PROOF that 9/11 was FAKE

[Ancalagon]

:mellow: I remember seeing the destruction of the WTC's and thinking that, for the life of me, it looked all for the world like a controlled demolition. (When they collapsed). And also, the Pentagon had little or no pictures released of it whatsoever. Aside from the fact that it is a Government building, a military one at that, I am very doubtful from seeing the footage on the media and on that sight that there was an airplane that struck it. However, I am not about to acknowledge the theory of a site that is very 'conspiracy theorist' even though they have a disclaimer stating that they are not. :huh:

 

Does this mean I am about to accept a statement that my own Government would attack and kill it's own people? No, do you even realise what sort of thing this would bring about even if it were true? America would crumble into ruin, almost over night, at the hands of its own people. Destruction and chaos (not to mention an imposed Marshall Law from a corrupt institution running the country) would reign and we would have a second Revolution and second Civil War on our hands. This time untold milions of people would perish and more than likely we the people would fail and become slaves to the tyrannical masters. But still, even though I dislike the occupation of Iraq and George W. Bush's methods of 'diplomacy' in the UN I wouldn't dream of our own people doing this sort of scale attack. :blink:

[Mojlnir]

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and here's mine...this talk of staged attacks is pure, uninformed and delusional bulls***. The Bush administration has done some unfortunate things (just like every other administration in every other country) but that does not mean that they are anywhere near depraved enough to do something like this. Apparently, whatever you read on the internet must be true.

There is an excellent explanation of the collapse that stems from the structural nature of the building. It was presented in-depth by the Learning Channel. Go ahead and accuse me of believing what I see on TV, it's only fair. But it doesn't change the fact that there is no conspiracy. If you'd like I can provide some links that argue that the Tri-Lateral Commission rules the world and the Bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster are real too.

[Nevermore]

In a lot of those pics there is water/smoke running the width of the entire bottem of the biulding.

 

One could, with the right software, time, and dedication, have removed everything about the water/smoke line and inserted what ever in there they wanted to. Even pictures of a biulding that has been crashed into by a plane but there is no plane there. So these pics could have been faked.

 

Although that is true this site raises one question, and that is dealing with the width of the plane and the width of the pentagon. Personlly this deserves a little research and I'll be sure to do a little before coming to conclusions.

 

So hows about not getting ALL your info and "facts" from a site that is trying to prove their point, and acually reseach your self a little. NEVER claim somthing is true with out three supporting source that are independant of each other.

 

So while this COULD be real, I wouldn't say yes or no till I give it a little research. Though personlly I doubt the US faked 9/11.

[Iluventi]

Hm...I dunno about the WTC "destruction" but as for the pentagon...that is supremely consquential evidence they got there...where is the rest of the plane?

[Reborn87]

Yeah i remember seeing the TWC collapse and thinking how bloody TIDY it was. I watched some people demolish an old hospital close to where i live, and THAT was messier. The kind of neatness in the WTC says one thing to me: GOVERNMENT!

 

I'm studying physics and chemistry myself, so I can tell you that those fatcs that they state there ARE facts. Expecially about the melting point of steel and how some DNA supposedly survived the heat which supposedly caused the steel to melt. Not to mention why the buildings pancaked at the TOP of the structures, ABOVE the point of impact. The photos of the pentagon were also very convincing, and the absence of burnt grass at least is provable, it was shown on TV!

[Mojlnir]

In regards to the collapse of the Towers, let's get architectural for a minute. Each floor of the WTC was nearly an acre of open floor space, through which (in the exact center of the building) passed the corridor that house all elevators, air handling equipment, and stairwells. When the aircraft penetrated the buildings they caused localized collapse which exposed the steel beam work that held the floors up. The WTC employed a truss system for strength and reduced weight load. These trusses, which take the shape of triangles and are constructed of narrower steel girders than the traditional I-beans were covered with a spray-on fire retardent material. These beams were anchored to the exterior walls with brackets, again as a weight savings device. The concussion of the impact exposed these trusses and removed much of the fire retardant material that covered them. As fires raged within the building (fueled by jet fuel) the exposed steel was heated to the point of sagging. It is important to note that the steel did not melt, but rather as it heated up it lost its tensile rigidity. The collapse occurred when the brackets holding the trusses sagged enough that the trusses ripped free. The weight of one floor would have been sufficient to collapse the structure (I don't know how much a square acre of concrete several feet thick weighs, but I bet its a lot). Anyway, once the structural integrity of one floor failed, all the floors above it gave as well. That is why the towers came straight down. They pancaked themselves.

 

Here are some sites with good information on both the WTC and the Pentagon. If you want to argue with the scientists and engineers at M.I.T. then be my guest.

 

Architecture Week

 

URL=http://www.usnews.com/usnews/news/terror/slides/wtc/]US News and World Report[/url]

 

MIT Report

[Mojlnir]

Here's the Pentagon crash report if any one is interested.

 

Pentagon Report

[Albareth]

:angry:

 

I'm talking about a government playing a direct or indirect role in the murder of it's own citizens to further it's agenda, and then continuing to murder and oppress people worldwide, and you post a stupid spammy picture in response!

 

At least LOOK at the pentagon pictures and draw your own conclusion. Sorry, we had a plane crash in a flat in Amsterdam years ago, and it sure didn't look as clean at this!

I posted a "stupid spammy picture" for fun, then stated my real and valid opinion.

 

And I'm not just saying that - I saw this very same thing you're posting now on a similarily remote and unaccessable site a year ago or so, posted it myself on a messageboard thinking I was bringing revelation or whatever, then got proof that these pictures on that site are FAKE, check out the actual pictures and live video feeds from the scene yourself yourself, the pictures are altered.

 

Don't jump to conclusions - I used to once, I have learned my lesson now.

 

And by the way, doing the "ignorance is bliss" thing doesn't help either - I've done that myself too. It's a matter of accepting that no matter how much you hate the idiots who have the power (and I do) you musn't allow yourself to just idly accept any accusation thrown at them. Do some research on your own. It'll save you a whole lot of embarrasment when you're proving wrong - which isn't a good feeling btw... :shifty:

[Zmid]

Well, just to add my two cents, it seems to me that if you read the feedback received on the second link posted(http://www.nzaif.com/pentagon/pentagon911.html), you see it does a rather got rebuttal of these claims. The website owner does post a response to this, but it really seems to be him saying 'I've got credentials too, you're wrong' so it really comes down to whether you believe the guy who set up this website or the guy who wrote in saying he's wrong and explaining why.

 

I also just noticed that the guy who set up the website said he is

 

familiar with the methods of construction used in the 1941-1943 building of the Pentagon

 

but the guy who wrote in said

 

The portion of the building where the attack occurred was reinforced further a few months prior to the attack, including the installation of windows designed to withstand a powerful blast (similar to the Oklahoma City bombing)

 

So it seems to me the guy who wrote in is more likely to be correct as he is more familiar with the construction of the Pentagon at the time instead of when it was originally built.

[Shakkara]

Well I don't believe ALL of it without questioning it, it would be hypocracy when I say 'you believe everything on the news' when I would be believing everything shown on god knows what website. The theory with the remote controlled stuff they offer doesn't make much sense either.

 

But still there are a few things that makes me question the official stuff:

• Why are there no plane debris at the Pentagon and why does the damage not resemble an airplane crash?
  
• Why did tower #2 collapse first, while having much less damage?
  
• Why did both towers collapse so cleanly, especially tower #2 which only had most fires on one side?