Or rather, is there a natural explanation? or did they fake it all? or is there some truth in it at all?

letsroll911.org (http://letsroll911.org)

I'm not seeing what these guys are seeing, but consider:

* No one noticed a missile on the wing of a 767 while it was at the airport, including passengers (who can see out a terminal window at the plane as it docks) and ground crew.

* Pilots didn't notice any weight irregularities by having a missile on 1 wing of the airplane (that must have been set to automatically fire unless a pilot was in on it).

* If pilots and crew were in on it...well, it seems very unlikely that all those people would be in on it (especially a pilot who'd effectively be commiting suicide) unless...

* ...they were replaced with trained government personnel. Assuming this could be kept quiet by the personnel themselves, we'd have to believe that ground and air crew at the terminals didn't notice all these new people, before or after the fact. Also, we'd still have to accept that some pilots were willing to commit suicide on Dubya's behalf.

* Lastly....you're flying a 767 into the WTC, why bother with a missile that could be discovered beforehand, and that's entirely superfluous anyway?! The planes themselves would do the job nicely, even if the WTC didn't collapse.

I doubt there's even a kernel of truth to any of it.

Haha thats so bullshit.... Bush isn't the smartest guy around but to accuse him of doing that is showing you are seriously retarded.

I get what you mean Mand, I couldnt figure it out either, but as Im a quite curious person I read around on the site and found:

letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=887 (http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=887)

letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3 (http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=3)

letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=70 (http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=70)

letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14 (http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=14)

Kinu, first of all, hope you dont mean that I accuse him of anything (its not even my opinion, not even close, Im just curious and always been interested in "conspiracy" theories), secondary, dont think Ive seen it anywhere that Bush is blamed for it at all (remember someone mentioning Bush in some line somewhere, not really what I call blaiming)

Also I suggest reading all the stuff before commenting :)

Lolz, reread the first page and saw the gigantic red lines saying Bush did 911, gawd how I missed that, oh well, thats kinda bullshit yeah :/

You can't just slap a missile on a wing of any ole aircraft and fire it off with the slap of a button.

Takes alot more than that, systems in place, fire control computing to compensate for tons of variables and the flight control computer to account for weight/drag etc etc.

I work with/on fire control systems as well as weapons systems and I'm here to tell ya that's bunk.

Just another fine product brought to you by folks wearing tin foil hats...

Fandros

Fand, someone had a weird idea about the planes being swapped somewhere, so all things needing work might have taken place, but seems kinda weird as then the original passengers would had survived and so on...

What's interesting to me is the "evidence" (http://letsroll911.org/ipw-web/bulletin/bb/viewtopic.php?t=887) of explosives being used to take down the towers

For those who didn't click Tza's links, they go to the site's message board wherein the case is made for a non-terrorist cause of 9/11. While the front page does state in big, bold letters that Bush was responsible, this isn't played up at all in the board posts, which look only at the evidence.

At first glance, he makes a good case for his theory. Not necessarily a solid case, though, as we're asked to accept quite a bit, such as his interpretation of seismographs and his claims about seismologists interpretation of those same graphs. Other interpretations of data are also uncertain; perhaps this guy is right, perhaps not, in his various explanations.

For example, he quotes people who felt a wave of heat and pressure after the explosions and interprets that as a shockwave from an exploding missile, when it could simply be from the explosion of so much jet fuel.

He also focuses a lot of time quoting the lessor of WTC (something Silverstein) as saying they finally (well after the planes had hit) had to "pull" WTC-7, a term that signifies demolishing the building. Later that afternoon, the fire dept did just that. The site claims that this kind of demolition requires days of preparation, so explosives must have already been in place for it to have been done that afternoon (and it's part of the theory that demolitions were already in place in WTC 1 and 2, to bring the towers down since the airplane and missile wouldn't do the job alone).

While the web front has Bush as the culprit, time is also spent showing that Mr. Silverstein had billions to earn through his insurance claim (3.55 billion minus costs to remake the towers) and must have been involved in the event due to his comments regarding WTC-7. But I suspect this fellow is already quite wealthy...why go to such improbable lengths for even more wealth?

Were asked to accept that a switcheroo was made between the original Flight 175 and the actual plane that hit the first tower. This switch included using voice replication software to fake the phone calls made from passengers to loved ones. That's quite a stretch in my mind.

What I didn't see explained was any switch involving the second plane, the disposition of the first plane's real flight, or an explanation of the other 2 planes, including that which hit the Pentagon. There are other problems involved in covering the whole mess up, but despite how interesting some of his data is, the cumulative theory seems too outlandish to give time to right now.

Maybe (someone else's) further digging will answer some of my objections.

Anyone ever see the Danny Devito movie (sorta) "The Ratings Game"?

Danny played a low level Mob guy who manipulated the ratings of his TV show by getting the names of all the people with Neilson boxes and having them win a fake cruise that essentially was a boat that kidnapped all these people while his mob cronies would break into their houses and tune into Devitos shows..

I dont blame Bush for this, but I blame Danny Devito!

H3 iz teh Debil

This is horseshit.

According to that website:
1) The planes that crashed into the WTC were not the same planes that took off from Boston.
2) At least one of planes that crashed into WTC had an external missile that fired fractions of a second before impact.

Even if #1 above is true, WHY would it be considered necessary to attach an external missile? A plane of that size has enough space to hold even the largest H-Bomb ever made inside the fuselage. Only carrying a normal fuel load, those planes have an enormous amount of flammable material. Even the addition of few tons of simple ammonia nitrate explosive would have eliminated any need for an external missile.

I'm not going to argue that there aren't some folks in the world wicked enough to "disappear" an entire plane and it's human cargo - I know that type of person does exist, just as people like Mengala and Pol Pot have existed. But I've reviewed the video "evidence" on that page - and all I see are visual artifacts (light reflections, etc), and the lack of any truly plausable theory.

a H-bomb would make to big of a boom, if its in fact not the same plane as those took off then sure as hell Usama isnt involved or he wasnt doing it alone, not like his "cavemen" would be able to switch out 1 (or 2 if both were changed) 747's and then hide them...

The reason for the missile being there isnt really important, just the fact that it is, because if it IS a missile, then whats the explanation on how it got there? You dont attach a missilepod in the air if you come from Afghanistan and hijacked a few planes :P

If its NOT a missile, then what is the "natural" explanation and why havent someone explained that if so? would be kinda "easy" to prove if it was one...

I still think there is a natural explanation (thought it was faked first (added with PSP or something) but checked some newpages and slowed down the video myself and its there on them too), but what is it? I want to know! |I

I think their explanation of the missile was that it'd target the central support beam of the building. But they also claim that there must have been detonators along the supports for the buildings to collapse as they did (which, allegedly, could not have happened from the plane strikes alone). But those detonators again make missiles superfluous and risky.

Have to stick with Occam's Razor on this one.

Hahah you fucking swear.

"Missle pod"

Give me a BREAK.

Next month: Planes were actually SR71s!!1!

The reasons for the centrel support collapsing is due to the superheated jet fuel.

They've already given very reasonable explanations for all that transpired.

Take off the tinfoil hats boyos and see the badguys for who they are.

Bin Laden's boys!!

Fandros

lol fandros is so stupid he does not realize there were missles attached to the wings of the plane! LOELZ U R TEH STUPID BUSH LOVING TERRORIST!

/blink

What Weolf??

There were no missiles attached to the plane. As stated earlier if they truly wanted to fake the event all they had to do was fly the aircraft into the building full of fuel.

Fandros

Does anyone know solid facts about the validity of those claims they made about the temperature the jet fuel burns at vs. what would be required to melt down the support structure of the buildings?

After I got past the retarded "Bush faked 9/11" and missile crap, there was some interesting stuff there. By association with the rest of that garbage, I'm mostly assuming it's bullshit though...

temperature the jet fuel burns at vs. what would be required to melt down the support structure of

Engineers I work with proposed that before it ever hit the news. You don't have to melt the steel - you just have to structurally weaken it. Jet fuel burns at a temperature high enough to do that.

1. Missiles like this are not enclosed in pods. And if they were, the pod pieces would be on the ground somewhere to be found, because you'd have to blow the pod open to use the missile.

2. The engine flare from small air to air missiles is damn big. Not some small flare like these videos show.

3. What was the missile aiming at? The cockpit? And how does it hit that? Missiles drop from the plane for a second or 2. And at least 1 second to account for blowing the "pod" open. Then the engines kick in and the guidance moves it toward the target. Drop the missile a second before you get to the building and the engine might not even light up before you hit the buiding. Plus, the target is gone so the missile does something like self-destruct or just fly straight ahead and create a DIFFERENT hole in the building.

Engineers I work with proposed that before it ever hit the news. You don't have to melt the steel - you just have to structurally weaken it. Jet fuel burns at a temperature high enough to do that.
Works for me. The conspiracy theorists on that site struck me as world class morons anyway.

imartinez.etsin.upm.es/dat1/eCombus.htm (http://imartinez.etsin.upm.es/dat1/eCombus.htm)

Some numbers for you to peer at.

A1 kerosine based aircraft fuel is the type used primarly in civilian aircraft.

Steel turns to butter at a much lower temp than what that flame produced.

And yes, missile burn is much much much brighter than what that lil flare looking thing was. Also Miradorr is correct, the missile actually drops off the aircraft for up to a second before it ignites. What purpose would said missile actually serve?

On top of that, I'll reiterate for those of you ignoring my jobfield.

You cannot simply retrofit such a large aircraft with a missile and slap it off with a Radioshack wire kit. It's an incredibly complex system, especially in leu of the fact that the aircraft alone would provide all the bang required.

Fandros

This is a bit off the current topic, but for you conspiracy theory fans check this guy out. He is a whack job of the highest order.

www.infowars.com (http://www.infowars.com)

Fand, steel melts at lower temps then that yes, but the guys designing/contructing WTC have said in interviews that they used something that melted at like 2200 degrees fahrenheit or so

(dont think its stated on that page even, saw it at Discovery like a week or so ago)

Ok, so we agree its not a missile/missilepod, so then what is it? its obviously not something they added themselves, then it wouldnt be on all newschannels, which means there is a natural explanation to it right? so what is it and why have nothing official been released about it?

Calculation about how hot it got inside the tower (http://members.fortunecity.com/911/wtc/how-hot.htm)

Summarizing:

We have assumed that the entire 3,500 gallons of jet fuel was confined to just one floor of the World Trade Center, that the jet fuel burnt with perfect efficency, that no hot gases left this floor, that no heat escaped this floor by conduction and that the steel and concrete had an unlimited amount of time to absorb all the heat.

Then it is impossible that the jet fuel, by itself, raised the temperature of this floor more than 257° C (495° F).

Now this temperature is nowhere near high enough to even begin explaining the World Trade Center Tower collapse.

It is not even close to the first critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F) where steel loses about half its strength and it is nowhere near the quotes of 1500° C that we constantly read about in our lying media.

"In the mid-1990s British Steel and the Building Research Establishment performed a series of six experiments at Cardington to investigate the behavior of steel frame buildings. These experiments were conducted in a simulated, eight-story building. Secondary steel beams were not protected. Despite the temperature of the steel beams reaching 800-900° C (1,500-1,700° F) in three of the tests (well above the traditionally assumed critical temperature of 600° C (1,100° F), no collapse was observed in any of the six experiments."

Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A).

Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.

just out of curiosty, what would a passenger jet being doing armed with any sort of weapon system? It is a civilian liner is it not? Seems kind of...hmm...hard to believe that a civilian airline would have an offensive weapon attached to it. Since the hijackers were onboard, they could not have had the ability to retrofit a jet with a missile, and fine tune + fit the fire control system for it.

Also a jet went down in Penns. that was headed for DC.

That didnt have any weaponry on it.

L2, was that the one that a phone company alleges that one of the passengers using either a cell-phone or airline phone called his wife and said that they would try and at least divert the course of the plane?

And what defines the weaponry you speak of. What I am talking about is that although they came aboard with box cutters/rubber knives (akin to what the SEALs use) whatever, they most likely could not have smuggled a modular missile delivery system onto the plane.

Mdana, if you cared to read anything you would understand that the proposition is that they didnt :)

But switching the focus again, what do you peoples think about the Pentagon crash? Ever since I saw the first photo of it my question was: "Ok, so where is the plane?"

The "magically moving" firetruck (http://pentagon3.batcave.net/fire-truck.html)
The also "magical moving" cars (http://car.batcave.net/pentacar.html)
DOD's own picture about the crash (http://www.defenselink.mil/news/Mar2002/020307-D-6570C-003.jpg.JPG)
Whole shit summarized (http://www.thepowerhour.com/911_analysis/french-911.htm)

I don't know very much about weapons systems, but I have a feeling that one missile would pale in comparison to a few giant tanks full of jet fuel. Also, I wouldn't think you'd need to fire the missile a few seconds before the plane impact (as was assumed in the article) in order to get the missile to explode, anyways. The fire and explosion caused by the plane's impact would be enough of a catalyst, no?

I can't believe I now have that fucking shit in my Internet cache.

Make it go away.

LOL

Steel will give way long before heavy timbers. When the planes hit I knew that they would collapse. I am very suprised that teh FDNY didnt think it would. Its something you learn in the buildng construction portion of Essentials of Firefighting.

Tz, I think you best read the info I linked.

That kerosine based fuel was burning at MUCH MUCH hotter than that.

Please to think on your own and leave the really really braindead conspiracies behind yo....

Fandros

I can't believe I now have that fucking shit in my Internet cache.

:rollin

Ok, so where is the plane?


In burning pieces scattered about. When a plane going that fast hits something that solid it doesn't just bounce off and get a ding in a fender.

Planes have fenders?

OMG! Dubya must have also been in contact with Osama to make him say that he did it!

*gasp*

I remember Osama bin laden releasing a tape of him saying that they did it, but they didnt want to towers to collapse.

/sarcasm on
Oh wait, i forgot that the government just changed the translation of the tape to make it say what they wanted it to... doh, stupid me.

/sarcasm off

Met-a-phor ...can you say met-a-phor Roliel?

How do you pronounce -? 8(

I would be able to, but you see, I had some damage to my soft palate. Please try be more understanding. :(

Another thing to consider is the time it took for the buildings to collapse - approximately 30 minutes to an hour from time of impact, IIRC.

*IF* there had been pre-sited explosives (as suggested by the use of the "planned demolition" video with the firefighters), I highly doubt they would have endured the fire for that period of time before kicking off.

Speaking of that video, the only statement referring to a planned demolition was one firefighter saying, in effect, that it sure looked like one. And, yes it did.

This conspiracy theory assumes 9/11 involved elements of the US government, the ENTIRE WORLD news media, independent organizations who performed multiple computer simulations, and Osama's bunch (who said they did it), all orchestrated for our benefit by Dubya Bush - Mastermind Extrordinaire. As someone stated earlier - Occam's Razor points the way. Given multiple possibile explanations, pick the simplest one that fits the facts. And, this conspiracy theory is NOT the simplest explanation. It requires far to many different (often opposing) organizations and individuals to work together ... and keep the silence afterwards.

As I said earlier ... horseshit.

orchestrated for our benefit by Dubya Bush - Mastermind Extrordinaire
No kiddin. Gotta love how the Bush haters simultaneously call him a moron because he flubs up a speech here and there, and accuse him of masterminding complex conspiracies.

Does anyone know solid facts about the validity of those claims they made about the temperature the jet fuel burns at vs. what would be required to melt down the support structure of the buildings?

I did a research paper on the subject about two years back.

IIRC the load-bearing building frame was, at a cross-section, something like this (F for frame, i for irrelevant):

FFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFF
FFiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFF
FFiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFF
FFiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFF
FFiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiFF
FFFFFFFFFFF
FFFFFFFFFFF

with very minor support toward the middle.

The heat certainly couldn't have melted the steel, but it was weakened greatly in the given vicinity. But in addition to that, the towers swayed like hell from the impact. I mean, the buildings were designed to withstand heavy winds or a plane crash, and swayed considerably. This could not have helped the steel much.

Now, the flames were pretty intense to begin with, but eventually they got to the relatively open space in the middle of the building. There was a shitload more oxygen there, and the fire spread both horizontally and vertically. After a while, one of the floors suffered structural failure from the enduring heat and got pancaked. This resulted in fatal weight distribution on the also weakened floor below, and a domino effect ensued.

i will enlighten you all.
The planes and stuff was don by Osamas order.
BUT...there is always a but.

The US claims to have one of the best working information agency. So they KNEW in advance that osama would strike the WTC. Thus they placed explosives in the WTC to make em collapse, once the "terrorist" attack happens and bingo you have the ticket to invade Afghanistan and iraq.

Bush aint smart but his administrators sure are, and they are greedy whores. Money makes ppl do things like that. Few days ago aome one was killed for 50 bucks, so i think the WTC was a better ratio then 50 bucks per death.

You can not be serious with this shit, guys.

no, no one is serious with this, this is just puting the rumors and tin hat theories to rest

i will enlighten you all.

I knew you were a stupid fuck from your recent posts, but can you like do us a favor and not breed?

A gay gnome named Gokuu wrote...
no, no one is serious with this
http://mark700.home.comcast.net/public_html/captainobvious.jpg

DUUUUHHHH MAAAAAAAN!

I can explain it all..

heres a list of Childrens books Gokuus parents used to read to him when he was a little gnome.

25- You're Different -- And That's Bad
24- The Boy Who Died from Eating All His Vegetables
23- Robert: Dad's New Wife
22- Fun Four-Letter Words to Know and Share
21- The Kids' Guide to Hitchhiking
20- Kathy Was So Bad That Her Mom Stopped Loving Her
19- Bi-curious George
18- All Cats Go to Hell
17- The Little Sissy That Snitched
16- Why Can't Mr. Fork & Mrs. Electrical Outlet be Friends?
15- That's It, I'm Putting You Up for Adoption
14- Grandpa Gets A Casket
13- 101 Things You Can Do at the Bottom of the Pool
12- The Magic World Inside the Abandoned Refrigerator
11- Controlling the Playground: Respect Through Fear
10- The Pop-Up Book of Human Anatomy
9- Strangers Have the Best Candy
8- Whining, Kicking and Crying to Get Your Way
7- You Were an Accident
6- Things Rich Kids Have, But You Never Will
5- Daddy Drinks Because You Cry
4- Your Nightmares Are Real
3- Where Would You Like to be Buried?
2- You've Got Hepatitis B, Charlie Brown
1- Valuable Protein and Other Nutritional Benefits of Things from Your Nose

I miss the book selections from Alpha Centauri...

"How to Raise a Nerve-Stapled Child"

--Cen

i will enlighten you all.

If you kill yourself you will raise the average IQ of this board by at least 15 points.

I didn't bother to read ... about 99% of what's being said here ... I did go to the site and look at it.

I want to thank you for putting that 30 seconds of my life out of it's misery.

L2 my family isn't blond =/ they read playboy to me, for shits sake man

@ Aktipt: Some1 with a signature like you sure is a genius :)

@Deaath1: get ur head out of Akipts ass :)

@Sharookan: Anybody who uses "Some1" rather than "Someone" was obviously born after 1990. :)

'The US claims to have one of the best working information agency. So they KNEW in advance that osama would strike the WTC. Thus they placed explosives in the WTC to make em collapse, once the "terrorist" attack happens and bingo you have the ticket to invade Afghanistan and iraq.'

- Seriously, don't be such a fucking retard.
The argument is whether or not they knew about *an* attack. That's a pretty valid one. Knew about terrorists blowing up the world trade centres on the 11th of september? And actually putting bombs there?
Give me 50 quid, and I'll fucking shoot you myself.

You take mastercard? If so I'll front the money for him.

I found this for HALO. Conspiracy theory or the truth?

Operation Copper-green (http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040524fa_fact)

It's off the topic of 9/11 but i'm a sucker for a good thoery.

>You cannot simply retrofit such a large aircraft with a missile and slap it off with a Radioshack wire kit. It's an incredibly complex system, especially in leu of the fact that the aircraft alone would provide all the bang required.

No, Fandros. All commercial airliners are now equipped with hard points and missile control systems just in case we need to use them as stealthy attack fighters. I mean, what better camouflage can you think of than a 747? No one would ever suspect, thats why its a secret.

Qaman how could you reveal the super secret plan. I am sorry but you will have to be executed for revealing Goverment Secrets. Please report to the death centers in either LA or Detroit your choice hehe

i say send him to canada, oh wait, hes already there!!

I only revealed the secret because now nobody will ever believe it is true, thereby insuring it actually remains a secret.

Ah, hiding in plain sight...

Now, when you can snatch this pebble from my hand, grasshopper...

--Cen

I mean, what better camouflage can you think of than a 747?

Ice cream truck?

This thread is just plain stupid, and sickening.