• You are using the old Black Responsive theme. We have installed a new dark theme for you, called UI.X. This will work better with the new upgrade of our software. You can select it at the bottom of any page.

WTC theory.

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think we can exceed the speed of light, absolutely.

It happens on my TV every evening on "Spike" between 8 and 9 p.m.

It's a government conspiracy that keeps people from traveling to distant planets and colonizing them. It would interfere with the tax base, you see... :D
 
I did not have a chance to read the whole thread yet, but it has been entertaining.

The towers came down because the insulation on the center floors and main support beams had deteriorated over time to be almost non existant. The center floors are what cept the main outer skeleton from twisting. When the center floors were heated by the jet fuel fire the centers fell. After enough floors were gone(it does not take many, plus the plains took out several by the impact) the structure would twist a bit due to being damaged on one side. Once the beams were not strait up and down their ability to hold wieght aproched zero. Plus they had been heated way past their limit, way past...

Steel framed houses have collapsed in normal house fires.
 
dustind,

What? Support this, please. I mean, they've had numbers, calculations, grammar, and stuff. When you come in with "cept," "plains," "strait," and "aproched," it makes it a little difficult to just accept your credibility on the matter.
 
No point in arguing with people who are unwilling to be rational.

The few who have posted logical arguments, rather than just personal attacks, deserve a better discussion-- even though I disagree with you.

I just see no point in attempting to have that discussion here, where anyone who disagrees with the politicaly correct ideology is shouted down and personally attacked.
 
Last edited:
Ok, so lets get this straight. I have seen the buildings fall as many times as yall have. I noticed that they started falling about where the planes impacted. Not below. So did the plan go so well that these planes traveling many miles per hour hit the precise location they were supposed to so the explosives were able to make the building look like it came down at the point of impact and then crumble down? Or was the explosive plan worked out well enough that they had charges set at just about every point. Then the "powers that be" were able to set off those charges at the right level in order to perpetrate the lie? Were the charges also able to survive the initial impact and the detonating devices remain unscathed? I am not an explosives expert, but is it possible the impact of the plane in a building filled with explosives might have had enough force to detonate at least one of these series of explosives and cause a premature detonation that would have brought down the building instantly? Or are we supposed to believe that enough demolitions experts that were part of the plan were able to get into the building, set up all of the explosives, and detonate them within about what, an hour or an hour and half's time? Not to mention were many of these experts who planted such explosives so dedicated to the cause that many of them would have probably had to die in the resulting colapse because they probably wouldn't have had time to escape. Also, might someone have noticed there were a suspicious number of demolitions experts that all died in the colapse that day?

Sorry if all of this has already been covered, but the thread is too darn long to read through it all. I think there was some shady activity at OKC and the feds have yet to answer some really good questions, let alone release the footage of what happenend that day. However, too many people try to make 9/11 into something it is not. They try to act shocked that terrorists could have pulled such a thing off without monumental government break down in security and intelligence. They further believe that someone is to blame for all of this. This theory that Bush had something to do with it would technically fit under this scenario of some monumental blunder on America's part, wether intential or not.

I chose to look at 9/11 not as some monumental blunder, but as a resounding success. Yes success. Come on everyone, give credit where credit is due. The terrorists had their head screwed on straight. They planned this thing out well and darn it, they did a good job. They manipulated our weaknesses that were really no ones fault other than our own, for becoming complacent and further believing that we were morally superior to other countries and that moral superiority would bring their respect and admiration for our way of life. Sorry wrong thought process. People hate us!!! They think they are at war with us. We believed that appeasing these people would get you home safe and sound that day. That theory lasted about two hours. Two hours was the time frame the terrorists had for keeping Americans afraid and believing that Islamic terrorists had compassion and a respect for life that would prevent a suicide attack that would kill thousands of "innocent lives". God Bless em, the passangers on Flight 93 were the firsts to figure out that theory was bull crap and that the only way to deal with these terrorists was not with diplomacy and fear, but with over whelming force and determination to win.

There won't be anymore successful attacks with aircraft, not for a while anyway. Maybe not ever. People will not allow others to hijack aircraft ever again. Look at all of the little incidents where someone even looked like they were getting out of hand on an aircraft, they got the crap knocked out of them. However, those two hours that Tuesday morning, the terrorists had won their battle. They outsmarted us and darn it, give em some respect. Here two years later, we showed them we deserve respect too. We have over thrown two soverign nations with military force. Terrorists have had a few wins here and there, but for the most part, they are all on the run or dead. Yes, brutal force wins the day in a fight.
 
I personally never thought of proven science and personal observation as being politically correct myself...

Nor have I ever considered "conspiracy theories" that are so jam packed with fundamental flaws in science, logic, and rational as being a counter to a supposed politically correct explanation.

Those who wish to see, hear, and smell a massive conspiracy will blinder themselves to all else, and nothing will change their minds. Conspiracy theorists are among the most chauvinistic people I know.

Don't believe that the buildings could have fallen because of a plane strike and fire, despite the explanations of dozens of architects, engineers, and other specialists both here and abroad? Well, all of those people have been swallowed up by the conspiracy.

Don't believe that the buildings could have fallen straight down, but that they should have toppled like trees? Again despite numerous scientific experts, such as physicists, explaning how that's exactly how it happens? Those people have also been gotten to by the conspiracy, and it's likely that Sir Issac Newton was a founding member of the conspiracy.

Asked the explain how a conspiracy that would have to be this massive, involving thousands of people around the globe, could given the fundamental properties of human nature maintain its silence when Richard Nixon couldn't maintain the lid on a limited conspiracy? Well, everyone who even thinks about breaking the conspiracy dies.

There's simply NO rationality in the conspiracy theories that I've read to date.

NONE.

Do I believe that the American people know the absolute truth about EVERYTHING that happened on September 11?

No. I don't.

But do I believe that that is an indication of a massive conspiracy, as opposed to complacency, indolence, sloth, ignorance, etc., on the part of the United States as a whole, combined with the concept that we as a nation are NOT an armed camp?

Not a chance.

But, I guess to the conspiracy theorist, that makes me an agent of the conspiracy.
 
ok, so the towers came down on their own, I believe that is the case. There are other elements to this conspiracy that seem very logical. Were the hijackers not identified by forign intelligence agencys and still allowed to gain entry to this country? Why were no fighters scrambled to intercept these four aircraft?

these are just a few of the questions I would like to see answered.
 
"Were the hijackers not identified by forign intelligence agencys and still allowed to gain entry to this country?"

Yes, I think they were on watch lists. But that doesn't mean that they've been conclusively linked to a planned action. It also doesnt' mean that that information was shared with American intelligence. And, finally, it doesn't mean that even if American intelligence had that information that they shared it with anyone who could/would take action on it.



"Why were no fighters scrambled to intercept these four aircraft?"

There WERE.

Go back and read the messages that deal with this. There were at least 2, possibly 4, fighter aircraft scrambled to attempt to effect intercepts.

As has been explained a number of times, though, WHICH of the over 4,000 aircraft in the air on that day do you target for interception? 4 in 4,000... In other words, if you pick 1 aircraft at random, you have what, a .001 chance of picking the right aircraft?

Also, with those 4 aircraft having turned off their transponders, how do you find them?

When a commercial aircraft turns off its transponder, unless you have an absolute radar lock on it at that moment (and there are significant gaps in radar coverage in this country), it literally disappears from the civilian radar net.
 
As has been explained a number of times, though, WHICH of the over 4,000 aircraft in the air on that day do you target for interception? 4 in 4,000... In other words, if you pick 1 aircraft at random, you have what, a .001 chance of picking the right aircraft?

C'mon, Mike. What % of your 4000 would be in the Boston/Washington airspace at the time in question?

You go after the one(s) that deviate from their flight plan, or turn off their transponders. If they are not on some controllers' screen, you give the interceptors the last known position.

Why is this so difficult?

db
 
"C'mon, Mike. What % of your 4000 would be in the Boston/Washington airspace at the time in question?"

OK, for guesstimate's sake, take it down to approximately 4 in 700. Think the odds are really THAT much better on picking the right aircraft?

However, because these flights were heading OUT of the Washington - Boston corridor to the west coast, that opens the window up considerably, to FAR more than just those aircraft that were in the corridor at that time.

You're now up to about 4 in 1,800.

Which of the 4 in 1,800 do you target?

Do you immediately start shooting down each of the 1,800 or so aircraft in the affected areas?

And remember, those 1,800 aircraft? Those are the ones that can be SEEN on civilian radar.

"You go after the ones that turn off their transponders..."

You just don't understand this concept, do you? This has been explained time and time again. When the transponders are turned off, the aircraft DISAPPEAR. THEY'RE GONE. At the point that the aircraft deviates from its flight path, how do you vector in a military aircraft to find it?

Contrary to popular believe, not every aircraft in the United States is on multiple radar sets all the time.

The transponder system is integral to locating, and maintaining location of, these aircraft.

Without it, finding an aircraft that doesn't have an operational transponder, and which has deviated from its planned altitude and route, is like finding a needle in a haystack.

You seem to think that tracking something like this is as simple as pointing a finger and going OOPS, I see you!

None of the conspiracy theorists have so far explained just how two fighter aircraft are to find the 4 hijacked aircraft when the civilian air network can't see them, and the military radar network doesn't have the capability to see them, either.
 
R.I.P.

funeral%20procession
 
Obviously, Bob, that funeral is a conspiracy!

There's bricks and tires in the coffin, not the body of the deceased, who is actually a shadowy figure who works for the Great Unidentified Them (GUT) the purveyors and dissimenators of the conspiracy!
 
Did the clown who wrote the piece on page 1 of this posting, get his ideas from the book:

"The CIA and September 11: International Terror and the Role of the Inteligence Services" by Andreas von Buelow published in Germany 2003?

I saw this a few days ago in some German online rag I was reading. Went to Amazon.de and found it.

One reviewer loved and the others pretty much thought is was trash.

As far as US radar coverage - below the NORAD line, coverage is pretty poor. There is a reason that NATO loaned AWACS aircraft to the US for improved radar coverage. I also think that Military aircraft use transponders to allow civillian ATC to know what airspace they are in. Turn the transponders off, and ATC sees zero.

WTC theory indeed. The word crap comes to mind.
 
This is the webpage of the BOS Massport radar that shows what aircraft are in the area up to 90 miles out.

Link takes a while to load. Site is best viewed with a high speed connection.

http://www4.passur.com/bos.html

You can clisk on the various aircraft and it will tell you what they are and where they are.

The explaination page for the site is at http://www.massport.com/logan/airpo_noise_airmo.html

And these are just what is over MA! They also have their TRANSPONDERS turned on.

How about LAX?

http://www4.passur.com/lax.html
 
Last edited:
innocent till proven guilty. we have no evidence of there not being bombs, but they have no REAL evidence about there being bombs
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top