9/11, an inside job?

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury
Film footage appears to show the buildings imploding rather than expoding. The planes gave the image of them exploding to try to give credence to the idea that it was just caused by the planes.

If an airplane bumps into a hard object it's not going to go boom? Sparks plus vapourized flammable liquid equal what?
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
Film footage appears to show the buildings imploding rather than expoding. The planes gave the image of them exploding to try to give credence to the idea that it was just caused by the planes.
This isn't the greatest detail but it is an explosion.

 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
I really don't want to get into the mechanics of the event. I'm sufficiently satisfied that planes flew into the buildings, that subsequently caused their collapse.

What I would like to discuss, is who knew what, and when.

The theories of false flag operations, secret societies and so on.

Let's not get into outlandish claims and please, please, please try and use material that isn't based on the premise that Jews control the world. Let's try and dwell in reality for a change.

Really?

Time to step away from the computer my friend.

You're starting to go nuts.:lol:

Next you're gonna tell me JFK was killed by the CIA or the Mafia.

Conspiracies this vast are about as believable as the bible.:lol:
 

CDNBear

Custom Troll
Sep 24, 2006
43,839
207
63
Ontario
Really!!!

Time to step away from the computer my friend.
I was beginning to think the same thing. I think I need to step up my trolling, I'm getting bored and lulled into nutterdom.

You're starting to go nuts.:lol:
I think you might be right!

Next you're gonna tell me JFK was killed by the CIA or the Mafia.
You mean he wasn't? 8O

Conspiracies this vast are about as believable as the bible.:lol:
True, but there is some pretty fishy shyte floating around the bowl.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
54
Oshawa
You mean he wasn't? 8O

I rest my case....time to smell some fresh air.;-)

True, but there is some pretty fishy shyte floating around the bowl.

You could say that about anything....like the election of GWB....was it rigged? Of course not....but you could make a case for it with all the mistakes made with voting machines and those little bits paper....whatever they were called.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
I really don't want to get into the mechanics of the event. I'm sufficiently satisfied that planes flew into the buildings, that subsequently caused their collapse.

What I would like to discuss, is who knew what, and when.

The theories of false flag operations, secret societies and so on.

Let's not get into outlandish claims and please, please, please try and use material that isn't based on the premise that Jews control the world. Let's try and dwell in reality for a change.
Marvin the Martian did it. He's been saying it's his intention to obliterate Earth for decades. It wasn't the Jews that put him up to it, it was Toronto wishing to be truly all there is to the planet.
 

lone wolf

Grossly Underrated
Nov 25, 2006
32,493
210
63
In the bush near Sudbury

It would have been nice if the spokesman was a better reader....

The one glaring omission in the fact that no steel-constructed building has ever collapsed due to fire is the one that only two steel-tube constructed buildings have ever burned ... and both of them collapsed.

WTC7? How was it constructed? I'm still not satisfied that it didn't have help to come down.
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
Both sides of the argument are nuts, IMO.
The official version is suspect simply because of WTC7.
The other side is suspect because it keeps saying stuff like no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire. The WTC buildings 1 & 2 did not collapse due to fire, they collapsed due to impact, fire-induced structural stress, and a lot of mass bearing down on weakened structure. There are a number of other wacky ideas besides that.
So I'm not going to add to the dustcloud of uncertainty, leap into one theater or the other, and I'll wait for the dvd.
 

YukonJack

Time Out
Dec 26, 2008
7,026
73
48
Winnipeg
"....thus I believe that would be a grammar issue."

For a superior being you claim to be your response is a pathetic and spectacular cop-out.
 

MHz

Time Out
Mar 16, 2007
41,030
43
48
Red Deer AB
It would have been nice if the spokesman was a better reader....

The one glaring omission in the fact that no steel-constructed building has ever collapsed due to fire is the one that only two steel-tube constructed buildings have ever burned ... and both of them collapsed.

WTC7? How was it constructed? I'm still not satisfied that it didn't have help to come down.


 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
Both sides of the argument are nuts, IMO.
The official version is suspect simply because of WTC7.
The other side is suspect because it keeps saying stuff like no skyscraper has collapsed due to fire. The WTC buildings 1 & 2 did not collapse due to fire, they collapsed due to impact, fire-induced structural stress, and a lot of mass bearing down on weakened structure. There are a number of other wacky ideas besides that.
So I'm not going to add to the dustcloud of uncertainty, leap into one theater or the other, and I'll wait for the dvd.
There are a lot of DVDs. Take your pick. I think if 1000+ engineers and architects are willing to put their reputations on the line and face public ridicule because they believe the evidence they have used to come to their conclusions is for real, then I would take their word over some politicians and bureaucrats.
 

gerryh

Time Out
Nov 21, 2004
25,756
295
83
so...... exactley why did the 3 towers collapse..... fi it was an inside job and the towers were helped...... how were they helped along in their collapse? Was it done after the planes hit the towers? How? Was it pre planned? If yes, how did they know when and how the terrorists were going to strike?
 

Cliffy

Standing Member
Nov 19, 2008
44,850
192
63
Nakusp, BC
so...... exactley why did the 3 towers collapse..... fi it was an inside job and the towers were helped...... how were they helped along in their collapse? Was it done after the planes hit the towers? How? Was it pre planned? If yes, how did they know when and how the terrorists were going to strike?
Unless that was planned too.

Amazon.com: The 9/11 Conspiracy (9780812696127): James H. Fetzer: Books

San Francisco AIA Convention 2009 | Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth
 

wulfie68

Council Member
Mar 29, 2009
2,014
24
38
Calgary, AB
I tend to rule out conspiracies for a couple reasons:

1) I've worked with heat treatments of steel and mechanical/materials engineering personnel (doing stress calcs etc) enough that I have no doubt the heat of the fires of those planes would have been enough to destabilize the twin towers, especially when you consider the load above the impact/fires. Once the tops collapsed, it was a domino all the way down

2) The number of people who would have had to be "in the know" and keep their mouths shut in the face of the raw emotion of the day is too large. One example: how many people would have been needed to plant explosives or ignore them in their regular duties before the detonations? 9/11 was just too big for me to buy that the US gov't had anything to do with it.