fair play but that doesnt explain the freefall time frame 10.2 seconds vs 8.1 very little difference and the max temps of av gas oh and the fact that the building was designed to withstand multiple plane hits . how about the fact that ni on identical sky scrapers made in the 70s by the same cinstruction companies have had fires that heve raged for up to 25hours without colapsing not just 18minutes , oh and i notice no one has offered or submited a explanation for building 7 nothing hit that one :cuckoo:

This is well off topic now, but I do reluctantly agree that the conspiracy theories for 9/11 are very convincing.

The plane hitting the Pentagon was odd from the start - massive amounts of CCTV cameras must have captured that, yet why not release the footage? A 757 making only a small hole in the wall and almost no wreckage at all? Does seem very odd.

The towers falling does also look like a controlled explosion, with the 'squibs' exploding out the side of the building clealy visible as it fell.

The building 7 collapsing is maybe the strangest - no massive damage, and surrounding buildings ok, then suddenly in collapses in a controlled explosion fashion...

C'mon guys, 9/11 conspiracy theories are sooooo last decade. Shouldn't we be talking about the hot topic of the hour, the true whereabouts of the very much still alive Osama Bin Laden? ;):D

idiots selling mortages to other idiots on a grand scale . to put it in easy terms . i have a mortage and owe 100thousand dollars i have paid mortage for five years and bank has made nice earner on intrest , they then offer my debt to another bank for lets say 120thousand knowing that by the time i have paid mortage back i will pay back 16thousand with intrest , mortage buying bank thinks oh this looks good 120tho for a 160thos debt bargain , ile have some of that , origional bank puts 20k plus 5years of mortage repayments in bonus pot and says thank you , only problem is 8months down the line i loose my job and cant pay mortage house gets repoed and so the story goes on but on a much larger scale , this was explained to me by a accountant who tryed to put it in plain english when in fact its more complex but i hope you get the idea

There you have it. :)

My point was ironic;) I know how toxic debt was involved.

You said the government went to war to make money, then said the banks make all the money and the arms company leaving the government with the bill. Almost saying that CR convinced the US to go to war to get bigger dividends

not bad good effort but again another controlled demolition allmost freefall speed and if 1corner fell first why didnt the building fall in that direction like a tree would if you remove a wedge from the left law of physics states it will fall to the left . the building fell straight to the deck the only way this can happen is in a controlled demolition . blocks of flats and offices and towers have been demolished without any damage to surrounding buildings 50ft away let alone 300ft away . take a look at the top gear toyota on top of tower vid do you see the surrounding flats colapsing and catching fire i didnt

the only way the truth will ever come out is if bush was on a lie detector or given Sodium Pentothal. or sodium amytal or better still as used by the russians
SP-117

There you have what? Tony being conveninetly ambiguous you mean ;) I wonder who elese does that? ;)

...and the Shi'a majority and the Kurds.

like i said av gas burns at 1500 the steel was built to withstand 2000 temperature of up to 3000 recorded weeks after by site clearers but the video forgets to debunk those facts believe what we want is the best i think

one last thing i forgot 19 hijackers , would someone like to explain why 6 of them are still ALIVE AND BREATHING thier ids have been proven 1had his passports stolen while on holiday in egypt and in 3 cases thier parents have spoken to them since thier almost certain deaths . oh and how would a passport made of paper survive 1500degrees , as one of the hijackers passports was supposedly found in the aftermath days after the event if the passport holder was in the cockpit how the fuk would his passport survive the cockpit being vaporised at 1500degrees

Just picking up on the distinction between an Islamist and a Muslim. People get confused about it and get the wrong end of the stick on a fairly regular basis. All Islamists are Muslims, but not all Muslims are Islamists. Ambiguity is only a problem if one doesn't understand the nuances and definitions, if one does, these words are actually concise. A little knowledge is dangerous. A good example is the Newsnight discussion between Anjem Choudary, Paxman and another chap whose name escapes me, but who was a scholar from Oxford and who also happens to be a Muslim. Both Muslims, but one is an Islamist and the other not.

Choudary's latest venture:

http://www.muslimsagainstcrusades.com/

You've used the word 'crusade' several times when discussing the British mission in Libya and I think that really is ambiguous; it's the same narrative used by the people in the link.

lol@ conspiracy theories. Sometimes I think the entire world is populated by complete mongs.

This is inaccurate. Let me know if you'd like me to explain why. And Islamism is a problem if you subscribe to Enlightenment thinking. It's a massive, huge, whopping, great-big flipping problem. The root of that problem is Sayyid Qutb; check out his book 'In the shade of the Qur'an'. Fascinating chap, by the way, and a great thinker, just a shame he was batting for the opposition.

Disclaimer: NOT ALL MUSLIMS ARE ISLAMISTS. ISLAMISM IS NOT ISLAM.

Are you a structural engineer or a demolition expert?:lol1:

Heard there that Big Jim McDonald has moved up the ranks of USA's Most Wanted List replacing Osama.

Some say he did it for love, he did!

Letter from the US to Afghanistan

"Dear Afghanistan, sorry we were drone bombing your innocent women and children, apparently Bin Laden was in Pakistan"

No he's not:lol1:

But these guys know a thing or two;)

Nearly every large building has a redundant design that allows for loss of one primary structural member, such as a column. However, when multiple members fail, the shifting loads eventually overstress the adjacent members and the collapse occurs like a row of dominoes falling down.

The perimeter tube design of the WTC was highly redundant. It survived the loss of several exterior columns due to aircraft impact, but the ensuing fire led to other steel failures. Many structural engineers believe that the weak points—the limiting factors on design allowables—were the angle clips that held the floor joists between the columns on the perimeter wall and the core structure (see Figure 5). With a 700 Pa floor design allowable, each floor should have been able to support approximately 1,300 t beyond its own weight. The total weight of each tower was about 500,000 t.

As the joists on one or two of the most heavily burned floors gave way and the outer box columns began to bow outward, the floors above them also fell. The floor below (with its 1,300 t design capacity) could not support the roughly 45,000 t of ten floors (or more) above crashing down on these angle clips. This started the domino effect that caused the buildings to collapse within ten seconds, hitting bottom with an estimated speed of 200 km per hour. If it had been free fall, with no restraint, the collapse would have only taken eight seconds and would have impacted at 300 km/h.1 It has been suggested that it was fortunate that the WTC did not tip over onto other buildings surrounding the area. There are several points that should be made. First, the building is not solid; it is 95 percent air and, hence, can implode onto itself. Second, there is no lateral load, even the impact of a speeding aircraft, which is sufficient to move the center of gravity one hundred feet to the side such that it is not within the base footprint of the structure. Third, given the near free-fall collapse, there was insufficient time for portions to attain significant lateral velocity. To summarize all of these points, a 500,000 t structure has too much inertia to fall in any direction other than nearly straight down.

As sarcastic as that is it is pretty much true :(

Yes we (as in SN NSR) have discussed this before and while I get what you are saying I think the fact that a lot of people don't see the difference is used as a rather convenient ambiguity by some posters.

If you want a more detailed read of some very interesting 'facts' then have a read.

http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom...agar-0112.html

Aaron:thumb:

Some interesting 'facts' in there

Only problem is there seems to be more evidence to support the conspiracy theory than there is to disprove it ?

Can I ask have you watched loose change ? Can you counter argue everything they put forward ?

All I want to see is the video of the plane hitting the pentagon and it would make it easier for me to believe the story, same goes for OBL, all I want to see is the video of the raid as proof of what happened

All these theorys are so easy to knock on the head and they can do it so easily but choose not to ?

Sorry, I dont buy the excuses for not showing the evidence

obl is in texas chilling with bush and blair.:thumb:

The whole notion of the conspiracy theory is unfalsifiable since the theory always keeps moving around like an amoeba when you refute one point or another. The 'theory' always accommodates the evidence (by way of leaps of logic and fallacies) but it is not the best theory for that evidence!

How do you refute the notion that an evil, omnipotent nexus controls everything? You can't! Hence it being unfalsifiable!

The truthers main bone of contention is WTC 7 which they claim was demolished using thermite to 'hide' the evidence of it being used as the 'control center' for the attacks.

I can't say I'm an expert on it but the 'evidence' is virtually non existent for this theory....with the main 'evidence' being the way WTC 7 fell down (straight and uniform). They claim this could only have been done with a controlled demolition but many experts don't agree...and the truthers don't have any smoking gun evidence.

The plane would have been travelling at several hundred mile per hour. Is it to be expected that every angle of the pentagon is covered with cameras which record at sufficient frames per second, and resolution, to capture something moving within the frame (of the camera) at the speed of a slow moving bullet?

:lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1::lol1:

very good