Attack on the "Twin Towers" terrorism or planned?

[batman1980]

Hey, i have been messing around on the internet with my father over the past few months looking at disasters in the United States (USA). We ran into a site. ( i can't give you the name cause well frankly i just can't). But anyways.... They are a much viewed site. They showed the video of the "Twiin Towers" being hit by the planes. If you would hop onto to youtube and watch the "Twin Towers" collapse....
Yes, it was disasterous. BUT did you notice that the towers went down within minutes because it was on fire. When it takes a small warehous hours to burn down? Fishy... Did you notice that when the "Twin Towers" collapsed they fell perfectly straight down? This all seems to wierd to me. Give me your opinions.

EDIT:

Now I will give you my opinion on this.. I DO believe that 9/11 was a planned disaster. By whom? In my opinion and honestly the most logical answer would be "The Global Elites". Unaware of who they are? They are a Group that meets in VARIOUS locations to discuss "Topics". The "Global Elites" are THE RICHEST people in the world. Now.. With money comes great power. Do you not think with so much money they would pay off people to get what THEY and THEY alone want? Think of the assasination of Kennedy.... He was actually going to change the USA in a good way. But sad for him it was not the way the "Global Elites" wanted.

 

[draco14]

well i saw loose change second edition and it was very interesting, try downloading it or the new final cut one i heard they released

 

[tyr0n3]

Did you notice that when the "Twin Towers" collapsed they fell perfectly straight down? This all seems to wierd to me. Give me your opinions.

That's because they are designed to fall like that, so minimal damage is done to other stuff around it.

It didn't primarily fall because of fire, the impact of the plane would have rocked the building like nothing else, if anything it would have been that which knocked them down.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories on it, personally, don't think it was a set up. but anything is possible.

 

[draco14]

That's because they are designed to fall like that, so minimal damage is done to other stuff around it.

It didn't primarily fall because of fire, the impact of the plane would have rocked the building like nothing else, if anything it would have been that which knocked them down.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories on it, personally, don't think it was a set up. but anything is possible.

dude it was a steel structure building, i think it was planned cos if you watch the footage carefully you can see while its collapsing small explosions are happening on lower levels that look alot like demolition charges

 

That's because they are designed to fall like that, so minimal damage is done to other stuff around it.

It didn't primarily fall because of fire, the impact of the plane would have rocked the building like nothing else, if anything it would have been that which knocked them down.

They weren't designed to fall at all. They were designed to stand.

How do you go about designing a building to energetically explode top floor to bottom floor in sequence after a single plane crash in the upper floors? I'd be interested to hear your proposed mechanism for that, and also where in the WTC 1 + 2 plans this was specified, because obviously it would be quite an engineering feat.

There are plenty of conspiracy theories on it, personally, don't think it was a set up. but anything is possible.

Well as I ask everyone on any topic involving a 'conspiracy': What is a conspiracy, exactly?

The definition in the dictionary is as follows:
conspiracy:

• a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

So surely the official sequence of events purported to have taken place on 9/11 constitute a conspiracy theory? A terror plot is a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an illegal act. And the theory is that this was a terror plot carried out by a particular group or party, therefore what you indeed have is a conspiracy theory.

So now the question becomes: which conspiracy theory is more plausible? Some people in a cave had NORAD stand down and made three steal sky scrappers collapse at freefall into their own footprints with two planes on a single day; or it was a false flag event carried out as justification to start a highly successful war spending programme by the same federal mafia gang which is currently looting whatever is left of America.

 

[batman1980]

Ok, i though some of you would mention the fire. They claim that the fire was a big cause in the destruction of the "Twin Towers". But yet it takes hours for a SMALL warehouse to burn to the ground.. Still looking for more opinions

 

[batman1980]

They weren't designed to fall at all. They were designed to stand.

How do you go about designing a building to energetically explode top floor to bottom floor in sequence after a single plane crash in the upper floors? I'd be interested to hear your proposed mechanism for that, and also where in the WTC 1 + 2 plans this was specified, because obviously it would be quite an engineering feat.

Well as I ask everyone on any topic involving a 'conspiracy': What is a conspiracy, exactly?

The definition in the dictionary is as follows:
conspiracy:

• a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an unlawful act

So surely the official sequence of events purported to have taken place on 9/11 constitute a conspiracy theory? A terror plot is a secret agreement between two or more people to perform an illegal act. And the theory is that this was a terror plot carried out by a particular group or party, therefore what you indeed have is a conspiracy theory.

So now the question becomes: which conspiracy theory is more plausible? Some people in a cave had NORAD stand down and made three steal sky scrappers collapse at freefall into their own footprints with two planes on a single day; or it was a false flag event carried out as justification to start a highly successful war spending programme by the same federal mafia gang which is currently looting whatever is left of America.

Did you mention your opinion at all in all of this?

 

[djweasel]

I've watched both the Loose Change videos and even with all the stuff they say about it being gov't planned I still believe it wasn't because I remember seeing the 2nd plane slam into the WTC, and I had a friend that was there to see it all.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

I encourage everyone here to see the other side of the argument before coming to any conclusions: http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/911/

I have done tons of research on this topic, and I have come to the conclusion that our government had a part in all of these attacks.

 

[DropKick Murphys]

I have done tons of research on this topic, and I have come to the conclusion that our government had a part in all of these attacks.

The same government which you routinely ridicule for it's inherent inefficiency managed to blow up two huge towers in a major city and kill thousands of people and cover it up? I'm not sure I buy it.

I think perhaps the government had knowledge of it and maybe could have stopped it, but didn't because of the potential gain.

 

[Charlieb1212]

Sythe posted a very knowledgeable post, with lots of videos with good information on this awhile back.

http://sythe.org/showthread.php?t=212430

That's a pretty informative one.


Personally, I believe all of the info that was fed to us by media wasn't truthfull. There's one particular video of a news report about how the twin towers collapsing caused another building to collapse. Throughout the video, you can see that building still standing in the background.

Sketchy.

 

[FreedomFight]

The same government which you routinely ridicule for it's inherent inefficiency managed to blow up two huge towers in a major city and kill thousands of people and cover it up? I'm not sure I buy it.

This precisely. The hole of this conspiracy is pretty obvious. Let's assume that the government acts through ingenious means. This whole thing was "planned" out with great articulation... or is it?

1. Why bother crashing BOTH the plane and blowing up the building? More actions = more risk = more stupid.

2. A lot of the videos claim explosive evidence through the "spuds" or explosives that did not explode in the videos. Given that many civilians worked at the site, why were none of these "spuds" found?

3. Anyone who legitimately works in demolition would know the quantity of explosives to take down a building of this size. How, where, and when were these explosives placed?

4. It's way to risky to assume that crashed plane would cover up a demolion. This is stupid logic, even with media control.

 

[dam prayer noobs]

The same government which you routinely ridicule for it's inherent inefficiency managed to blow up two huge towers in a major city and kill thousands of people and cover it up? I'm not sure I buy it.

I think perhaps the government had knowledge of it and maybe could have stopped it, but didn't because of the potential gain.

I don't ridicule them for inefficiency, I ridicule them for corruption. It's the system of government that I ridicule for inefficiency.

And you dismiss this idea simply because you can't comprehend how they can pull something off like this? Please. Governments have been doing this sort of stuff ever since there have been governments. It's called a false flag and the purpose is to scare the people into supporting what you're doing. The genius of this plan is that most people can't conceive of the idea that a government would attack it's own people, so they never question it. The plans to engage with Al-Qaeda in a worldwide war were on Bush's desk 2 days before September 11. They wanted to go into the Middle East but couldn't do it without public support, so just get the CIA and FBI to organize a false flag to scare the shit out of people and you're set. And what is so hard about it? The CIA and FBI can do whatever the fuck it wants in this country. I don't understand what's so hard about organizing something like this, please explain this to me.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4587368/

This precisely. The hole of this conspiracy is pretty obvious. Let's assume that the government acts through ingenious means. This whole thing was "planned" out with great articulation... or is it?

1. Why bother crashing BOTH the plane and blowing up the building? More actions = more risk = more stupid.

2. A lot of the videos claim explosive evidence through the "spuds" or explosives that did not explode in the videos. Given that many civilians worked at the site, why were none of these "spuds" found?

3. Anyone who legitimately works in demolition would know the quantity of explosives to take down a building of this size. How, where, and when were these explosives placed?

4. It's way to risky to assume that crashed plane would cover up a demolion. This is stupid logic, even with media control.

1. One plane can't bring a building of that magnitude down.

2. You think they would just let a bomb sit in the middle of a hallway? They were most likely built into the infrastructure of the building.

3. This is no problem if you're the CIA or the FBI.

4. Well it worked didn't it?

The media controls this country. You think many people do independent research and thinking? Hell no. People are too concerned about their daily lives and most can't even imagine of their own government doing this sort of thing, so they never do any research on it and just accept what the media tells them.

 

[FreedomFight]

1. One plane can't bring a building of that magnitude down.

You can't back this up. You are guessing, or applying failed science like many of the other videos I saw. Just because another plane doesn't bring down another building doesn't mean a plane can't bring down a building. This should be quite obvious.

2. You think they would just let a bomb sit in the middle of a hallway? They were most likely built into the infrastructure of the building.

Evidence? Do you have evidence that the infrastructure was previously rigged, and not a civilian contracting job?

3. This is no problem if you're the CIA or the FBI.

It's a problem no matter who the fuck you are.

4. Well it worked didn't it?

Circular Logic based on the assumption that they planned it out in the first place. You can't use an assumption to back another that backs itself.

The media controls this country. You think many people do independent research and thinking? Hell no. People are too concerned about their daily lives and most can't even imagine of their own government doing this sort of thing, so they never do any research on it and just accept what the media tells them.

I suppose they control Osama Bin Laden too? Or is he just a myth?

Have you considered that the media is privately owned, and has much to gain from revealing stuff like this?

 

[Almond Joy]

I think that the 9/11 was planned , watching this youtube video. Those two helicopters came by the twin towers and after they left , boom.

Another opinion is that how do you know those jumpers wern't just " bomb planters " with parachutes lmao

 

[dam prayer noobs]

You can't back this up. You are guessing, or applying failed science like many of the other videos I saw. Just because another plane doesn't bring down another building doesn't mean a plane can't bring down a building. This should be quite obvious.

Holy shit, you don't have to be a fucking rocket scientist to see controlled demolition was the cause of the towers collapsing. Countless engineers realized it was a controlled demolition just by looking at the videos. The towers, which each were 1000 times more massive than the airplane, were hit from one side while the other side remained intact, isn't it strange how both towers collapsed on themselves in an orderly fashion? Holy crap, think man.

Evidence? Do you have evidence that the infrastructure was previously rigged, and not a civilian contracting job?

I don't need evidence for this. You claimed that if there were explosives, then they would obviously be found by civilians. And I said that if they planted explosives, they would obviously be hidden from plain sight, which would explain why no civilian would have found them.

It's a problem no matter who the fuck you are.

A few weeks before 9/11 there were several power downs of the towers. A few days before 9/11 security was loosened up and bomb sniffing dogs were removed. Scott Forbes and many other witnessed these events and strange people entering the towers during these power downs.

Circular Logic based on the assumption that they planned it out in the first place. You can't use an assumption to back another that backs itself.

Why would it be stupid for them to cover up a demolition with a plane crash. I'm sure they are aware of how many flag waving red necks there are in the states that blindly follow their government that would never even think of their own government attacking its own people.

I suppose they control Osama Bin Laden too? Or is he just a myth?

Have you considered that the media is privately owned, and has much to gain from revealing stuff like this?

Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA. He was given a tour of several US military bases under the name "Tim Osman". http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladen_cia.html

The media is controlled by a select few individuals. What does it have to gain from revealing stuff like this? Absolutely nothing if they are in partnership with the government. Do you notice how biased the media is? There were tons of people who reported explosions and popping noises on 9/11, but how come they haven't said anything about that? How come they always call conspiracy theorists unamerican and unpatriotic? All the media did is jump on the terrorist bandwagon and blamed Osama for it. The media-government partnership is no secret.

 

[Almond Joy]

For all we know , it was a terrorism planned attack. And how the buildings collapsed , the planes probally blew up after a while causing that?

Youtube videos of the 9/11 attack are probally fake.

 

[FreedomFight]

Holy shit, you don't have to be a fucking rocket scientist to see controlled demolition was the cause of the towers collapsing.

Actually you do.

I don't think you can even comprehend the practical physics involved. Heat, massive force, and weakening steel. Models that take all these into account have show it is physically possible for a building to collapse under these circumstances, though no one has yet to practically replicate the floors falling in the same order.

My practical answer is that the supports kept the building upright till the fall, and then gravity kicked in (gravities only vector is STRAIGHT DOWN), and therefore each floor hit the floor below it causing an increasingly powerful fall.

This seems to be consistent with the fact that some floors remained intact post-fall.

The towers, which each were 1000 times more massive than the airplane, were hit from one side while the other side remained intact, isn't it strange how both towers collapsed on themselves in an orderly fashion? Holy crap, think man.

The media oversimplifies things to convince people, and so do the conspirators. People don't understand the physics, so I see both sides making shit up and saying "Oh isn't that obvious".

I don't need evidence for this. You claimed that if there were explosives, then they would obviously be found by civilians. And I said that if they planted explosives, they would obviously be hidden from plain sight, which would explain why no civilian would have found them.

No evidence means you're just speculating. I don't care for speculation.

A few weeks before 9/11 there were several power downs of the towers. A few days before 9/11 security was loosened up and bomb sniffing dogs were removed. Scott Forbes and many other witnessed these events and strange people entering the towers during these power downs.

Yea I bet you pulled this of some junkie website. Even if it's true, it's a pretty weak indicator.

Why would it be stupid for them to cover up a demolition with a plane crash. I'm sure they are aware of how many flag waving red necks there are in the states that blindly follow their government that would never even think of their own government attacking its own people.

Not everyone is a "red neck". That's why.

Osama Bin Laden worked with the CIA. He was given a tour of several US military bases under the name "Tim Osman". http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladen_cia.html

Bull shit.

All the media did is jump on the terrorist bandwagon and blamed Osama for it. The media-government partnership is no secret.

Seems when government-bashing is profitable, the media still likes to jump the gun. Remember Clinton?

Another opinion is that how do you know those jumpers wern't just " bomb planters " with parachutes lmao

You'd be a fucking idiot to believe that some ninjas with C4 can take down a 100 story building. I suggest that you check out "The Detonators" on the Discovery channel to find the practical amount of preparation it takes to destroy even moderately sized buldings.

 

This precisely. The hole of this conspiracy is pretty obvious. Let's assume that the government acts through ingenious means. This whole thing was "planned" out with great articulation... or is it?

1. Why bother crashing BOTH the plane and blowing up the building? More actions = more risk = more stupid.

2. A lot of the videos claim explosive evidence through the "spuds" or explosives that did not explode in the videos. Given that many civilians worked at the site, why were none of these "spuds" found?

3. Anyone who legitimately works in demolition would know the quantity of explosives to take down a building of this size. How, where, and when were these explosives placed?

4. It's way to risky to assume that crashed plane would cover up a demolion. This is stupid logic, even with media control.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

 

[FreedomFight]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vVE_FdT6DN4

http://www.debunking911.com/thermite.htm

Also, thermite itself is not highly explosive or really used much in modern demolition. So it's not a definitive indicator; it's really more of a catalyst that causes high heat. Thermite alone isn't nearly enough to cause much of an explosion at all, so without disputing the validity of their "discovery", I ask again: Where's the real deal? Where are the actual explosives? Thousands of bombs would be necessary, and without the possibility of 100% success, there would be perhaps dozens left no?