics article is pure nonsense check it out

http://911research.wtc7.net/essays/gopm/index.html

Last edited by JimmyBotswana (2006-08-07 21:57:42)

applesauce w/ cinnamon FTW

JimmyBotswana wrote:

BigmacK192 wrote:

A plane is made of metal and carries fuel. Fuel burns. Plane crashes, catches fire, melts metal.

Ok so you just have to light steel on fire now with kerosene (jet fuel is kerosene) and it will melt?

No one ever really said the steel melted.  All you had to do was heat it enough to weaken it.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

BigmacK192 wrote:

And about the turn, it was as you said "allegdly" like that. Not fact. Don't state it as such. How do you know about Boeing engines? Are you an aerospace engineer with a minor in fuel logistics in GE turbofan engines?

There is no question that the turn was impossible for a 767. It was a 270 degree dive at 7000 feet per minute. The air traffic controllers have said that while it was happening they were sure it was a military aircraft as civilian aircraft could not pull off such a manoeuver.

And you base this on what information?  The transponder to each of the hijacked planes was shut off.  Since it's obvious you don't know much about commercial aviation and radar let me tell you why this is important to your case.  Air traffic control radars cannot judge altitude, they rely on transponders for that.  With out that information there is no way to judge angle or rate of descent, it's simply impossible.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

BigmacK192 wrote:

The tower wasn't destroyed in the lower support of the building, it was destroyed in the upper supports, have you not seen videos? Imagine a giant tower of Jinga blocks, take out the middle and what happens, the ENTIRE BUILDING FALLS DOWN.

The World Trade Center Towers were not made of giant Jenga blocks. They had 47 massive steel pillars at the core, surrounded in concrete and held together by an intensely strong web of steel. They were the two strongest buildings on earth. Each tower could support the weight of five more towers on top of it.

You're right the web of steel was very strong, however it was made out of trusses.  The problem with that is, while strong, trusses are relatively light weight and therefore are easy to heat up and weaken in a situation such as a fire.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

BigmacK192 wrote:

In final, a Boeing can, and did take down a building, all on its own.

What about Building 7?

What about it?  It was hit by debris and structurally weakened.  Just because it didn't collapse immediately doesn't mean it didn't suffer mortal wounds from debris when the towers fell.

mcgid1 wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

What about Building 7?

What about it?  It was hit by debris and structurally weakened.  Just because it didn't collapse immediately doesn't mean it didn't suffer mortal wounds from debris when the towers fell.

Buildings 5 and 6 were shredded by debris from the collapse of the Twin towers. Building 7 was not because it was shielded by buildings 5 and 6. Buildings 5 and 6 had massive holes missing from their structure, exterior walls missing, fires everywhere. They looked like swiss cheese. And yet they did not collapse. But the minor damage to Building 7 caused a complete collapse in 9 seconds? Give me a break go do your homework before you try and attempt to explain how building 7 collapsed.

Last edited by JimmyBotswana (2006-08-07 22:09:46)

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Still no one can explain what happened to Building 7 on 9/11. No planes, no damage to the building, complete collapse in 9 seconds. Perfect collapse onto its own footprint. But it can't be a controlled demolition right? That would be a crazy conspiracy theory. So what was it? If you can't explain Building 7 you have no business making fun of "crazy" conspiracy theories. Building 7 is the smoking gun, the one that proves that the whole story is bogus. Debunk it or GTFO.

Building 7 doesn't prove anything, it just gives the conspiracy theorists a hard on because they can't figure it out. Why would we blow up our own buildings? I know why. Because we wanted to see what a cruise missile does to a building. Ya we defiantly couldn't test that somewhere else, only New York would work. We can't test our weapons in the forest because it might upset big foot, and then we'd all be fucked. And heaven help us if we piss off the aliens. They might come down, make crop circles and stick metal poles up our asses. So instead we strapped rockets onto an airliner and rammed them into a building, then we blew up explosives that we had planted so the structure of the building would fail, and then we blew up another building just for good measure. All so we could jack up Iraq so we could get more oil. And boy am I reaping the benefits. The gas prices are just plummeting now that we took over Iraq and got all that oil.

Last edited by LivelyToaster (2006-08-07 22:33:00)

mcgid1 wrote:

Seeing as I've debunked everything else you've said, I'll take your challenge.

That's funny you haven't debunked anything I've said but keep complementing yourself I'm sure that will work out for you eventually.

Gee that is some real bad damage done to building 7. Yup, I can sure see how that would cause the building to completely collapse in 9 seconds. Almost as bad as this:



Wow that is some real damage huh? For sure that building collapsed.

Actually that is building 5. THAT IS SOME REAL DAMAGE. Serious fires raged through WTC 5 for hours. Despite the massive structural damage shown by the holes, and fires far more severe than those in WTC 1, 2, and 7, WTC 5 did not collapse. And it didn't collapse because steel buildings do not collapse due to any old fire or debris hitting it they are incredibly strong structures that withstand a lot. Stop bringing me this stuff junior you waste my time. GTFO.

fadedsteve wrote:

Have you done yourself a favor yet. . . . and scratched off your Kerry/Edwards sticker off your car?? cause if you havent, now would be a good time!!!

1) Given Bush's track record, I hardly think that declaring someone a former Kerry supporter is necessarily a great strike against them.
2) You can't pidgeonhole me there either. Kerry was not as worthless as Bush, but he was crap too.
3) Judging from your statement, you seem to be the kind of person who likes to believe in a black and white world. Which I guess is something you share in common with the current administration. The reality is that people don't really work that way. Just because I think Bush is a moron doesn't mean I'm a liberal. IN fact a lot of REAL American Republicans who understand conservative thought and policy think Bush and his sycophants are an embarrassment. For example if you call yourself a conservative, and you actually mean it (ie you don't just go with whatever the current Republican candidates are for or against) you will admit that when it came to domestic fiscal policy and limiting the size of government - two FUNDAMENTAL aspects of conservatism - that Clinton was more of a conservative than Bush.

I don't give a shit about parties. If they're good they're good and if they're crap they're crap.

fadedsteve wrote:

No president except for FDR has had to put up with more shit than Bush has had to deal with! Has everything gone smooth, of course not, but thats life!!

Sorry bro, plenty of presidents have had to deal with more shit than President Chene... sorry "Bush". For starters, try checking out what was happening during Lincoln's election and presidency.

fadedsteve wrote:

Its easy to monday morning quarterback, but I leave that to the anchors on ESPN to do that!!!!

Now there's a clever little analogy! Wow.

Unfortunately, it just doesn't apply. Iraq is happening RIGHT NOW. It was a misguided action, the administration misled the American public on our reasons for getting into it. Calling the administration on its bullshit is not Monday Morning Quarterback, my friend. Sorry but it's not "they should have passed instead of ran it".

And by "Monday morning quarterback" you seem to imply that the bad decisions are all in the past, and we're all just bitching about something that's all finished up. Last I checked, American soldiers are getting killed daily for a war that we will not and cannot win. More Iraqis are dying monthly than when Saddam was in charge. This is not Monday morning bro. In terms of Iraq, it's not even the end of the first quarter. And please don't tell me that these things take time. Iraq is not going to be led to democracy at gunpoint. For reference, see Afghanistan. See also Vietnam. See also the American revoltion. All cases where one side won battles and lost the war. The current thing in Iraq is no different - in fact it's WORSE because there are thousand-year-old local rivalries, based on religion, to complicate things.

So if you actually believe in WMD and Santa Claus and all that stuff, great, but wake up and smell the American lives that are being lost daily in Iraq. Wake up and smell the tens of thousands who have lost their arms and legs over there. Personally I think the administration pulled a bait and switch that we fell for thanks to our own lust for 9/11 revenge. But every day our troops and our National Guard volunteers die for - supposedly - democracy in Iraq, the administration is making a conscious decision not to bring them home. A decision that the majority of Americans think is the wrong decision. 

Oh right... that would be Cutting And Running. My bad.

fadedsteve wrote:

Polls. . . Polls. . . Who gives a shit. . . the American public is fickle with their polls, you watch Bush will get bin ladin and he'll have 80% approval!! Then all you cheesedick liberals will be shutting your mouths!!!

Right. I'll expect the result will be similar to what happened after we caught Saddam - irrational exhuberance followed by the onset of reality. It'll rise a bit, then continue to tumble. Why? Because most Americans arent' stupid. They know that capturing one guy isn't going to Win The War On Terror. They know that Bin Laden is not the Final Boss in Super Mario Brothers.

*facepalm* *headdesk* *commits seppuku*
For FUCKS SAKE

I'm not even going to SEARCH for the 5 fucking threads on this.  Hit the SEARCH button, type in "9/11 AND Staged" etc etc, and have fun posting.

Loose Change presents one plausible side of the story, and given the PNAC report and the credibility of this administration, I'm willing to give it the benefit of the doubt.  The Popular Mechanics article provides another story, but that was moderately debunked and doesn't answer ALL of the questions, nor does it explain why so much cover up occurred.

CLOSED.  I should just ban LostFate for not searching.

Haha, I totally didn't see your post Skruples.  Ah well.  There are some good arguments in the old ones, anyways...it'd do some people good to go back and read them rather than spawning a fresh new wave of the same old stuff.