| Welcome to Star Wars Roleplay Forum. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Report on 9/11 - My Conspiracy; My take on what happened. | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jul 9 2008, 04:03 PM (753 Views) | |
| Aidan | Sep 11 2008, 02:17 PM Post #46 |
![]()
|
No. Of course they don't but you know what, if you are going to come in to an intellectual debate, at least keep up. The home of the US Ministry of Defence. You don't think they have any sort of weapon development there? Not necessarily live weapons, but possible development? Also, Interesting Link. |
![]() |
|
| Liam Sr. | Sep 11 2008, 02:19 PM Post #47 |
|
Magnus Auvinen.
![]()
|
Actually I doubt that the Pentagon do anything of the sort in the reception area...sorry, but don't try bringing my intellectual level down just because I have something that is worth reading. |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Sep 11 2008, 02:30 PM Post #48 |
![]()
|
Uhm. Okay since that made no sense I'll try to wing it. The plane didn't crash into the reception area. Pretty much all I can decipher from your post. It crashed into an indiscriminate section of the building. |
![]() |
|
| Hito | Sep 11 2008, 02:53 PM Post #49 |
|
!!!!!!!!!!!!MY X
![]()
|
Aidan you're cool with me now. |
![]() |
|
| Liam Sr. | Sep 11 2008, 03:23 PM Post #50 |
|
Magnus Auvinen.
![]()
|
Aidan for some reason turned into a Bitch. and if you look at the picture the plane crashed straight into the fucking reception...Why?? Simple, they cleared that area and blew it up. But hey, if you would take america's word over mine, you might aswell of died there too for all I care. |
![]() |
|
| I Club Baby Seals | Sep 11 2008, 04:29 PM Post #51 |
![]()
Hail the Dark Lord Satin, Macabre Schwab.
![]()
|
You think we profited by 9/11? Lets see... It's caused the deaths of over 10,000 people, billions of dollars in Military funding, and killed our economy. I hope that's sarcasm. -Pyro |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Sep 11 2008, 05:08 PM Post #52 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
You think people dieing some how lowers our economy? Like it costs people to die? Lmfao@you. Aswell, over 500 million dollars was found under the WTC. I think america is doing just fine, mate. To anyone else who's replied, its not worth it to me. I've debated on this subject for days, its done and over. I believe what it was not a terrorist attack, you do. Your choice, not mine. I'm not going to try to convince you. Its not my job to push you into my class of thought. -shrug- As well as, you're taking this to personal. I bring up one debating subject, and you're going off on me a personal note. So desperate, in fact, that you go to my myspace? Waste of time. Would have left your comment there, but my mum gets abit worked up about people i don't know. -shrug- |
![]() |
|
| I Club Baby Seals | Sep 11 2008, 07:50 PM Post #53 |
![]()
Hail the Dark Lord Satin, Macabre Schwab.
![]()
|
Actually, it does cost to die. Funerals, insurance, graves, etc. (And I personally think human lives are worth more than any amount of money, and I'm almost shocked that you don't seem to hold the same view, considering you call yourself a Christian. But then I'm not the best example, so whatever.) As for the second part, I highly doubt that money even got close to the government. It was probably shelled out to the 4,000(?)+ Casualties of the various planes and the WTC. Not to mention the 500m would barely even dent the debt America is in. Ok, I'm done. -Pyro |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Sep 11 2008, 08:18 PM Post #54 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
It costs americans for funeral. It doesn't cost america. ^_^ |
![]() |
|
| Kevin | Sep 11 2008, 08:58 PM Post #55 |
![]()
|
Lol. I agree with the two Liams, and I do believe this was mostly done on the American's government behalf. Well, to be honest, it probably was just a certain people from the American government, mostly residing from the Bush Administration. And to answer that question of yours Pyro, I remember VERY CLEARLY, where a news reporter on CNN was interviewing a man from the Bush Administration (I forgot his name but I'm positive I can find out and tell you), that if he thought that the attack on 9/11 would benefit the Bush Administration. And I clearly remember the guy saying that it WOULD benefit the Bush Administration greatly. Most likely, he was an idiot and it slipped out from his mouth. He tried to cover it up later, but it didn't work. Anyways. I could give enough valid points about 9/11 and the conspiracy, however Liam's gotten most of them down. And I've read Aidan's and tbh, Aidan you've been asking Liam for all his sources yet I don't see any of your sources. I only see like one or two, like wikipedia. WIKIPEDIA. ANYONE CAN EDIT IT. CAN BE DONE BY A PERSON WHO'S VIEW ON 9/11 IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THEN THE REAL FACTS. But nonetheless, you remind me of someone who believes in God and religion. Religion, where you want to believe it in so bad and God who you want to believe in so much that you make your mind close-minded to all the other possibilities. You know the type of people I'm talking about. Well, that's how you seem at the moment. Yes, I have taken in account of your side of the argument but for me, it just does not add. I've done my research and 9/11 being a conspiracy has so much more valid points. Nonetheless. You should know 9/11 was nothing more but a manipulation act. One of the largest purposes for it was for manipulation. I watched the video on youtube about a manipulator export who explained how 9/11 was done to be one of of the types of manipulation. No I'm not lying, I think it was Elliot who gave me the link. And what the guy in the video said was so accurate, and he gave proof to back it up, videos and speeches of various political leaders. |
![]() |
|
| I Club Baby Seals | Sep 11 2008, 09:46 PM Post #56 |
![]()
Hail the Dark Lord Satin, Macabre Schwab.
![]()
|
True, except when the Government pays for the funerals. (Like they did for the families of the people who died in the WTC, IIRC.) -Pyro |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Sep 12 2008, 03:24 AM Post #57 |
![]()
|
Okay I don't have time to tackle all of the points I've just read after my post because I have to get a shower and go to college but here are a few things I will quickly cover. Liam (Tyler):
Yet you continue to post and debate? Make up your mind and stop whining. Also, you still haven't answered my question: what is the reason? Why did they do it? Because if they really did do it, then what is the reason behind it? Liam Sr.: You can't even debate with a bit of decorum so I don't know why I still try but I'll cover this point again and make it real clear: IT DIDN'T CRASH INTO THE RECEPTION. Kevin: You accuse me of not sourcing my evidence? Where's your sourcing? I sourced all of my work, if you can find any I didn't then I will back it up. And for fuck sake, let me make something real clear for all you WikiHaters. It is administered by competent and intelligent team of system operators. Add to that the fact that most of your conspiracy theorists will use Wikipedia to validate their own work when it suits them. Take Liam for example: when stating the temperature at which aeroplane fuel burns, he took the information from Wikipedia. Where do you want me to source from? Huh? Where will you believe my sources? You won't believe from a worldwide, community run and moderated discussion and information website so how about I also take another leaf from Liam's book and source straight from a 9/11 conspiracy debunking theorists? A biased, possibly false source? Huh? Get a fucking grip. Liam takes his sources straight from the reports of conspiracy theorists so don't you dare get on my balls about taking from a community-run website that is free to read and change. And just so we are real clear, I am in no way religious. End of. I am most certainly not close-minded. I take in the bullshit points that Liam puts across and then prove them wrong. To be totally honest, before I got in to this debate, not only did I not give a flying fuck whether it was a conspiracy or not, I didn't know jack shit about anything in it. All the information and evidence I know now, results from around an hour of googl'ing and research. But as I said, I don't have much time, so I'll get on to this later tonight or possibly after I come home from college if I have any time. Heading to Cambridge at like 6 so might be cutting it short.[/color] |
![]() |
|
| Aidan | Sep 12 2008, 04:24 AM Post #58 |
![]()
|
Okay. I just got a call from college. My Media teacher ain't coming in. xD So here we go. Due to the fact that Liam keeps bringing up older points, some of the evidence I put forth, you will have heard before and to begin I will re-tackle the theories put forward in his first post of this topic. Be aware. Most of my sourcing is from Wikipedia. If you don't like it, then fuck off unless you can suggest a more solid and irrefutable source of evidence. 1.
The first point I would like to cover, is the lack of a source for your claim that this was said by "all eyewitnesses". So from the word go, you are stating false truths. Now lets assume that a number of eyewitnesses did indeed say they had seen a plane that was grey and had no windows. The simple fact is, this doesn't prove anything because there are eyewitnesses who didn't see a grey plane with no windows, but instead saw a regular passenger jet. This creates probable doubt and because of that, this is an unfounded point of debate therefore negligible. 2.
This point was easily tackled. Fact: Steel; Melting point: 1370°C (2500°F) Softening point: 600°C (1100°F) If the metal had indeed started to soften at 600°C, then common sense would dictate that the structural supports would collapse under the sheer weight of the floors above. Liam said that this didn't matter because it would have taken longer than the amount of time before the buildings collapsed, for the steel to reach that temperature. Liam suggested "28 minutes" was the time for steel to reach 600°C temperature. For a start, he is not a steel expert and secondly: "The north tower (1 WTC) collapsed at 10:28 a.m., after burning for approximately 102 minutes." "he south tower (2 WTC) fell at approximately 9:59 a.m., after burning for 56 minutes in a fire caused by the impact of United Airlines Flight 175" Now, in the smelting of steel, the oxidation rate itself increases rapidly beyond 800 °C, so it is important that smelting take place in a low-oxygen environment. Thus, if there was an intense fire, then it would be burning oxygen like a whore for it to stay alight. And in such a enclosed space, i.e. within a building, the oxygen would be compacted and therefore would burn faster. Liam then said that all of the fuel would have been lost in the initial explosion. Heh. By actually using one of his own sources: There were approximately 10,000 gallons of unused fuel on the planes when they hit. The conspiracy theorist said that only 3,500 gallons of fuel would have been left after 3,000 being burnt in the initial explosions and the rest "just flowing away" (yeah). Anyway, 3,500 gallons of fuel is more than enough to cause a huge fire and the fire would have been fuelled by any objects in side, especially electrical equipment, which there would be plenty of in the WTC (i.e. computers, server clusters etc.). He then argued about the fire-retardant sealant asking why it didn't protect the building. I mentioned a fact that he must have overlooked. It was hit by a 100-ton plane. He said that the shockwave from the crash wouldn't have just "knocked" the sealant off. <_< No. Of course not. I got smart. I first found this report. "The report concluded that the fireproofing on the Twin Towers' steel infrastructures was blown off by the initial impact of the planes and that, if this had not occurred, the towers would likely have remained standing. Gene Corley, the director of the original investigation, commented that "the towers really did amazingly well. The terrorist aircraft didn’t bring the buildings down; it was the fire which followed. It was proven that you could take out two thirds of the columns in a tower and the building would still stand." The fires weakened the trusses supporting the floors, making the floors sag. The sagging floors pulled on the exterior steel columns to the point where exterior columns bowed inward. With the damage to the core columns, the buckling exterior columns could no longer support the buildings, causing them to collapse." Then did some maths. Weight of a Boeing 767-200ER (like the ones used in the attack): 179,170 kg Cruising Speed: 530mph Max. Cruising Speed: 568mph Now my instinct would suggest they would have maxed the speed of the plane, but for arguments sake, lets say they were travelling at regular cruising speed. F = ma Force = mass x acceleration The Force applied by the plane on impact = mass of the plane (i.e. divided by 9.8 (the effect of gravity) x acceleration of the plane Let the acceleration of the plane = 530mph due to the fact it is travelling at a constant speed therefore, a= v-u/t a= 530-530/∞ a= 0/∞ Acceleration is a constant. So if, F=ma F= 17,917(kg) x 530(mph) F= 9469010 Newtons This is more than enough force in my opinion to smash through the building.. But if you need more proof, then, F=PA Force= Pressure x Area How much of the force was exerted onto the building = Pressure (the force calculated above) x Area (the height x length of a Boeing 767-200ER) Force = 9469010(N) x 27.21(m; accurate to two decimal points) Force= 258386432(.1) Newtons ... Yeh. No way it could have busted through those steel supports. The supports were quite clearly damaged by the initial crash. Then the fire than followed softened the metal to such a degree that it could no longer support the several floors worth of solid steel and concrete. Now imagine the force gained by that considerable amount of weight falling the distance of about 6-8 floors. No amount of steel or concrete would be able to withstand it. And then it works like a chain reaction. Also it was stated that the inner area of the building had less/almost no fire protective material so the flames would have burned through the central supports much quicker and with much more ease. This mean that there was major structural instability. This is why you see the building almost cave in on itself before crashing downwards. Liam then put forward yet another theory. About 50 years ago, a B-25 bomber hit the Empire State Building (the same theory that James tackled above). Liam said "Why didn't the Empire State Building collapse when it was hit by a plane?". Weight of B-25 Bomber that hit it (mass)= 1,500kg - Note that this is 10,000kg's less than the weight of a Boeing 767. Max. Cruising Speed: 275 mph Cruising Speed: 230mph - 100mph less than that of the Boeing 767. ... I don't even have to do the maths. Major scale down of area effect and force. 3.
So? Liam continued to quote this fact yet it actually had nothing to do with his conspiracy theory. 4. Liam kept harping on about the Pentagon. How could a plane make a hole that small? Why wasn't grass burnt from the plane being that low? Why did telephone poles get blown over?
I think this kind of explains itself. Jet engines don't have flames. They have very powerful jets. Simple enough? 5. Liam mumbled something at one point about WTC 7 because it collapsed but wasn't hit by a plane. I can't be bothered collecting my own theory on this so here you go, I simply can't be bothered writing a theory: http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm Finally. The most important points in this debate are as follows:- 1. Why could none of the supposed bombs and explosives been placed by terrorists? 2. If the money did indeed go missing, why couldn't it have been the terrorists that took it? And most importantly: 3. What is the reason? Why would the US do it? What do they have to gain? |
![]() |
|
| James#2 | Sep 12 2008, 07:09 AM Post #59 |
![]()
Siodmak, Tesraiya
![]()
|
Not just people dieing, mostly high grade employees working for our Economic structure (WTC) and many high grade employees working for our defense (Pentagon) and if Flight 93 wouldn't have crashed do you know what path it was on? To the White House yuh. I'm not sure you KNOW what the WTC is, nor what deficit spending is. Do you know how many trillions we are under due to deficit spending? If you think America is doing fine then you're dead wrong. Lastly, I'd like to say once more if you truly believed you didn't want to convince nor want to try and convince anyone you wouldn't have even posted your report in the first place. Opinions can be spoken, but this is corruption instead. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I only see like one or two, like wikipedia. WIKIPEDIA. ANYONE CAN EDIT IT. CAN BE DONE BY A PERSON WHO'S VIEW ON 9/11 IS TOTALLY DIFFERENT THEN THE REAL FACTS." Yet the only wikipedia sources I used were onces about the B-25 Bomber, and it's engine. Why use sources on a site called "9/11, the day our country attacked ourselves!" Get my point? - I could go on and on about how this doesn't relate to the topic at all but I won't. I'll just simply state that you remind me of someone who's too close minded to believe that god DID create the universe. (Which I don't believe.) But that's just me, get what I'm talking about? *Wink* - Your real facts are yet to be seen, therefor your word means nothing to me or anyone else who has an image of the second plane flying into the tower burned into their head. But just for you people who don't think there any windows on the planes. Go look for the first plane hitting into the first tower. - So did Michael Moore, and then the Bush Administration had a movie made calledd Ferenhype 9/11. You know what that is correct? It's called PROPAGANDA. In other words, you can preech about the Bush Administration "manipulating" us, on the other hand you should rightfully know that I think they are the most ignorant people in the world, and I have no relations to republic politics. On the other hand I go with facttual science, not psuedoscience in your cases. I want FACTUAL PROOF, not just some rambling bullshit on a site that's only one sided.[/color] |
![]() |
|
| Liam // | Sep 12 2008, 08:28 AM Post #60 |
|
Khasck
![]()
|
Did i not already tell you desperate fools? Are you so fixed on coaxing me into your side? I'm not debating this subject - believe what you want to believe. There is no right or wrong here. It is picking the more logical explanation. I picked this side. You picked that side. Lets get on with life. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Et cetera · Next Topic » |










