BF2S Forums One Simple Question for 9/11 Conspiracists

Mong0ose wrote:

I think superfly_cox has missed the point - they didnt plan the 9/11 attacks, they just let them happen rather than stopping them - instant justification for the war on terror

Here's how it went down:

CIA Man: We've just had an email from Al Qaeda, they say they are going to attack us if we don't stop sending Israel weapons and backing their actions against their Muslim neighbours!

Whitehouse advisor: We don't negotiate with terrorists.^[1]  Don't even bother to reply to that nonsense.

CIA Man: Maybe we should warn the public that we have had a credible threat, and to be on the alert?

Whitehouse advisor: We don't negotiate with terrorists, but the the public wouldn't understand if they knew we didn't at least try to bargain them down a bit.  But they'd soon change their tune if a major attack happened....  hmm, this could really pan out for us!

CIA Man: But they might kill thousands, shouldn't we at least put the security forces on super-duper-high alert.

Whitehouse advisor: NO! The public mustn't know we were warned.  They wouldn't understand.  Just act as normal.

CIA Man: Well, I'm sure we can stop it with our normal security measures.

Whitehouse advisor: Dammit, you're right.  A foiled attack will make the public feel safer, and we'll never get to take these scumbags on in their own country.  Move as much of the airforce as you can to Alaska or the south pole or something, and tell the rest we're having training ops that day.  And any actions have to be cleared through Cheney, that'll add at least an extra 20 minutes onto any responses.  That'll definitely improve their chances of getting through.

CIA Man: I don't like the sound of this, it tantamount to high treaso...

Whitehouse advisor: ENOUGH of that talk, Bush has hardly used any of his 'national security assasinations' since he got into office, don't make him waste one on your sorry ass.

CIA Man: Understood.... I'll just start arranging that.... training...


_{[1] Excluding the State of Israel, and any still on the CIA payroll.}

Kmarion wrote:

bennisboy wrote:

Mong0ose wrote:

Thats the point - they had been bombed before so it would be harder to bomb them again

Noone ever thought anyone would have the balls to fly 2 passenger jets into the WTC so they did it

that was a great point by kmarion, but you're answer, was a little on the immature side. You could easily say "but no-one would expect them to try the same thing again when it had already failed, so blow it up and blame the terrorists."

Also as I partly already mentioned, do you really think bush would sacrifice that many lives for oil? not even guaranteeing price would fall? I'm sorry but its just a mental idea, I didn't think people could be that mad

Umm not my answer..lol

Why does this keep happening today. I meant you made a great point, but the guy's answer to it was so immature that it was a little dumb and not at all proving you wrong

I have no reason for believing in the theories, other than that Maddox doesn't believe in them...

Kmarion wrote:

bennisboy wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

Umm not my answer..lol

Why does this keep happening today. I meant you made a great point, but the guy's answer to it was so immature that it was a little dumb and not at all proving you wrong

Sorry you didn't re-address him by name after you addressed mine so I got confused.

no problemo, I guess it wasn't very clear

People need to check their facts!  Like saying that structural fire retardant is to protect the people in buildings, not the steel...So that's why they put it on the load bearing components...I've seen the light!  Sorry to be so sarcastic, but please, have some idea of what you are saying.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

golgoj4 wrote:

You mean most dumb shit conspiracy theorists who cant bring anything more than cracked out theories to the table.  Being a licensed building contractors in addition to having had a lot of fire fighting training while in the military  doesn't make me an expert. It does however demonstrate that I have SOME knowledge of the topic @ hand.

But hey, if you think an ex nuclear missile technician turned building contractor doesn't know wtf hes talking about, wtf have you ever done that puts you in a position to just make assumptions. I fucking hate dumb asses that just take shit because someone else told them and don't possess the critical thinking ability to decide for themselves. And for the record, its you who need to prove you know your ass from a hole in the ground. People aren't just allowed to stand up like crazy homeless people and claim they know what they are talking about. Your are essentially the leader of the BF2s Crazy homeless people...yet we are supposed to listen to you? I am still waiting for A. this evidence you speak of b. so proof that you know anything other than high school chemistry...

You claim to be so knowledgeable in this field but you don't actually argue anything and you don't present one way the fire could have:

-made the building fall at freefall speed

-cut the steel beams at perfect 20 foot lengths for easy loading into trucks

-pulverize the concrete (remember fire doesn't melt concrete) covering the city in dust

-smoldered 100 feet below ground for 99 days (if there were no explosions in the basement why did ground zero smolder for 99 days 100 feet below the ground?) If you have so much training as a fire fighter you can probably figure out that jet fuel from the planes would not burn 100 feet below the ground for 99 days?

You claim to want evidence but ignore all the evidence in the 5 previous pages. If you don't want to respond to any of the evidence don't pretend like you are a serious voice in this debate. At least AlbertWesker debated your side honestly.

Just having experience in this field doesn't prove anything. These are simple questions and it doesn't take a building engineer to know that something doesn't add up here.

golgoj4 wrote:

Listen up sheeple....and listen good. Unless you can actually PROVE the alternative theory or provide credible evidence, i recommend a healthy dose of STFU. You are doing nothing more than muddling the debate. And you fucking foreigners can just shut the fuck up period. Freedom of Speech applies to Americans so i can say that and not feel bad

-The American thats Smarter than You

Actually Canada has free speech as well as most of the Western world. You haven't proven you are smart you have only proven you can't put together a coherent argument.

Could someone please explain how the govt. actually cut the WTC beams into 20 ft sections for loading into trucks after they blew it up without ANYONE witnessing it??

1 There is no way in heaven or hell that a B767 will fly at 600MPH to hit the WTC. Why? it would break up before it can hit the tower it isnt made to fly that fast that low. Need an explanation? Most common passenger liners are capable of speeds close to 900kmph but this is only acheived at high altitudes from 30 000 feet to the hight limit of the airplane. There are two ways you can calculate speed IAS Indicated Air Speed or GS Ground Speed the higher you go the higher your GS (ground speed) will go even if your IAS (Indicated Air Speed) Stays the same. The 767 is unable to go over 350knots of IAS since the Twin Towers were low (comparing to aircraft altitudes) there would be no difference between GS and IAS you will notice this difference get larger and larger once above  about 7000 feet. Which will leave you with a 767 with a possible speed of 350 this could probably be pushed but i wouldnt bet on it. You will see the 767 flies into the building on an angle that is why so much floors were effected and it had to turn in. If this airplane was going over its design limit while turning it would have split into peices while in mid air and never made it to the towers, If the conversion of Knots to Miles Per Hour is 1 Knot=1.152 and the maximal speed would be 350knots that airplane would be travelling at 403 miles per hour MAX.

Although there is a GAP in the 707 theory the twin towers were constructed in the 70's the 707 was created in 1952 and was a 4 engine single story airplane. However the 747 was made in the Late 60's which is a 4 engine two story airplane. Meaning the 707 could not have possibly been the largest airplane of the time. Note the eary 747 was the 747-100 model unlike the ones we fly today which are the 747-400 model. Enough about airplanes time to answer some questions.

How were the explosives planted: A few days before the attacks there were routine evacuations of the building (time enough?)

Why didnt the US find WMD's: If they did find WMD's they would have had basically no reason to stay there longer WMD's was the tactic Bush used as a scare campaign to enter the war.

Your Government did know about the attacks because there were large stock changes a few days before 9/11 including the owner of the WTC's putting a few billions in insurance especially in the case of a terrorist attack. Your government also released some lie's Condolisa Rice had said that they had no idea there was going to be a tarrorist attack on US soil. Dick Cheyney said the oposite. Yet still they decide to go fight a pretend war while airplanes are flown into buildings killing civilians. What was it there was 5 or so airplanes defending the whole of America while everyone else was fighting in a pretend war against the Russians. I do beleive those involved will get whats coming to them.

Stepping off the soap box.

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Miller wrote:

lowing wrote:

you're not answering his question

Hmm, explosives used on the WTC. Well, under Clinton they did attack the basements with explosives, this time they decided to use thousands of gallons of airline fuel as their weapon.

I did answer his question by saying WE DON'T KNOW WHY THEY DIDN'T FIND WMDs in IRAQ ALL WE KNOW IS THERE WERE EXPLOSIVES IN THE THREE TOWERS AND THAT IS ENOUGH TO REQUIRE A NEW INVESTIGATION.

Jesus christ open your fucking ears.

And Miller if jet fuel can demolish steel skyscrapers at freefall speed, turn concrete to dust and make it all land in  its own footprint then why would companies pay millions of dollars to have professional demolition teams demolish their buildings?

Watched Loose Change a bit too much? Your arguements are the exact as that stupid fucking movie. Go ahead and believe a movie that uses quotations out of context and completely makes up "facts" pointing to a conspiracy.

Proof explosives DIDN'T bring downt he towers and that they didn't fall at free fall speeds:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid … 1849861778

Do you think that if the building was brought down by demolitions, the core would've came down too? Nope, there is your video PROOF that the core stood for a few seconds after the outside of the building fell over from the millions of tons of weight broke the supports, which were weakened by the jets hitting and the fire buring on it)holding it up.

Also, if demolitions took the buildings down, why would these "squibs" only come out AFTER the building is collapsing? In controlled demolitions, the charges go off first and the building falls. And, about what looks like squibs from demolitions, wouldn't it be more logical to believe that the, lets say 100 million tons, of building collapsing in on itself would eject everything out the sides? Deeeeerrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.......

WTC7:
Here's a picture you never see in these gay conspiracy videos, damage done to WTC7 after the collapse of WTC1.


This picture shows the debris clearly could reach WTC7, damaging it:


This one is how close WTC7 was to WTC1:


Smoke coming from the south side of WTC:


What all conspiracy videos use a proof as there was little fires in WTC7, taken from the NORTH side of the building:


Then, read this page, if you still don't believe me:
http://www.debunking911.com/WTC72.htm





Think for yourself instead of blindly following assholes like the Loose Change creators, who are only doing this to become famous due to the fact that they have no real talent and live with their mothers still. Stupid Canadian.... the USA protects your silly little country (a country who's entire military power, Navy, Army, and Air Force, totals less than one of our branches, combined. If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't exist anymore. Not that anyone would want to take your shitty country over anyways.

Last edited by Jenkinsbball (2006-09-28 10:57:28)

Jenkinsbball wrote:

Think for yourself instead of blindly following assholes like the Loose Change creators, who are only doing this to become famous due to the fact that they have no real talent and live with their mothers still. Stupid Canadian.... the USA protects your silly little country (a country who's entire military power, Navy, Army, and Air Force, totals less than one of our branches, combined. If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't exist anymore. Not that anyone would want to take your shitty country over anyways.

Stereotypical idiot ignorant American comment there. I guess that's why Americans when travelling overseas pretend to be Canadians. Too many Americans like you spoiling their image.

The video you showed me doesn't prove or show anything. The video is 1 minute long!!!!!!!!!!! Would I expect the core to collapse if it was professionally demolished? Yes!! Of course!! That's is proof that the towers were demolished. Fire would not have weakened those 47 inner support columns. These were 4'x4' construction grade steel columns. Even if the floor trusses had failed and the outer walls had collapsed (still not physically possible because of all the concrete that was holding up the outer walls which was not weakened by the fire,) the middle of the building would have remained sticking into the air. Perhaps the top part above where the plane smashed could fall off, but the rest of the building's internal columns would have still been left standing if the buildings had collapsed solely due to fire. It is only because explosives were used that the columns were able to collapse. Oh and aenima eyes, the steel columns we're talking about were not cut by the workers. That was why the workers were so astonished by it. Many of them said they had never seen anything like it; there was supposedly no controlled demolition, no explosives, yet the massive steel beams were neatly PRE-cut into convenient 20' lengths, ready to be loaded into a truck. If you don'tbelieve me look it up there are plenty of testinmonies from the cleanup crew at Ground Zero.

spray_and_pray wrote:

Although there is a GAP in the 707 theory the twin towers were constructed in the 70's the 707 was created in 1952 and was a 4 engine single story airplane. However the 747 was made in the Late 60's which is a 4 engine two story airplane. Meaning the 707 could not have possibly been the largest airplane of the time. Note the eary 747 was the 747-100 model unlike the ones we fly today which are the 747-400 model. Enough about airplanes time to answer some questions.

This is an irrelevant argument because the reason why it is significant that the buildings were designed to withstand an impact from a 707 is not because it was the biggest plane at the time, but because the 707 and the 767, the planes that did hit the towers, were virtually identical in terms of weight, wignspan, fuel load (Not fuel capacity, fuel load, as in how much fuel the 767 was carrying on 9/11, not its max capacity,) top speed, etc.

Jimmy Botswana is a COCK_SMOKER!!!!!!!!!!!

I mean get over it u queer Canadian there is no conspiracy,  as others have informed you wally because there is no similar event to compare it to, 'no presedent' you can not sumise that the core of the building would have remained poking up even when the rest collapsed. 

PS _ SORRY TO SPOIL IT FOR U BUT SANTA CLAUS AIN"T TRUE EITHER

PEACE COCK SMOKER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

JimmyBotswana wrote:

Kmarion wrote:

JimmyBotswana wrote:

The towers were specifically designed to withstand multiple hits from jetliners.

Not true, they were designed to withstand a hit from a 707 assuming it was low on fuel and lost in the fog looking to land and  off course..

The lead structural engineer reflects on the rise and fall of the World Trade Center towers.

It appears that about 25,000 people safely exited the buildings, almost all of them from below the impact floors; almost everyone above the impact floors perished, either from the impact and fire or from the subsequent collapse. The structures of the buildings were heroic in some ways but less so in others. The buildings survived the impact of the Boeing 767 aircraft, an impact very much greater than had been contemplated in our design (a slow-flying Boeing 707 lost in the fog and seeking a landing field). Therefore, the robustness of the towers was exemplary. At the same time, the fires raging in the inner reaches of the buildings undermined their strength. In time, the unimaginable happened . . . wounded by the impact of the aircraft and bleeding from the fires, both of the towers of the World Trade Center collapsed.

http://www.nae.edu/nae/bridgecom.nsf/we … enDocument

I can only answer with my previous post:

Frank DeMartini, Head of Construction: "The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting."

It's true that the building was not specifically designed to withstand multiple hits, but the man most knowledgeable about how the buildings were built believed they could withstand multiple hits based on the buildings strength and design.

Oh wait there it is whos pulling this out of their ass The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. may i remind you again the towers were built in the 70's and the 747 was released in the late 60's and is bigger then a 707.

Now i do support you that the buildings couldnt have been taken down by a 767 but please get your facts correct or we will look like morons. For those insulting Canada fuck you, You bunch of racists just show the world how fucking stupid you are. Oh look at me i look really smart insulting a whole country and saying that they wouldnt be living without us. No you know what without you there wouldnt be any terrorists. Taken from the dictionary Terrorist:a person who terrorizes or frightens others. Wait a minute firing cruise missles at a capital city does not terrorise or frighten others? The US is as bad or worse then what most of the population is lead to beleive are the real terrorist's Hypocrite's go be patriotic elsewhere.

Last edited by spray_and_pray (2006-09-29 01:26:31)