Member of the Month

je_t.aime_canard
January, 2025

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
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
uhhh...huge parts of it were left intact. I mean...knocked over and destroyed, but still recognizable.
Nov 26 2012 7:52PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

weakened beams on some levels of the building would not cause the entire building to fall symmetrically in its own footprints.  read the engineers/architects report lol....

Nov 26 2012 8:18PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
Says which engineers from where at what time? All these truthers just spout stuff on the internet. Mythbusters tested the steel factor and heated steel with jet fuel and within 20 minutes or something the steel completely failed.
Nov 26 2012 9:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
Yes but you also need to be able to close certain thoughts in your mind when they are proven false or dismissed. If an idea has not been proven wrong/has some evidence in its favor by all means keep the idea do more research. Sometimes you gotta move on.
Nov 26 2012 9:13PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

ae911truth

the report says fire(what jet fuel?) made the beams melt, not just fail.....

Nov 26 2012 9:17PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
I think you're severely overestimating the architectural redundancy of a a skyscraper.

Remember that the contract to design and build one is given to whoever can do it the cheapest and fastest.


just a "few" weakened beams is far more than enough to bring down a building.


Oh and throughout the day there were very few firefighters in the building because it had already been evacuated. They double checked, made a few attempts to put out fires, and finally cleared the building at 3:30pm. The building collapsed at 5:20pm. Hardly a case of them opting to pull out then bringing it down right after.
Nov 26 2012 9:32PM
0 0
profile picture
act.resist
Posts: 8875 - Karma: 513
BIGGIE PREDICTED 9/11 GUYS
Nov 26 2012 9:34PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
Jet fuel from the airplane that that buried itself into the side of the building. The beams wouldnt have to melt only fail. Which happens at far lower temperatures.
Nov 26 2012 9:36PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,509
I don't know if you're serious or not but he was referring to the 90s I believe. when bombs were actually packed inside the World Trade Center.
Nov 26 2012 9:39PM
0 0
profile picture
act.resist
Posts: 8875 - Karma: 513
no, i know. i was referring to the thread from awhile ago.

https://www.newschoolers.com/ns/forums/readthread/thread_id/646075/

Nov 26 2012 9:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
JL8 is spouting a lot of bullshit. I'm at work but ill tackle it tomorrow.
Nov 26 2012 9:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

no fucking shit einstein.......it's not enough to bring the entire building down symmetrically like a demo(like it did)

and what jet fuel?? 7 was never hit, there must have been a shitload of jet fuel from debris lol?

Nov 26 2012 9:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
wat? the report and witnesses say it was melted though.......
Nov 26 2012 9:51PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Cite your sources
Nov 26 2012 9:53PM
0 0
profile picture
.frenchy
Posts: 18231 - Karma: 12,397
Irony.
Nov 26 2012 9:57PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
i don't even?.......you want me to cite the official 911 report, why? since you're at work are you bored and attempting to troll?
Nov 26 2012 9:58PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
So witnesses who were inside the building even though it was evacuated say they saw it melted. The building was evacuated for 2 hours before it fell. if the builiding fell because the steel melted then it would have fallen immediately after the steel metled so anyone who witnessed the steel melting would have been squished. Unless the steel melted and then 2 hours later the building fell
Nov 26 2012 10:04PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
the burden of proof is on you. You're the one trying to claim it was a controlled demolition, which is against what the official report says.


and how else do you propose the buildings fall other than symmetrically? 3 major skyscrapers collapsed that day, and they were the first 3 of their size to ever come down...and yet all 3 fell in a relatively similar way.

here's some light reading for you to do

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/4213805
Nov 26 2012 10:05PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,509
No it's so we have facts to back your claim.
Nov 26 2012 10:06PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
you're getting there......but you mean the people who saw and examined the steel/rubble after the fact, not while it was taking place.
Nov 26 2012 10:08PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
If its from the 9/11 commission report (which it isn't, because that only deals with the events leading up to the attacks) then give a page number. If its in the NIST report, give a page number. If its from an eyewitness, give a name and where it is reported.

This is basic stuff, you should have learned it in middle school.
Nov 26 2012 10:09PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Show me what bs I've spouted.
Nov 26 2012 10:10PM
0 0
profile picture
ElMexicano
Posts: 639 - Karma: 400
So why did they find molten metal in the rubble

Same pdf i posted to earlier that people like to ignore
http://wtc7.net/articles/WhyIndeed09.pdf
Nov 26 2012 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
"“I remember getting a call from the fire department commander, telling me that they were not sure they were gonna be able to contain the fire, and I said, ‘We’ve had such terrible loss of life, maybe the smartest thing to do is pull it. And they made that decision to pull and we watched the building collapse,” said Silverstein.

and no...he did not mean pull firefighters out since even your beloved PM claims there were none inside lol."

You just went 110% retard son. The reason there were no firefighters in the building at the time of the collapse, is because they'd been PULLED.
Nov 26 2012 10:12PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

jeeez guys, ok. but really the burden of proof is on you to find the truth yourself. i'm not debating anyone, just shining light on facts. doesn't matter if i believe the toothfairy is the culprit. the report claims the steel was melted...

http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/911/report/911Report.pdf

dafuq? they did not fall like #7......

Nov 26 2012 10:15PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
exactly, so then you agree that when silverstein said, "pull it" he meant the building....?
Nov 26 2012 10:17PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
you are debating.

need you to cite more exactly. What you've done is narrowed it down, which is nice. But that's like me telling you I found something online, and saying if you just go to google, you'll find it.


and I just rewatched the collapse...strange, it certainly does remind me an awful lot of the way wtc1 and 2 went down.
Nov 26 2012 10:19PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
and thermite + others i can't remember lol?
Nov 26 2012 10:19PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,509
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! he meant pull it over with a fucking rope.
Nov 26 2012 10:20PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
lol i'm not though, so just be happy i linked you to the official report for the greater good of mankind because it's honestly on page i don't give a fuck if you're gay. i'm not re-reading that bs.
Nov 26 2012 10:27PM
0 0
profile picture
fujarome
Posts: 8630 - Karma: 1,561
you're very mature when it comes to discussion.

Nov 26 2012 10:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
Click for larger image
Nov 26 2012 10:38PM
0 0
profile picture
Obi-Wan-Jenobi
Posts: 951 - Karma: 119
Thermite cuts it does not melt. It would take a retarded large amount of thermite to melt down tons of steel. Just cutting through one beam would be possible but melting a beam would take tons. Now I do know that it cuts by melting the steel blah blah blah but saying they used thermite to melt all the beams is stupid.
Nov 26 2012 10:43PM
0 0
profile picture
Dragonite.
Posts: 1657 - Karma: 431
This
Nov 26 2012 10:46PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
I nominate jl8 as dumbest member on NS. Is there a second?
Nov 26 2012 10:48PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

yes, no such thing as a chemical reaction.

Nov 26 2012 10:50PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

yes, there is more than just one person on NS who regurgitates mainstream media and is detached from reality....

since you didn't reply i can only assume your answer is no? or are you "tackling" that now?

Nov 26 2012 10:55PM
0 0
profile picture
ElMexicano
Posts: 639 - Karma: 400
How else would they find molten metal in the rubble without thermite. The NIST report even says that the jet fuel wouldn't do it and no regular fires + jet fuel wouldn't either.

Okay if Thermite didn't melt the beams what did.
Nov 26 2012 10:56PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,509
did i not make that clear? 2nd it and that's zzzskizzz saying it.
Nov 26 2012 10:57PM
0 0
profile picture
ElMexicano
Posts: 639 - Karma: 400
The government reports admit that the building fires were insufficient to melt steel beams -- then where did the molten metal pools come from? Metals expert Dr. Frank Gayle (working with NIST) stated:
Your gut reaction would be the jet fuel is what made the fire so very intense, a lot of people figured that's what melted the steel. Indeed it did not, the steel did not melt. (Field, 2005; emphasis added.)
And in an a fact sheet released in August, 2006, NIST states: “In no instance did NIST report that steel in the WTC towers melted due to the fires."


Nov 26 2012 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
El_Barto.
Posts: 11661 - Karma: 24,356
what about laissefair or whatever the fuck his name was?
Nov 26 2012 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Let me explain this slowly since you apparently have less brain cells than fingers.


When Silverstein said "pull" he was referring to the firefighters. After all, he was speaking to the fire chief, Daniel Nigro. The fact that they made this decision to pull firefighting operations is the reason that there were no firefighters in WTC 7 at the time it collapsed.

Following this?
Nov 26 2012 11:02PM
0 0
profile picture
deleted5
Posts: 14507 - Karma: 13,509
well he left or Click for larger imagemaybe it's his new account.
Nov 26 2012 11:03PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

there were no firefighters in 7 prior to the call though........even pm makes this claim. how much $ did silverstein claim? following this?

Nov 26 2012 11:10PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
Cite your source that there were no firefighters in the vicinity prior to that call. I doubt PM makes this claim since they explain that he meant the firefighters in their article.
Nov 26 2012 11:24PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
As for the claim that Silverstein made money from the attacks. It's true that he netted about 500 million after the insurance claim, but the replacement for tower 7 cost about $700 million to build.
Nov 26 2012 11:31PM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284

lol this is from memory, you bastard. http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/debunking-911-myths-world-trade-center

last part says no firefighting. but i think you need to relax, i'm just stating facts. i never claimed it wasn't islamic terrorists, i said it could even be the toothfairy. my personal opinion is that the muslim brotherhood is one of the greatest threats to the west. the fact that you have found a solid conclusion means you have not done enough questioning. you can try to disparage me all you want, kid. i guess it makes you a patriot, but i don't see the point? have a nice day.

Nov 26 2012 11:41PM
0 0
profile picture
Bill.Nye
Posts: 4060 - Karma: 2,109
It said there was no forefighting, but there were firefighters in the building and the surrounding area, UNTIL they were pulled.

Think about what you're actually claiming. You're claiming that Silverstein is criminally involved in the greatest conspiracy ever and just tells everyone about it on a TV interview. Does that make any sense?

Now consider the alternative. He was referring to the firefighters, who were in the area. He was after all talking to the fire chief, and we know that the firefighters were pulled because there weren't any of them left at the building when it came down.

You can decide which one makes more sense to you.
Nov 26 2012 11:54PM
0 0
profile picture
pussy_puncher
Posts: 194 - Karma: 69
The conspiracy is a conspiracy
Nov 27 2012 12:09AM
0 0
profile picture
Gods_Father
Posts: 1466 - Karma: -284
jeeeeez. :(
Second, a fifth-floor fire burned for up to 7 hours. "There was no firefighting in WTC 7," Sunder says. Investigators believe the fire was fed by tanks of diesel fuel that many tenants used to run emergency generators. Most tanks throughout the building were fairly small, but a generator on the fifth floor was connected to a large tank in the basement via a pressurized line. Says Sunder: "Our current working hypothesis is that this pressurized line was supplying fuel [to the fire] for a long period of time." 

wat? i must've missed where it said that?

"Think about what you're actually claiming. You're claiming that Silverstein is criminally involved in the greatest conspiracy ever and just tells everyone about it on a TV interview. Does that make any sense?"

wanna know how i know you're new to reality?

you can decide which one makes more sense to you, i will keep questioning. actually, your alternative does not seem likely since there wasn't any firefighting.

Nov 27 2012 12:16AM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)