Member of the Month

KilaTsunami
October, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Do you think 9/11 is a conspiracy?

profile picture
Dragonite.
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 431
Inb4 tinfoil hat meme... I've been thinking on this a lot and doing a bit of research about it but can't really come to a solid conclusion. Theres a decent ammount of occurances and such that can prove it as a conspiracy, but also a good amount to proove against it. I'm hoping this can turn into into some degree of a debate and not a massive shitstorm. Sorry about typos'd I'm on mobile. Discuss.
Sep 18 2012 12:35PM
35 25
profile picture
yuck
Posts: 8384 - Karma: 2,090
fucking geese...
Sep 18 2012 4:22PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
Click for larger image
Sep 18 2012 4:24PM
0 0
profile picture
shuckle
Posts: 590 - Karma: 317
i think you missed the first part
Sep 18 2012 4:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Wallisch_pl
Posts: 5260 - Karma: 1,022
Click for larger image
Sep 18 2012 4:30PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,507
well i was in ny when it happened and i do not think it was a conspiracy, but there are a few unanswered questions i have. like the 3rd building falling and the insurance taken out on it. also the 5 white people arrested for placing pipe bombs under the Brooklyn bridge that was completely kept out of the news.
Sep 18 2012 4:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Wallisch_pl
Posts: 5260 - Karma: 1,022
Sep 18 2012 4:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Dragonite.
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 431
Where is this thread going..
Sep 18 2012 4:41PM
0 0
profile picture
caucasian_chad
Posts: 4078 - Karma: 3,625
As a civil engineering student, I can tell you that most of the things conspiracy theorists say about the buildings on 9/11 are not consistent with even the most basic of ideas in structural and materials engineering.
Sep 18 2012 4:42PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
If you're talking about building 7 as part of that than lol sure.
Sep 18 2012 4:48PM
0 0
profile picture
FuckAllOfYou
Posts: 3864 - Karma: 2,518
There's a different one where you see the plane hitting, but in the corner, if you stop it, you see something come onto the screen right before the explosion. Come on dude.
Sep 18 2012 4:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Spinoza
Posts: 12763 - Karma: 3,846
if that 'your' was directed at me then just let me say that im not supporting the official story. My comment applies to that too. But there are things we do know: Planes crashed into the Trade Centres, the buildings blew up, a lot of people died, etc. Id say its likely the gov't is withholding information, they dont need to tell us everything.
But jumping to conclusions in either direction and taking what you hear without critical examination on anything is foolish.
Sep 18 2012 4:56PM
0 0
profile picture
caucasian_chad
Posts: 4078 - Karma: 3,625
Yup, here's some real facts from real experts, not some dudes in a basement somewhere:

http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
Sep 18 2012 4:57PM
0 0
profile picture
shuckle
Posts: 590 - Karma: 317
Click for larger image
Sep 18 2012 5:00PM
0 0
profile picture
SpookyCat
Posts: 1232 - Karma: -2,617
They didn't have box cutters, they had actual knives which were allowed on planes at the time.
Sep 18 2012 6:50PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
Word. I thought you were saying in in the other context. MY bad.

"hey dont need to tell us everything"

Meh. I don't like not knowing what's going on in the government. There should be transparency but we've moved so far away from that.

"But jumping to conclusions in either direction and taking what you hear without critical examination on anything is foolish."

So we confirmed agree on that. Again I thought that comment post was going along the logic of most people in this thread.
Sep 18 2012 7:23PM
0 0
profile picture
MADDECENT
Posts: 5579 - Karma: 951
this is something people need to start understanding
Sep 19 2012 12:10AM
0 0
profile picture
Amadeus.
Posts: 3050 - Karma: 382
sorry, but my point still stands.
Sep 19 2012 12:12AM
0 0
profile picture
SpookyCat
Posts: 1232 - Karma: -2,617
I was reinforcing your point you moron.
Sep 19 2012 12:22AM
0 0
profile picture
Flacko
Posts: 1495 - Karma: 788
durk durk allah mohamed jihad
Sep 19 2012 12:27AM
0 0
profile picture
Ac31stuff
Posts: 557 - Karma: 10
This. I mean come on the government lies and covers shit up every day and we are supposed to think we got the whole story? On the other hand there are facts that prove some of the conspirary theorists wrong and there is no way i'm going to belive people who pretty much substitute their version of reality and say thats what happened.
Sep 19 2012 12:37AM
0 0
profile picture
punkrock32
Posts: 1183 - Karma: 21
Click for larger image

You're sharper than a marble. Work on your sentence structure and spelling.
Sep 19 2012 12:46AM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
Where is a place where you, or i can get some facts, or a large part of the story on what happened to building 7?

i am well versed on the collapses of the towers, but All i know is that building 7 was hit by falling debris, and then collapsed. Can you point me to the section of the 9/11 commissions report on what happened to building 7? Im sure you must have read it, if you are so ready to dismiss the govts official explanation.

and what ever you say regarding building 7, unless you back it up with credible sources, will be taken as complete an utter bullshit.
Sep 19 2012 1:31AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
Oh no, it's the grammar police. I type the way I feel like typing. I don't give a fuck about proper sentence structure. If you care so much go become an english teacher. My original point still stands.

I do what I want bitch . j p e g
Sep 19 2012 1:41AM
0 0
profile picture
caucasian_chad
Posts: 4078 - Karma: 3,625
See my post above.
Sep 19 2012 1:45AM
0 0
profile picture
Bodhisattva_
Posts: 5749 - Karma: 2,009
That sounds like a really interesting class.

But I know a guy I work on the mountain with and thinks 9/11 was a conspiracy. He has a huge beard and is like 26, lives in the dorms on the mountain and gets stoned all day but posts on Facebook about how he hates society and is smarter than everyone. His About Me says "I'm one of those people that are SO smart, I feel uncomfortable in society.." He tried to convince his parents that they are stupid and that 9/11 was a false flag attack over Facebook on 9/11 a week ago.
Sep 19 2012 1:52AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
Unfortunately I can't point you to that section.
Sep 19 2012 1:53AM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
I'll read it when I get a minute. There are also groups of engineers and architects that don't believe the official story. Not everyone is just some dude in a basement making wild shit up.
Sep 19 2012 1:58AM
0 0
profile picture
SpookyCat
Posts: 1232 - Karma: -2,617
Its called google.... http://www.debunking911.com/WTC7.htm

Those are angles that you'd never see in any of the conspiracy nuts sites or videos because guess why? Oh that's right, they want you to believe what they tell you to believe. That sounds familiar, doesn't it?

You can't say there's no evidence out there if you never look. How is it mystifying that a building that had a quarter of its base completely taken out had collapsed? You do know that they also pulled out all firefighters from the WTC 7 building because the damage was so extensive that they knew there was a good chance that its structure was compromised...
Sep 19 2012 9:11AM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25

Iran makes basically the same argument for the Holocaust and look how that is recieved... Are there any topics that should remain taboo for discussion?

Sep 19 2012 10:55AM
0 0
profile picture
987321654hgfd
Posts: 5133 - Karma: 5,447
No.
Sep 19 2012 12:28PM
0 0
profile picture
Static
Posts: 8553 - Karma: 4,089
I just thank god every day since then for the TSA, that has to be the only explanation as to why there haven't been any other major terrorist attacks since.
Sep 19 2012 12:41PM
0 0
profile picture
notadoctor
Posts: 404 - Karma: 640
Click for larger image
Sep 19 2012 1:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Hamster.
Posts: 1636 - Karma: 26
read the title, read a few posts and still I say,



no.
Sep 19 2012 1:36PM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25
Love it.
Sep 19 2012 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
theabortionator
Posts: 51629 - Karma: 162,075
If it would take 72 days of 12 people loading explosives, why would a single plane and a little fire be able to bring it down?

Also, you can't just multiply everything because it was taller.

Not really trying to say what did or didn't happen. I just think that logic is retarded.
Sep 19 2012 5:51PM
0 0
profile picture
SpookyCat
Posts: 1232 - Karma: -2,617
depending on the volume of the buildings and the number of actual beams that had to be loaded up... yeah its actually pretty comparable. getting 3 buildings loaded with explosives in 5 days is retarded. but wait! conspiracy theorists will tell you that they had a 300 man team working on this 24/7 and they all happen to be secure with killing 3 thousand of their own people and not one has come forward after 10 years.

come on now. also, nice job on them loading up only to exactly where the planes hit, because as conspiracy theorists tell you, the terrorists were very experienced flying planes and could hit the exact floors just above where the buildings were wired... wait a second here... that completely contradicts what they told you! shocking...
Sep 19 2012 9:47PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
because a single plane is going more than 600mph, carrying full fuel tanks.


People focus on the fire/fuel burning temperature too much. The support columns were weakened severely by a plane hitting them, and didn't need to melt. They just needed to warp, and the fuel most definitely burned hot enough to warp them. They could support the building under normal circumstances, but take a few away and bend a whole bunch of them, and it's far from normal or ideal.

keep in mind this is an office building. A very tall one that was not meant to be hit by a plane.


And yes, I know about the architect saying they could take a hit from a 707. A 707 is a smaller plane, carrying less fuel, and it was under the pretense that the 707 was lost while trying to land. IE low on fuel, flying slow. Not fully loaded at full throttle.
Sep 19 2012 10:52PM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
the fire burned at a temp hot enough to cut steels strength in half.

"the difference between a regular smart guy and an engineer is this- the regular guy will build a building that stands up, the engineer will build a building that barely stands up"

In other words, we build a structure as cheaply as possible while still meeting all applicable standards, codes, and regulations.

If the bulding is built with a material slightly weaker than what was specified, bad shit happens- look at why the minneapolis bridge collapsed: 3/8" thick steel was used at joints instead of the specified 1/2".


Has anyone ever stood on top of an empty soda or beer can with one foot? it can support your weight. Now, just barely touch the side of the can while still standing on it- CRUNCH!


Sep 20 2012 11:17AM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25

Great post, I agree completely.

I hate the conspiracy argument against jet fuel not burning hot enough to melt steel. Its as if they say steel needs to get to melting point to compromise a building's structural integrity. Remove 7-10 floors of building core, while spraying it with thousands of gallons of hot Jet fuel what did people expect would happen? Steel simply has to weaken enough for untold thousands of tons of burning office tower to begin the process of pancake collapse. Give tens or hundreds of thousands of tons of building a 10 floor headstart with the impetus of gravity working alongside it and you have the model for the perfect collapse.

People have asked, with good enough reason I guess, "Oh, how come the top section didnt topple sideways during the collapse when it met the resistance of the uncompromised building below it"

Reasonable question I suppose. I'm no engineer but I would say honestly something with as much mass as the top third of a WTC skyscraper with that much downward velocity working alongside gravity isn't going to be re-directed once it is in motion. It is an unstoppable force meaning straight down is probably the path of least resistance for it. Given the immense forces, mass, and weight involved it doesnt surprise me that the smaller section of the building, once given downward mementum, was able to destroy the larger bottom half.

Sep 20 2012 11:35AM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
The Towers were constructed with a main support core at the center of the building, with the outer walls also made up suport columns. If the building were to catastrophically fail, it would have top to be the main supports at the core that would fail.
Sep 20 2012 12:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Da_Buddha
Posts: 802 - Karma: 1,182
Click for larger image

Click for larger image
Sep 20 2012 12:17PM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25
Well I'm no engineering expert but i'm pretty certain both jets flying full tilt into the towers did quite a number on the main support cores. Jus saying.
Sep 20 2012 2:53PM
0 0
profile picture
Dragonite.
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 431
I don't feel like that would be enough to do it just because the plane hit so far up. But I'm not educated on this. I'm going by memory.
Sep 20 2012 3:21PM
0 0
profile picture
californiagrown
Posts: 9794 - Karma: 2,014
and what are your qualifications for structural analysis?
Sep 20 2012 8:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25
I won't shit on you for your opinion, i'm no expert either. But i also think that the height of the impact zone doesn't make much difference- the plane went straight through and busted the core support. I think there was enough mass of tower left above the impact zone to create a pancake collapse.
Sep 20 2012 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Dragonite.
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 431
Rad, page 3. Anyway, I don't know jack shit about building structure either. That pancake collapse is viable, but i think the force of a plane hitting it plus the wind up at that altitude would have to sway it at least enough to cause some sort of structural insecurity?
Sep 20 2012 10:42PM
0 0
profile picture
Alexander_Keith
Posts: 3204 - Karma: 25
Joke is on you, page three is mine.

When you compare the strength of gravity and wind as forces, gravity wins out, especially on a calm, clear day as it was. The point here is that the weakened steel/ missing floors of support allowed the collapse to begin. Once it did the mass behind the downward momentum was so great (consider how heavy the top 1/3 of the world's largest skyscraper must be) that nothing was going to stop it.
Sep 20 2012 11:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Linked
Posts: 325 - Karma: 216
Click for larger image
Sep 21 2012 12:41AM
0 0
profile picture
taylornicky
Posts: 2889 - Karma: 2,579
and no
Sep 21 2012 9:05PM
0 0
profile picture
AT-AT
Posts: 3281 - Karma: 3,256
The design of the towers was revolutionary as it left most of each floor wide open. This was done by place the main structurall supports in the core and around the edges. Take out one of the edges and the core and uve lost most of the structural integrity of the building.
Sep 22 2012 12:52AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)