9-11 conspiracy theories.. Osama innocent?

[McBell]

[youtube]8n-nT-luFIw[/youtube]
YouTube - 9/11: Total Proof That Bombs Were Planted In The Buildings!

Youtube videos?
Really?

Wow.
There goes the rest of your credibility...

 

[Gharib]

Youtube videos?
Really?

Wow.
There goes the rest of your credibility...

incase you didn't notice the OPs videos come from youtube what you should focus on is what is said in the video. if thats your reasoning for not accepting what i posted then what are you doing in this thread?

 

[Gharib]

If you google Osama's FBI wanted poster you'll see that 9/11 isn't listed among his suspected offenses. As much as they'd like to attribute it to him, the evidence apparently isn't there.

i'd like someone to argue against this now.

thanks for mentioning this Seyorni.

 

[ninerbuff]

The most powerful argument against such conspiracy theories is that our government isn't competent & disciplined enuf to carry out such sophisticated acts & keep it secret.
The 2nd most convincing argument is that you could never hide the rigging of demolition explosives from the landlord.
I saw the movies of the planes hitting the buildings. I'm familiar with the structural failure which occurred.
That's good enuf for me to blame the guys who commandeered the planes.
For those who want to blame Bush instead of Usama & crew, I accept that I cannot ever convince you otherwise.
I only ask that you not claim that there's engineering expertise behind such a load of sublithic coprolites.
Any of you ready to discuss metalurgy & structural failure modes?

Unless the landlord was in on it. Silverstein was losing money on WTC. He made money on them falling and had exclusive rights to rebuild. And he definitely admits to the demolition of WTC 7 which was "apparently" was rigged for a perfect demolition in a few hours?

 

[ninerbuff]

Have you ever seen what's involved in rigging up a building with explosives for controlled demolition?

Exactly. So how was WTC 7 not "seen" being rigged by the media?

 

[ninerbuff]

Theres a lot more involved in a controlled demolition than strapping some plastic onto a building,there is lots of drilling and some physical demolition before any explosives are put in place,so do some research and think about it,instead of having Aeroplanes fly into buildings they could by your reasoning just have blown the Twin Towers up and blamed some Terrorist organisation,so in fact it makes no sense.

I know you think your Holy Warrior wasn't guilty but BBC NEWS | Middle East | Bin Laden '9/11 video' broadcast

The WTC was powered down on the weekend of 8-9 from floors 50 and up. That meant no security cameras or secured locked doors. Not saying this is total proof, but that does open opportunity to rig the building if that was the intent.

 

[England my lionheart]

The WTC was powered down on the weekend of 8-9 from floors 50 and up. That meant no security cameras or secured locked doors. Not saying this is total proof, but that does open opportunity to rig the building if that was the intent.

I see what you mean,just seems far fetched to me,to predict the outcome of each event i mean

 

[McBell]

incase you didn't notice the OPs videos come from youtube what you should focus on is what is said in the video. if thats your reasoning for not accepting what i posted then what are you doing in this thread?

Ah, so anything I find on youtube that says your youtube is false will convince you that you are wrong?

If it doesn't work for you, what makes you think it should work for me?

 

[McBell]

i'd like someone to argue against this now.

thanks for mentioning this Seyorni.

So because the FBI does not believe OBL when OBL claims responsibility...

Wow.
You really are all about ratification.

 

[ninerbuff]

My theory is that Osama and Al Qaeda were "allowed" to do this. I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but there are some odd issues that have been overlooked or completely kiboshed by the government and even the media.

 

[Revoltingest]

Unless the landlord was in on it. Silverstein was losing money on WTC. He made money on them falling and had exclusive rights to rebuild. And he definitely admits to the demolition of WTC 7 which was "apparently" was rigged for a perfect demolition in a few hours?

You have links to show he profited from the attack?
Credible links that Bldg 7 was rigged for demolition & that he admitted it?
While that could be plausible, rigging for demolition would involve opening up many portions of the building for access to structural components.
It's invasive, obvious, a lot of work & time consuming. I'd expect maintenance staff, security & tenants to be suspicious of such goings on....
....you know, all the explosives visible in the holes in walls & wires running between them. But then it's possible that all the tenants (even the Jews)
were in on it, planning to martyr themselves for Islam.

How do I put this diplomatically.....yer an ID 10T!

 

[Starsoul]

Its rather strange ,very strange when all credible Architects and Engineers talk openly about how the wtc demolition went right against the laws of physics if the official explanation for it is to be believed, it is rather strange that the only people I have ever come across so convinced over the official explanation, are found on Rf.



Here's a website where some architects and Engineers have put their thoughts together.

AE911Truth.org

[youtube]Dx6fBlV9o-Y[/youtube]
YouTube - WTC Fires Not Hot Enough To Melt Steel! Proof of Explosives!

 

[Valjean]

So because the FBI does not believe OBL when OBL claims responsibility...

Wow.
You really are all about ratification.

I'm not saying he wasn't mixed up in it. I'm saying the FBI hadn't found enough dots to connect to make a case.

 

[Revoltingest]

Its rather strange ,very strange when all credible Architects and Engineers talk openly about how the wtc demolition went right against the laws of physics if the official explanation for it is to be believed, it is rather strange that the only people I have ever come across so convinced over the official explanation, are found on Rf.

How do you actually know they're real architects & engineers....& competent?

Here's a website where some architects and Engineers have put their thoughts together.
AE911Truth.org
[youtube]Dx6fBlV9o-Y[/youtube]
YouTube - WTC Fires Not Hot Enough To Melt Steel! Proof of Explosives!

There's the red flag that the analysis is crap - the melting point of steel is irrelevant, since steel fails at the much lower temperature where "creep" under stress begins.
In the case of the WTC, this only initiated the cascade of floors collapsing upon one another due to impact loading.
Once this started, steel would fail at room temperature. Well, spluuuuh!
Tis no wonder people believe such malarky, given the lousy science edumacation people get.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Its rather strange ,very strange when all credible Architects and Engineers talk openly about how the wtc demolition went right against the laws of physics if the official explanation for it is to be believed, it is rather strange that the only people I have ever come across so convinced over the official explanation, are found on Rf.

I am a real live civil engineer. Do you consider me not credible?

And as I've mentioned in other threads, one of my strucutral engineering profs was actually on the design team for the World Trade Centre... and since then did decades of research in structural engineering, including quite a bit on failure analysis of structures. He knew the structure of that building intimately, was an expert in the subject of structural failure, and the day the towers fell, he presented us with what he thought was the most likely way the structure failed. It matched the official version that came out later.

Not to mention that, but the mechanisms of the official explanation (i.e. fire leading to "softening" of the floor trusses, leading to collapse of the entire building) match existing research that I was already familiar with about the risks from fire to steel buildings that I acquainted myself with while working in fire protection engineering.

Prolonged fire kills steel buildings. This is a well-known fact in structural engineering circles. It is not news. Any conspiracy theory that hinges on the idea that fire isn't a risk to steel buildings can be safely dismissed as incorrect.

How do you actually know they're real architects & engineers....& competent?

There's the red flag that the analysis is crap - the melting point of steel is irrelevant, since steel fails at the much lower temperature where "creep" under stress begins.
In the case of the WTC, this only initiated the cascade of floors collapsing upon one another due to impact loading.
Once this started, steel would fail at room temperature. Well, spluuuuh!
Tis no wonder people believe such malarky, given the lousy science edumacation people get.

I don't believe it, but then I did take metallurgy.

Also, one of the issues with the WTC is that as the fire progressed and the floor trusses began to sag, this introduced new stresses into the structure. It became a self-reinforcing effect: more sag caused more stress, which caused more sag... until the single bolt at the end of each truss, which had never been designed to handle these sorts of loads, went "pop".

 

[Revoltingest]

Metalurgy? Can I have your autograph?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Metalurgy? Can I have your autograph?

Don't get too excited; only one term course.

But still, it was enough for me to know what eutectoid temperature is.

 

[McBell]

Its rather strange ,very strange when all credible Architects and Engineers talk openly about how the wtc demolition went right against the laws of physics if the official explanation for it is to be believed, it is rather strange that the only people I have ever come across so convinced over the official explanation, are found on Rf.

Now I know you are merely peddling an agenda.
Good luck with that.

 

[ninerbuff]

You have links to show he profited from the attack?

In January 2001, Silverstein, via Silverstein Properties and Westfield America, made a $3.2 billion bid for the lease to the World Trade Center. Silverstein was outbid by $50 million by Vornado Realty, with Boston Properties and Brookfield Properties also competing for the lease. However, Vornado withdrew and Silverstein's bid for the lease to the World Trade Center was accepted on July 24, 2001.[14] This was the first time in the building's 31-year history that the complex had changed management.
The lease agreement applied to One, Two, Four, and Five World Trade Center, and about 425,000 square feet (39,500 m2) of retail space. Silverstein put up $14 million of his own money to secure the deal.[15] The terms of the lease gave Silverstein, as leaseholder, the right and the obligation to rebuild the structures if destroyed.[16]


The total potential payout, therefore, was capped at $4.577 billion for buildings 1, 2, 4, and 5.

Larry Silverstein - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Credible links that Bldg 7 was rigged for demolition & that he admitted it?

[youtube]-jPzAakHPpk[/youtube]
YouTube - Larry Silverstein admits WTC7 was pulled down on 9/11

While that could be plausible, rigging for demolition would involve opening up many portions of the building for access to structural components.
It's invasive, obvious, a lot of work & time consuming. I'd expect maintenance staff, security & tenants to be suspicious of such goings on....
....you know, all the explosives visible in the holes in walls & wires running between them. But then it's possible that all the tenants (even the Jews)
were in on it, planning to martyr themselves for Islam.

How do I put this diplomatically.....yer an ID 10T!

You and I know that it takes days to do a vertical demolition drop yet in a few hours the fire dept (really?) was told to "pull the building". Didn't know the NYFD were demolition experts.
There's much more to 9/11 than I believe we've been told.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You and I know that it takes days to do a vertical demolition drop yet in a few hours the fire dept (really?) was told to "pull the building". Didn't know the NYFD were demolition experts.

And I didn't know you were an expert in NYFD jargon. Which do you think is more likely?

- the NYFD were part of a conspiracy to demolish the buildings... a conspiracy that they were willing to give up their lives for, by demolishing the building while they were still inside it.

- "pull the building" simply meant "pull out"... i.e. "evacuate all personnel."