9/11 was a conspiracy. It was a conspiracy by a few members of Al Qaeda including Osama bin Laden. The conspiracy was exposed several days after the destruction of the World Trade Center.

If you think there was more to the conspiracy, what was that more? Do you think George the Lesser had something to do with it? Do you think Mossad was involved?

Rumors have floated around that Jews who worked at the World Trade Center were told not to go to work that day. Do you believe those rumors?

 

It takes great precision to do that.....

 

It's interesting that in one of those videos of Bin Laden talking to groupies that he said that "it was better than he expected". Hmm now just suppose that the US Government had prior knowledge of the attacks and helped to make Bin Laden's plan go better than expected for the purpose of getting public support for further engagement in foreign conflicts. Now also consider the fact that burning jet fuel would not in itself be capable of bringing those buildings down, not to mention again the fact that they came down on their footprints. The general public is kept blind and always will be.

 

I will just say that Bin Laden was responsible for the jets hitting those towers, but there was another party involved who may not have been working with Bin Laden.

 

I regret the presidency of George W. Bush. I do not think he is evil. I certainly to not think he is that evil.

News reports indicate that Bush was surprised and perplexed by 9/11. When informed of the destruction of the World Trade Center he was reading a story to some children. When he learned about it he had a stunned, vacant look on his face, a look that said, "What is happening? What should I do now?" Then he flew around in Air Force One, not going directly to Washington, not knowing where to go or what to do.

He looked clueless. He certainly did not need to suppress the evil, knowing smile that would indicate that he had been expecting this, and that he was glad that it had gone so well.

Also, and as I have said previously, if there was any truth to what you suggest, newspapers like The Washington Post, The New York Times, and others would have ferreted out the truth, like they did during the Watergate Scandal. In the United States the press is not monolithic. It does not take orders from the government.

A scandal of the severity and magnitude you suggest would not stay covered up for long. By the presidential election of 2004 the Democrats would have a red hot campaign issue.

I do not believe in vast, momentous conspiracies lasting for years. Someone will leak the information to the press, get drunk and brag to his girl friend, or have a death bed confession.

 

Ok this is all i ask, i do think some of the government story may be true, but if you take the top 1,500 architects on the planet and many pilots of those planes, many different kinds of engineers that says they bet their careers and everything they have that the government report on 9/11 is a lie, it is not possible for it to happen the way they said, and that a great deal of things were made to happen, would you believe them or the government? I am not talking about conspiracy theories i am talking cold hard provable facts. Or will you just dismiss everything like the nut case umpire that knows everything and put full trust in the government? This question is to anyone with a sensible and serious answer

 

Giving the specs for the structural steel used in the towers and the heat of jet fuel burning it was not enough heat to do the damage that happened. Now take into consideration that many contractors do use substandard materials and add to that the amount of combustibles in the building including oxygen bottles on 1 floor and do the new math. But since the oxygen bottles were only in 1 tower the question becomes why did the other tower react the same?

 

How do any of us know that any of what either of you said is true?

anotheruser1, how do you know that "the top 1,500 architects on the planet," think "the government report on 9/11 is a lie?"

Sanity_is_Relative, how do you know that "the heat of jet fuel burning" did not give "enough heat to do the damage that happened?"

Each of you read that somewhere. It is what you want to believe because you want to believe that there is a conspiracy. You want to believe in a conspiracy, either because you are hostile to the Bush II administration, or because you have a general hostility to the government.

This is the way conspiracy theories work. They make assertions that are impossible for an ordinary person reading the assertions to prove or disprove. They will say that for this, that, or some other reason Lee Harvey Oswald could not have fired the bullets, or all the bullets, that killed President Kennedy, that the Nazi concentration camps could not have possibly killed all those Jews, etc.

Conspiracy theories attract believers because gullible people want to believe that what nearly everyone agrees is a catastrophe was caused by people they more personally dislike.

 

NORAD is primarly designed to look for threats OUTSIDE the US, plus with thousands of planes in the air, finding four planes with their transponders off is hard to do. Yeah they caught us with our pants down.

 

Because they formed a committee dl an began researching it. I will go dig up the article.

You still didn't say who you would believe.

 

No they dropped on several thousand people.

 

No I am going from data given by NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology and the facts that even pilots and fuelmen know about jet fuel and its burn rate and temperature.

Some interesting information..

-1535ºC (2795ºF) - melting point of iron
-1510ºC (2750ºF) - melting point of typical structural steel
-825ºC (1517ºF) - maximum temperature of hydrocarbon fires burning in the atmosphere without pressurization or pre-heating (premixed fuel and air - blue flame)

Diffuse flames burn far cooler.
Oxygen-starved diffuse flames are cooler yet.
The fires in the towers were diffuse -- well below 800ºC.
Their dark smoke showed they were oxygen-starved -- particularly in the South Tower.


Maximum jet fuel burn temperature is 825 Celsius.

Temperature needed to melt structural steel is 1510 Celsius.

Compare this.

On February 13, 1975, the WTC North Tower was beset by a fire, which "burned at temperatures in excess of 700°C (1,292°F) for over three hours and spread over some 65 percent of the 11th floor, including the core, caused no serious structural damage to the steel structure. In particular, no trusses needed to be replaced."

Sources: New York Times, Saturday 15th February 1975


From FEMA/NIST (I think both stated that) we know that "most of the jetfuel was consumed by the explosion of the initial impact".

NIST states in 2005 (read or watch Kevin Ryan therefore please) that from 16 steel columns tested in burning with jetfuel and interiors only 3 reached a maximum temp. over 250°C. NIST also states that there`s no evidence that anyone of the steel columns near fire reached ever 600°C. This temp. is the critical temp. for the guys claiming steel will loose half its strength at. No way.

NIST says that all test units withstood the fires more 2 hours easily. Compare it to that: NIST states that the fires initiated by jetfuel inside the WTC on 9/11 burned each approx. for 20 minutes with a heat of 1000-1100°C and after that it burned "500°C or below". Not roughly 2 hours, but failing.

 

If the conspiracy extends beyond a few members of Al Qaeda, where does it extend to? Why hasn't the mainstream media reported what you posted? Are they part of the conspiracy too?

 

It was reported in 2005 when the data was released, the fuel burn temps. were all over the news here as well as on the internet. By the time it was released most people just did not give a damn anymore because we were already at war over it.

 

Exactly right... 3,000 people died too so who is going to give a fuck if the US is at war over it. Again, public support for engagement in foreign conflict could have the motif to conspire to kill 3,000 people. Question for Distant Lover: Why did building #7 come down in a similar fashion?

 

You will always have the idiots that believe that it was Bin Laden or Iran that caused it, and that the black boxes were never found(yes there were photos of 3 black boxes being taken from the rubble) as well as photos of the impacts that even engineers looked at and said no way.
Bit DL if you still think that Oswald killed Kennedy you are as ill-informed as the Jade Helmers out there likeDahboo.

 

It is generally agreed upon that Osama bin Laden was in charge of 9/11, and that he financed it.

Lee Harvey Oswald was probably the only one who killed Kennedy. He was certainly one of the killers. His finger prints are all over the rifle from which the bullets came. We know that the bullets came from that rifle because of ballistics tests.

 

Because it was destroyed the same way.

 

By 2005 the War in Iraq was already becoming unpopular. If there was valid evidence of a cover up of a larger conspiracy there would have been an eager public for that evidence.

The Pentagon Papers were not leaked to the press until 1971. By then the War in Vietnam was unpopular. If that sort of thing had been leaked much earlier when the war was still popular the response would have been anger at the leakers, not the war.

 

DL, we all know that YOU killed Kennedy, Martin Luther King AND Lincoln; YOU were also behind the 9/11 attacks and personally spread flammable liquid throughout the buildings to make them burn faster and hotter. We all KNOW this, because.....well, we KNOW it. So there. Stop trying to cover up.