|
04-04-2009, 01:40 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: um....guess
10,492 posts, read 15,030,025 times
Reputation: 1835
|
|
|
I actually have no problem w/different theories...it actually puts a different outlook on certain safe conclusions. But for this one, I don't know...even as I would be open to it, it just doesn't seem plausible for me, sorry OP. I can MAYBE see the whole "shotdown" Pennsylvania jet, but even that one I question. The only theory that I agree with, in terms of jets & explosions, is the one that happened over New York I believe it was back in I think 2000 maybe? Sorry, I'm a little vague but I think it was before JFK, Jr. died & there was that big explosion of a plane that happened on takeoff...I assume some of you guys remember it.
|
|
04-07-2009, 02:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
|
|
|
Karfar, I believe you are referring to TWA #800.
One thing very interesting about 9/11 is that most Americans just pull on their blinders and refuse to believe or even entertain the idea that people from our own government could be behind the whole thing even though it's very obvious that's the case.
I think whoever in our government pulled it off, they were smart enough to know that they could be sloppy (and they were) and get away with it because the majority of sheeple out there in the USA could never face up to the facts that their own government could do such a thing.
|
|
04-07-2009, 07:28 PM
|
|
|
|
4,102 posts, read 5,124,402 times
Reputation: 1256
|
|
|
Maybe the plane heading for the Pentagon had a missile hot on its tail? That would explain why they won't release the video. That does not mean there was a conspiracy, and if it was heading for the Pentagon or White House shooting it down would be the right thing to do.
|
|
04-11-2009, 08:55 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
|
|
|
Sonrise said, "To the op; please explain the first WTC attack in '93. Thanks"
I don't see why I need to explain that incident, it was a separate incident.
The 1993 incident was much more along the lines of the kind of attack a bunch of terrorists could realistically execute (as opposed to the 9/11 attacks).
A bunch of terrorists left a big bomb in a truck parked in the basement level of the WTC. It went "poof" and there was bad smoke and stuff and some minor injuries.
See, that was probably a genuine terrorist attack.
Do you really think a bunch of scummy terrorist yahoos from a foreign (uhhh, very foreign) country could pull off something so incredibly elaborate as the 9/11 attacks??
Last edited by POhdNcrzy; 04-11-2009 at 08:56 PM..
Reason: Spelling. Sigh.
|
|
04-12-2009, 03:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Northglenn, Colorado
3,689 posts, read 10,105,483 times
Reputation: 970
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy
Well, kudos to Mike FBE for offering a logical argument of some kind.
"The heat of the jet fuel burning in the WTC softened the steel above it until it lost strength, then the weight of the upper floors caused it to pancake down on itself." - Problem with that statement is that burning jet fuel will not melt steel, not even close. Look it up for yourself. Also, this argument does not explain what happened to building 7 aka WTC7.
"The Beijing fire was in a building that was mostly empty, the combustibles went quickly before having a chance to really soften the steel, not to mention it's different design." First part is true, last part is true but a moot point. Middle argument is incorrect. The Mandarin Oriental Hotel was totally, and thoroughly burned, severely burned. In fact, investigators (according to the NYT article) believe that because the construction was incomplete, the hotel burned much more thoroughly and completely. Even so, not a single floor of the hotel collapsed. Fire will not and can not burn, melt or pulverize a steel high-rise building. It never has and it never will. The temperature is not hot enough to damage the steel framework.
9/11 is the only exception to this. Hmmmmmmmmmmm!
|
sure, the burning of the jet fuel may not have had enough heat to melt the steel, but it did have enough heat to weaken the steel. There is a big difference. The design of the two buildings has quite a bit to play in it as well. The twin towers were designed in the 70's, using different connection techniques, different insulating techniques as well as a different exterior design. The Mandarin was also still under construction and did not have all of the interior finishes, and furniture that helped fuel the fire in the twin towers. The two are not comparable. You also have a solid fuel used in the fireworks, compared to a liquid fuel that coated the interior of the WTC after the collision. |
|
04-12-2009, 11:36 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Tyler, TX
22,012 posts, read 22,124,452 times
Reputation: 13486
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy
The 1993 incident was much more along the lines of the kind of attack a bunch of terrorists could realistically execute (as opposed to the 9/11 attacks).
A bunch of terrorists left a big bomb in a truck parked in the basement level of the WTC. It went "poof" and there was bad smoke and stuff and some minor injuries.
See, that was probably a genuine terrorist attack.
Do you really think a bunch of scummy terrorist yahoos from a foreign (uhhh, very foreign) country could pull off something so incredibly elaborate as the 9/11 attacks??
|
I get it - your position is that ( "very foreign") foreigners are too stupid to have pulled off hijacking a few planes, despite having unlimited funding and a willingness to die for their cause.
Great argument! Damn, why didn't I think of that?! You're SO right - I'm convinced!
9/11 WAS AN INSIDE JOB!
 |
|
04-15-2009, 10:30 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
|
|
|
SchwagEater said,
"I get it - your position is that ("very foreign") foreigners are too stupid to have pulled off hijacking a few planes, despite having unlimited funding and a willingness to die for their cause.
Great argument! Damn, why didn't I think of that?! You're SO right - I'm convinced!"
Swag, I have seen Lawrence of Arabia several times, and also "Things Are Tough All Over" (greatest film ever made!). So I know that Arabs aren't dumb... The appropriate questions is more like: How did the "hijackers" get NORAD to (more or less) shut down on the morning of 9/11?
Swag, look, the question inquiring minds are trying to answer is what the hell REALLY happened on 9/11.
When you use the phrase "9/11 conspiracy theory" as some sort of crude, silly club with which to bash other posters, you are just wasting all of our time.
|
|
04-24-2009, 01:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
|
|
9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Capitol briefly evacuated, White House locked down
WASHINGTON (AP) - A small, single-engine plane strayed into restricted air space near the U.S. Capitol on Friday, forcing anxious officials to place the White House in temporary lockdown and take steps to evacuate the U.S. Capitol.
The episode was over within minutes as two F-16 fighter jets and two Coast Guard helicopters were dispatched to intercept the plane and escort it to an airport in Maryland, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Guys, I know this is off the topic of steel building fires and demolitions, but you all know what I'm pointing out here right??
Over in just minutes thanks to intercept by Federal agencies. Geez so unlike what happened on 9/11. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
|
|
04-24-2009, 01:46 PM
|
|
|
|
2,654 posts, read 5,240,932 times
Reputation: 1939
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by POhdNcrzy
9NEWS.com | Colorado's Online News Leader | Capitol briefly evacuated, White House locked down
WASHINGTON (AP) - A small, single-engine plane strayed into restricted air space near the U.S. Capitol on Friday, forcing anxious officials to place the White House in temporary lockdown and take steps to evacuate the U.S. Capitol.
The episode was over within minutes as two F-16 fighter jets and two Coast Guard helicopters were dispatched to intercept the plane and escort it to an airport in Maryland, according to the Federal Aviation Administration.
Guys, I know this is off the topic of steel building fires and demolitions, but you all know what I'm pointing out here right??
Over in just minutes thanks to intercept by Federal agencies. Geez so unlike what happened on 9/11. Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!
|
And I suppose you would think the fact American forces shot on sight any Japanese planes and warships they came upon on Dec 8th is proof that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy as well?
 |
|
04-24-2009, 02:06 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Rhode Island (Splash!)
1,150 posts, read 2,588,460 times
Reputation: 444
|
|
|
OC Investor2 said, "And I suppose you would think the fact American forces shot on sight any Japanese planes and warships they came upon on Dec 8th is proof that Pearl Harbor was a conspiracy as well?"
Huh??!? Wha???? Logical statements written in the English language, please.....
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
|
|
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
