My theory of 9/11

Discussion in 'Science & History' started by Vidic15, Nov 25, 2009.

  1. Vidic15

    Vidic15 No Custom Title Exists V.I.P. Lifetime

    Been discussing it with my mate tonight and I've came up with such theories that have even amazed me.

    America needed motive to invade The Middle East, they wanted power, and motive was something they didn't have beforehand this incident.

    I don't seem how such a small plane, hitting TOP of the building could have prompted the highest building in USA to fall down so easy. They were designed for SEVERAL planes to hit, yet alone one. Plenty of aircraft have hit buildings in the past, burnt for days on end, and survived to this day yet one building that burns for a few hours falls COMPLETELY into itself. Mind you, for a building to fall directly into it self, the ONLY answer is a controlled demolition, which falls at free fall speed plus you can see the levels popping out as the building falls.

    What if Pentagon was a distraction? To brush the future conspiracy theories about 9/11? Well, the funny thing about that is the plane hit the ONLY part of the pentagon that was build to withstand an aircraft hitting it.. they were renovating each part with MASSIVE concrete walls and huge thick glass and stuff the plane managed to hit the ONLY part which had been done they suspect it was a missile that hit the pentagon, not a plane.


    What makes me wonder about the image is how can such a plane, prompt a damage that big, with a rather big power needed to split the building in half?

    Cause there is no lawn damage, the hole in the building shows no wing/tail damage from the aircraft.. also, there is no left over bits of the "american airlines jet that apparently crashed into the towers. But can it be somehow stimulated or rather fake VIDEO of the crash? Bit suspicious that a person was recording the buildings in such precious time like this?

    something odd also happened that day. And people speculated that a news organisation was in on it also. They had a LIVE reporter (with views of the buildings in the background) clearly visible, they said "THE SECOND WORLD TRADE CENTRE BUILDING HAS FALLEN", and it was standing perfectly behind them, so people got very suspicious at that, but they claimed it was just bad information.

  2. CaptainObvious

    CaptainObvious Son of Liberty V.I.P.

    Do you have any evidence of your claim that the twin towers were designed to withstand several planes hitting it? And they weren't small planes, they were commercial jets.

    I'm not a fan of conspiracy theories in general, which is why I have a hard time tolerating Oliver Stone movies. But if you look at what happened, it would take THOUSANDS of people to be involved in a conspiracy that large. I just don't see it.
  3. Major

    Major 4 legs good 2 legs bad V.I.P.

    Your theory is nothing new. I'm not necessarily saying I disagree with it entirely, but some of your information is false. Like CO said, they were large commercial airliners that hit the towers, not small planes. They were loaded with enough fuel for cross-country flights.

    What I don't get is why there was no plane wreckage at any of the crash sites. Whether or not the government was behind the attacks, I have no idea. But it definitely seems like they're covering something up.
  4. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    What I don't get is why almost nobody seems willing to accept the simplest of possibilities; a group of religious nuts with a death wish hijacked America-bound airliners with the intent of flying them into buildings of international importance to garner political attention. They collapsed, because they were 1,300 ft. of steel and glass jutting unnaturally into the air, and smashing an airliner filled with jet-fuel into things generally tends to have a structurally-compromising effect. I really do think people take for granted the miraculous precariousness of actually standing on the 110th floor of a skyscraper.

    All that, and the fact that even the biggest retard on the planet could come up with a better conspiracy plan to justify an invasion of the Middle-East than to cripple one of their own cities and kill thousands of civilians, who's families are going to be manically looking for conspiracies and someone to blame after the fact.

    I blame Hollywood.
    Sim and CaptainObvious like this.
  5. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    Yes, you are correct that the Twin towers were designed to survive several plane impacts. However, the designers only accounted for the kinetic energy of the impact. They forgot to account for the jet fuel. The planes that hit the WTCs took out of Logan airport, a short ride away. They where fully loaded with fuel when they hit the Towers. The impact removed all fire retardent foam on the steel beams, and then the jet fuel fires weakened the steel. The crisscrossing I beams that support the floors started to sag, and then broke, and fell on to the level below, building momentum, and creating the pancake effect we all saw.

    Do you know how much explosives, explosive materials, and work it would take to take down just ONE of the WTC? Then you have to account for the fact that the work would have to be done secretly. I would take months and dozens of dozens of workers. Then their are det chords, wires, blasting caps, and explosive residues that would be left behind. None of those materials where found. The only explosive materials found where basic Nitroglycerine that could have been made in any laboratorie, and explosive no longer used in decontruction, and was smuggled onto the planes that crashed into the towers.

    Physical Science does not lie.
    PretzelCorps likes this.
  6. PretzelCorps

    PretzelCorps Registered Member

    That, and "designed to be X" doesn't mean X. *cough* Titanic. *cough*

    I also recall seeing some articles that suggested there were cuts in construction budget because the people building the twins didn't believe they'd ever actually be hit by aircraft, but that may be hearsay.
  7. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    Those budget cuts you are talking about are simple. The interior was supposed to be built of sheetrock, but it was replaced with drywall. Thats all I remember, but I do remember that all budget cuts where minor and not structural in nature.
  8. Airfield

    Airfield Registered Member

    Can anyone please explain me the point of coming up with those 9/11 conspiracy theories?
  9. MAgnum9987

    MAgnum9987 Do What Thou Wilt

    People always see imaginary connections between their gov't and a tragic event. People did with PEarl Harbor, JFK, and now this. People always see something wrong when the event would be perfectly fine.
  10. Smelnick

    Smelnick Creeping On You V.I.P.

    It makes perfect sense that a commercial airliner of that size and going that speed could take down a building that tall. All it needs to do is remove the structural integrity of one floor, and the rest will go down. I think the reason it fell straight down is simple. The plan crashed and it's momentum crashed it into the middle of the building. Several floors were burning. naturally the middle of the first floor to go would go, since that's where the plane would have exploded. Thus the middle starts falling first, and the sides fall inward. Even if the building was supposed to survive a plane crash, I doubt the building could have been designed to withstand the top half hitting the bottom half.

Share This Page