Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

The other bit of news that is a bit suspicious is the pentagon crash - where did the aircraft engines disappear to and why aren't there holes in the building where these went through. Hmm.

There were. The wall later collapsed.

A better question is why the government would bother with attacking the Pentagon with a cruise missile when they were somehow able to take control of four aircraft, including using two of them to crash into the WTC (which I think would be a harder target to hit than the Pentagon).

^Interesting eh - I have to say, youtube videos don't show any collapsed walls - but I'll take you word for it for now. (I also agree, there also needs to be a credible/plausible explanation for why a missile was fired at the Pentagon. I haven't really seen one that I can buy into - hence my current opinion. However, it does smell like a cover up - and perhaps it is a c.over up of a c.ock up on the part of the military in reaction to the hijackings... )

But let's start small:

Have you got a credible theory for the indestructible passport?

Cheers,
Shafique

That has been covered a thousand times.
The passport was recovered by NYPD Detective Yuk H. Chin from a male passerby in a business suit, about 30 years old. The passerby left before being identified, while debris was falling from WTC 2. The tower collapsed shortly afterwards. The detective then gave the passport to the FBI on 9/11.
Other debris, human body parts, seats, documents and passports from OTHER passengers were also lying in the street, unburned.
Explosions and fire and totally unpredictable, remember the helmets and effects recovered from the astronautes on the Sapce shuttle Coloumbia which blew up on re entry.

^Do we have the passports from the other passengers that were also undamaged? That would go some way to dispel the indestructible passport issue.. until then, the official story line seems to raise more questions than answers (and it doesn't get any clearer the more times it is told ... 'male passerby in a business suit' (was he wearing a black suite and wearing raybans too? We should know)

What is eh's theory - is it that there was a mysterious man who 'found' the passport?

Cheers,
Shafique

A plane crashed in the building , what do you expect for him to do, stick around? It was panic all over the place. I know you would have run like a chicken.
Yes .....they did find wallets, life vests, tickets, and other documents (flamable) from other passengers. please stop this non sense with 911, you said yourself a cover up would be impossible to design , engineer, and maintain, for an attack of this magnitude

here an explanation for the passport, it does make sense to me.


and another for the pentagone flight 77

I guess yesterday was a slow news day for the resident statisticians, conspiracy theorists and their new found friends?

Well this topic can go on forever, so I'm just going to take a step forward to the next related thing. The U.S. government gained more than it lost because of 9/11. How do you explain that?

P.S. I will be posting more details about this, explaining how and what was gained, but I just finished writing a HUGE post, so I will take a little break for a bit

Peace

I was born in the US and am an american citizen. I lost friends in 911 (brokers that worked at Cantor Fitzgerald) and have no reason to buy into conspiracy theories on this issue.

However a look at the simple facts of this event point to large anomolies. As I have said before I don't know who or what was behind it but I would urge anyone that supports the widespread view that it was terrorism just to do some research. There is no way - seriously no way that a building (particularly one of that size and that construction) can fall at almost freefall speed to the ground after a few hours burning. Jet fuel can not burn at a high enough temp and even if the temperatures were immense there will always be some resistance - it can't fall down in 10 seconds. No building which has been on fire has ever fallen like that and I very much doubt they ever will. Similar fires on large buildings continue for days and the structure remains largely in tact with some fallout. On 911 - 3 buildings (one of which had fires on 2 lower floors and was never hit by aircraft) fell at freefall speedre. Its simply ridiculous and an impossible. The 911 commission report address's none of these points. No engineer, structural expert or otherwise can ever support the judgement that this was the result of a blazing inferno and the failure of the integrity of the steel.

I would ask any of you that feel that this is just a conspiracy theory and lacks no weight to tell me why.

You will always get conflicting opinions on the attack. What you won't get are the documents locked away in a vault that contain information that no one will ever see. Probably right along side the documentation on the assassinations of JFK and RFK. 9/11 is not a figment of peoples imaginations, but give it a few years and you will probably have deniers saying it never happened, pretty much like those that say that the holocaust never happened.

Maybe it is hard to bend our brains around this kind of attack and its supposed "abnormalities" because nothing like this has ever happened before. Funny that some of you think that it isn't possible for documents and debris and body parts to be propelled from a plane from the force of the plane slamming into a building. And that the twin towers could not collapse like they did, though engineers have explained that the building columns could easily have produced that collapse under the extreme heat of the burning jet fuel. I think of you are looking for excuses to believe in the conspiracy theories when the correct answer is the simplest. These terrorists trained to fly planes and carried out their attack with almost full success. Don't confuse everything that happened after as some kind of sign that the US government orchestrated the elaborate attack and sacrificed thousands of US (and world) citizens to achieve some political goal.

I agree Bora Bora, there probably will be people in the future who deny that 9/11 happened. It's all a big conspiracy! (Didn't you know that no human has ever been to the moon! Another big conspiracy!)

Kanelli

I would prefer to believe that it was terrorists but the facts don't support it. I don't like conspiracy theories either and lets not put this issue along side those you believe the holocaust did not happen. As I said I don't know what or who but I don't believe the 911 commission report. Planes alone could not bring those two buildings down in addition to a 3rd that was never even hit by one. Simple facts why I believe there is more to this -

1. Jet fuel burns at 500C and can't melt steel - thats just a fact. Even if you don't believe this Tower 7 was never hit by a plane.
2. Jet fuel burns quickly and would have burnt in 15mins. People were standing in the twin towers asking for help - if temperatures were 500C it would not be possible.
3. Freefall speed - the buildings came down at their freefall rate about 12seconds based on their heigh- that means there was no resistances whatsoever. Even semi-melted iron provides resistance and this type of collapse is not possible without a controlled explosion taking out all underlying support.
4. These structures were made never to collapse the way they did. There have been plenty of fires on large towers and they go on for hours and hours - sometimes they bend and parts fall off, etc but some of the frame stays in tact as they were build to withstand fires. The entire frame doesn't collapse and disintegrate into dust after 3-4 hours of burning. Its not possible.
5. There are 1000s of certified engineers and architects that have signed a petition for 911 to be re-examined and publicly stated that the 911 commissions findings are completely flawed.

I don't like all this either but I have a problem accepting something if it doesn't make sense. Ultimately people will usually believe what they are more comortable with but the US government (my government) are not being completely truthful about the events.

Joe - you make some very good points.

You obviously don't fit into the 'conspiracy nut' pigeon hole - and it now makes more sense to me now why so many people in the US and elsewhere are suspicious about the 'official line'.

I guess I am firmly agnostic on this now (having moved from definitely believing it not being a conspiracy) - too many holes in the story. (Herve's mystery man explanation hasn't helped convinced me - quite the opposite, for example).

Cheers,
Shafique

JoeTGF wrote:1. Jet fuel burns at 500C and can't melt steel - thats just a fact. Even if you don't believe this Tower 7 was never hit by a plane.
2. Jet fuel burns quickly and would have burnt in 15mins. People were standing in the twin towers asking for help - if temperatures were 500C it would not be possible.
3. Freefall speed - the buildings came down at their freefall rate about 12seconds based on their heigh- that means there was no resistances whatsoever. Even semi-melted iron provides resistance and this type of collapse is not possible without a controlled explosion taking out all underlying support.
4. These structures were made never to collapse the way they did. There have been plenty of fires on large towers and they go on for hours and hours - sometimes they bend and parts fall off, etc but some of the frame stays in tact as they were build to withstand fires. The entire frame doesn't collapse and disintegrate into dust after 3-4 hours of burning. Its not possible.
5. There are 1000s of certified engineers and architects that have signed a petition for 911 to be re-examined and publicly stated that the 911 commissions findings are completely flawed.

No, I don't believe the architects and engineers prepared for jet plane hits to their buildings. Was the jet fuel burning on its own, or were the buildings, planes and their contents on fire too? Are you saying that all the people in the building should have been instantly burned on impact, or do you think it is possible that those in the immediate area of the hit were killed by impact and fire and people on other floors or other sides of the building were still alive to make phone calls. Some began to jump when the heat and smoke became too much for them. I watched a documentary full of experts who discussed the structure of the towers and how it was completely possible for them to collapse like they did under such intense impact and fire. (Will try to find the name again.) I suppose they must have been commissioned from the government as part of the conspiracy Care to share some links to sources for your info? I've never heard of thousands of engineers and architects signing a petition to re-examine 9/11 findings.

Sorry K seems you haven't heard a lot things or just din't want to

http://www.ae911truth.org/

And yes the orginal architects designed the building the withstand impacts from a commerical jet liner. And the steel used was fireproofed. There was a fire in Feb 1973 in whch the fire proofing did its job and protected the steel. The bulding was also designed to stop the elevators shafts in acting as chimneys and providing oxygen to any fires. And a lot of modern materials like carpets, furniture, drapes etc etc are required by law to be fire retardant aswell.

The huge fireballs you see on intial impact is the jet fuel being vapourised and being ignited, majority of the fuel was burned away in the explosions from the impact and vert little would have been left if any. Contaray to the belief that there were huge pools of jet fuel burning. Look at the smoke comming from the builldings. Not thick jet black as with fuel fires but greyish. The kind of smoke a fire gives off when it is being starved of oxygen

Here you can clearly see a man waving through the gash from the impact. I don't think you can do that if the temp is close to 1500-2000 C

What made the towers fell then, if it wasnt for the impact of the planes and the fires?

Flying Dutchman wrote:What made the towers fell then, if it wasnt for the impact of the planes and the fires?

prevailing "theory" suggests that other explosions had occurred simultaneously, the way the building was brought down was in a manner of a controlled demolition (note - none of this info is my opinion)

zubber wrote:prevailing "theory" suggests that other explosions had occurred simultaneously, the way the building was brought down was in a manner of a controlled demolition

Can JoeTGF explain how many explosives would be needed for that?

zubber wrote: (note - none of this info is my opinion)

Noted.

Flying Dutchman wrote:Can JoeTGF explain how many explosives would be needed for that?

Well structural engineering laws suggest that the amount of explosives is irrelevant, the weight of any building is concentrated at certain points , if those points are not strong or compromised (ie,. through tampering, or explosives {as suggested by the use of the thermite's}) , then the whole structure can be brought down flawlessly, And by flawless I mean within defined parameters of the explosion.

Anyway, JoeTGF the floor is yours.

zubber wrote:Anyway, JoeTGF the floor is yours.

JoeTGF, please explain how the towers collapsed not because of the planes. And also how this could be covered up (as I can imagine preparing a tower to collapse controlled is a huge operation) and how you discovered the truth. Any evidence of your theory is very welcome.

Or how the thermite wasn't prematurely set off by the ensuing fire ball

Or who piloted the two planes

Or how two (or three?) skyscrapers were successfully rigged up

Well there were many citizens who heard explosions go off, and who stated that on television. I posted this video link before, and got one response that did not really comment on the video at all. So here it is again. Please watch the four parts, and comment based on that video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_E4N5YIycI

Watch this In Plane Site

I've heard a 110 story building crashing may indeed be a little noisy.

But you might want to check that out to confirm what a sky scraper sounds like as it falls to the ground.

BTW, do you own stock for youtube?

Hi

Sorry was out and off line. As I have said before I don't claim to have all the facts or all the explanations but am happy to offer the ones that I have been given and have accepted.

In terms of the your arguments kanelli -

kanelli wrote:No, I don't believe the architects and engineers prepared for jet plane hits to their buildings. .

As per DDS yes they did.

kanelli wrote:Was the jet fuel burning on its own, or were the buildings, planes and their contents on fire too? .

Of course other things were burning (paper, desks, etc) that you would find in the tower block but nothing that can increase the heat of the actual combustion. The jet fuel would have created the highest temperature but it would have burned away within minutes with the explosion/impact. Its similar to pouring petrol on your charcoal bbq - it immediately ignites and the temperature and flames increase dramatically and for a short period of time. After about 5-10 minutes the temperture of your fire is back to what is supported by the material being combusted ie charcoal.

kanelli wrote:Are you saying that all the people in the building should have been instantly burned on impact, or do you think it is possible that those in the immediate area of the hit were killed by impact and fire and people on other floors or other sides of the building were still alive to make phone calls. Some began to jump when the heat and smoke became too much for them.

My point exactly - people made calls, people shouted for help - people were seen alive. Temperatures that melt steel are approx 1500C depending on specific alloy and are typically only found in a foundry. In order for steel to melt through thats the temperature you need throughout the building - remember the buildings all collapsed - melting a part of it would not have led to collapse and a freefall as we all witnessed on tv. For that reason yes the temperature throughout the building could not have been 1500C - hence allowing people to be alive and make calls and shout for help.

kanelli wrote:I watched a documentary full of experts who discussed the structure of the towers and how it was completely possible for them to collapse like they did under such intense impact and fire. (Will try to find the name again.) I suppose they must have been commissioned from the government as part of the conspiracy Care to share some links to sources for your info?

Please watch more documentaries. You have made the argument about jet fuel - lets just say for a moment that I am wrong and it would have completely melted all the stell for a freefall collapse to take place. Can you please tell me how tower 7 collapsed in the same way (it had small fires on two floors). Please note and appreciate the word "collapse" - these buildings did not burn and twist and than chunks than fell off and there was some frame left over - it "collapsed" into dust - nothing was left. This only happens with controlled explosions. It has never in the history of construction and fires ever taken place let alone 3 times in the same day at the same place. As DDS points out these buildings and particularly the ones we are considering here are built with some serious framework and built to withstand fires and the types of events that took place (airline impact). The links I have posted will show you that people on ground zero heard multiple explosions before the collapse. All of this is ignored by the 911 commission report.

In terms of links there are many - I have posted a few. There is so much info on this that if you have interest you can look it up yourself. If you choose to evaluate with an open mind than please do so and see how you feel after it but if want to believe a specific thing occured and are rigid in that view than thats your choice. Kanelli as I have said before on this post I am an american citizen and I truly love my country but if the US government tells me that pigs can fly and that buildings like the twin towers can collapse in the way they did I am not going to believe them unless I hear a plausible explanation.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iW23PuBK ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-lu ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNDurCBI ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BmP2Vy8K ... re=related

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:24 pm --

event horizon wrote:Or how the thermite wasn't prematurely set off by the ensuing fire ball

I believe that thermite requires magnesium charges to setoff - won't happen at even 500 C.

event horizon wrote: Or who piloted the two planes

Dunno - some claim they were not piloted and radio controlled but dunno.

event horizon wrote: Or how two (or three?) skyscrapers were successfully rigged up

Dunno - presumably with the right securit clearances over a month. I just know they collapsed like a controlled demolition. You can see that right or is it just me? When do building ever fall like that and after a few hours of burning. Even fires in Dubai with this level of build quality doesn't lead to a collapse.


EH - as I have said before I don't claim to know exactly what happened and am looking for answers myself but I just don't believe what the public has been lead to believe on this issue. Rather than focus on how everything happened - who did what, when and why - do you believe that what you have been told did happen could have ? I don't mean terrorists here - I mean that buildings just collapse after a few hours particularly tower 7 that wasn't even hit by a plane. Its just not possible.

-- Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:31 pm --

Flying Dutchman wrote:

zubber wrote:Anyway, JoeTGF the floor is yours.

JoeTGF, please explain how the towers collapsed not because of the planes. And also how this could be covered up (as I can imagine preparing a tower to collapse controlled is a huge operation) and how you discovered the truth. Any evidence of your theory is very welcome.

Most scientists and experts on 911 believe it was thermite which allowed a controlled explosion of all 3 buildings. Thermite traces were found when analysed. Watch the links above.

I don't know how it was covered up or by who. I am not a position to submit evidence but many have - just google or go on youtube. How did I discover this? Well as mentioned a lost a friend (a broker that covered me for my trading at Cantors). When another friend of mine suggested that it was not as it seemed I was angry at him for even suggesting it. Than I looked for myself and the evidence or should I say the public story was not plausible and the fact the government has refused thus far to reveal information that many have a right to know (people that lost friends and family in 911) is ing and suspicious.

desertdudeshj wrote:Watch this In Plane Site

I have just finished watching this, the entire thing. On top of my video excerpt from Zeitgeist, I am now infinitely convinced that it was not terrorists. If there was a spec of doubt in me before, it has been erased.

With that being said, I now withdraw myself from this thread, with one last thought:

Anyone who should watch In Plane Sight, and still be convinced that it was Mulsim terrorists is in denial. There is too much evidence to prove it wasn't, as opposed to the few shreds of "proof" that it was.

I have absolutely nothing against Americans, and the events of 9/11 were horrific and deeply depressing. The loss of that many human lives is inexcusable and inhumane. My "beef" is with the American government, who willingly sacrificed a mass of its own people just to push their own political agenda and make money. That is despicable, and I hope all those involved in that rot in hell.

Peace.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXb5M8qK ... _embedded#!

Rosie O'donnell isn't buying it.

Anyways, I couldn't find the ignition temp of thermite, but I did watch a mythbusters video online where they burn a thousand pounds of thermite - around the 1:20 mark, we're informed that thermite can actually be set off at relatively low temperatures, so they had to be careful in mixing the thermite because heat from friction could ignite it.



Anyways, I'm impressed how much confidence you have in our secret agent guys. A 30 story skyscraper took 4 months to rig up for demolition but three of the largest skyscrapers in the world was done over the weekend (without anyone even noticing all the detonation cords and holes drilled in the walls and support columns).

As I said rather than focus in on a specific thing about 911 and try and evaluate why, how and who followed by a dissmissal try and look at what the 911 commission and media has told you and see if it makes sense to you.

I will follow Icenic's example and withdraw myself from the thread. If you want to know more I am sure you can search for it - if you are satisfied with what happened than thats your choice.

Adios

JoeTGF wrote: see if it makes sense to you.

The official story makes sense to me. Questions about the alternatives have not been answered. Thats because the alternatives belong in the looney bin. Where people cannot explain to themselves what happened and are still in shock or want to hide the attrocities of Jihadists (like how neo-nazi's want to hide the attrocities of nazism), looney conspiracies will be heard.

And you just pulled me back in FD.

What questions? What about the questions asked by us? How the hell does a building fall vertically at free fall speed, exploding one floor at a time!! Let's say the jet fuel CAN completely melt the steel. Even then the building would fall apart piece by piece, not all at once, turning into dust.

What about the other building that completely collapsed, WITHOUT being hit by ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?

What about the remains of Flight 77? Where did they disappear? Jet fuel will NOT disintegrate an ENTIRE BOENG 747. So where are the remnants? Where is the black box?

Instead of constantly asking questions, why don't YOU provide some answers to disprove the conspiracy?

Icenic wrote:What about the other building that completely collapsed, WITHOUT being hit by ANYTHING WHATSOEVER?

What building collapsed without being hit by anything?

Icenic wrote:What about the remains of Flight 77?

See my link to a jet crashing a fortifies concrete wall: it (the jet) vaporizes!

Icenic wrote:Jet fuel will NOT disintegrate an ENTIRE BOENG 747

What 747?

Icenic wrote:disprove the conspiracy?

Somehow, unfortunately, I dont think you realize how foolish and stupid it sound to ask somebody to disprove a conspiracy.

ROFLMAO.