|
9/11
Dec 9, 2007 22:20:07 GMT -5
Post by jesusaurus on Dec 9, 2007 22:20:07 GMT -5
I voted no, I don't see how anyone could live with killing that many innocent people for oil or whatnot... but it is Bush
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 9, 2007 23:18:42 GMT -5
Post by Classicblast on Dec 9, 2007 23:18:42 GMT -5
No. I don't believe it. Not for a moment.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 10, 2007 0:37:42 GMT -5
Post by grape on Dec 10, 2007 0:37:42 GMT -5
I'm not so sure. I'm not against the U.S. or anything (i was born there). But after seeing some footage of the attack, it looked very suspicious.
First of all, it was the first building to collapse after a plane crash, It was extremely too tall and too strong to just fall after a plane hits it. Second, when the building fell, the tower seemed to collapse without damaging any other buildings. Also, the collapse looked very similar to a controlled bomb demolition of a building. And I believe it is possible that the government could have killed many lives just for oil.
Plus, there were many problems in the Middle East with the U.S. along with their wealth in oil. Then also looking at the Bush family, it has been known that they have had a knack for oil.
So I'm guessing he thought that since there are issues in Afghanistan and Iraq, the twin towers were a famous landmark AND Iraq and the middle east happens to have a great wealth in oil. He decided to make a plan to have an excuse to get into war with Iraq and the middle east.
But of course, nobody can be too sure about the past, we only have memories and evidence.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 10, 2007 1:07:31 GMT -5
Post by Blastgirl on Dec 10, 2007 1:07:31 GMT -5
Actually the plane acts as a missal and the jet fuel reaches high temperatures and ignites. And as far as the way the buildings fall inside themselves, they're designed to implode. That's done to try to keep the wreckage within the premises as much as they can.
In fact when the do the demolitions of old buildings if they're tall buildings that's how they perform the demolition.
They use TNT to detonate and then the building implodes within itself usually not damaging surrounding places very much if at all.
I do not believe in a conspiracy theory.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 10, 2007 3:50:07 GMT -5
Post by grape on Dec 10, 2007 3:50:07 GMT -5
hmm, you got me there. Especially with the part of the implosion design. One of my friends are studying architecture, he's told me once that there are building that are designed to implode during a collapse.
Although, I still have a doubt with the plane. How fast were the planes traveling before they hit the towers? The fuel did ignite right after the plane crashed into the tower, but the tower collapsed a lot of time after the attack. That still gives me a doubt.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 10, 2007 14:30:59 GMT -5
Post by Phil on Dec 10, 2007 14:30:59 GMT -5
I say no. I doubt that any government would let foreign attacks happen for the simple fact that it's proof now its possible to attack on American soil even if it was an ambush. It can happen because it did.
The implosion as Mrs.Blast said and you knew already the buildings are designed that way for the reasons both of you said to keep damage control without destroying 15 blocks around them.
The average jet travels around 500 even it it was going 200 when it hit the tower the fuel would ignite and jet fuel is among the most explosive of things. Then it would have the blow torch effect. A blow torch can use acetylene. Acetylene fires melt steel in a matter of seconds.
Once a fire as hot as what a jet fire explosion would create got the metal beams hot they would bend and the floor would collapse once that happened the next floor would not be strong enough to hold up the above floors and it would snap and then the floor below it an so on and so on and pretty soon the whole building is fallen remembering we started this fall down about 1200 feet from the ground. By the time it falls it gains more swiftness as it falls causing more damage as it implodes.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 23, 2007 1:02:44 GMT -5
Post by edlin on Dec 23, 2007 1:02:44 GMT -5
Pffft. Conspiracy theories are invented by smart people with lots of time on their hands, and then believed by dumb or inattentive people.
Also, Phil has pretty well explained the cause of the collapses. The heat from the crashes caused the beams to get hot and bendy, and eventually collapse under the weight of the upper floors.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 23, 2007 16:12:50 GMT -5
Post by dannyboy on Dec 23, 2007 16:12:50 GMT -5
I would say no and I hope its not a conspiracy.
I would like to maintain some faith in humanity not that our government or any government would allow something to happen just to make us believe in an enemy who doesn't really exist.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 24, 2007 14:52:44 GMT -5
Post by Phil on Dec 24, 2007 14:52:44 GMT -5
I would basically echo the last 2 posts that I would just hope that nobody in government could quite that needy for excuses to partake in that kind of a conspiracy.
As for the construction of the building and the effects of steel being heated up and fatigued and weight causing the collapse I understand that pretty well. So I could follow that sequence.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 24, 2007 15:57:03 GMT -5
Post by Jersey on Dec 24, 2007 15:57:03 GMT -5
It's ridiculous to me that people can actually believe that our own government killed innocent Americans for oil or any of the other crap theories they've come up with.
It was extremist Islamic terrorism. Bottom line.
Oh, and my vote went to the option that basically says that conspiracy theories are stupid.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 25, 2007 2:43:30 GMT -5
Post by Classicblast on Dec 25, 2007 2:43:30 GMT -5
I think there's some interest in a story and an unsolved mystery too.
For my entire life I remember there was always and still is people discussing if there was some others besides Lee Harvey Oswald involved in shooting President Kennedy.
We may never know. Some say that Jack Ruby killing Oswald was to make sure Oswald never tells the truth about what happened. Others said that Ruby was just angry about Oswald killing the President. Ruby had cancer anyway and would likely die before trial which he did.
But even people who do not think Oswald was part of a plot would have to wonder what was in it for Lee Oswald to shoot Kennedy?
Again we will probably never know. Insanity is not always clear. I believe Leon Czoglaz (sp) shot President McKinley because he said that McKinley as President was standing in the way of Leon's destiny to be King or America.
Yes he was a nutjob. But he had a reason nomatter how warped. Oswald was killed before revealing his reason being something like that or he was paid by someone or a group to shoot the President.
|
|
|
9/11
Dec 28, 2007 2:27:12 GMT -5
Post by Mahnarch on Dec 28, 2007 2:27:12 GMT -5
A fully loaded and fuelled 747 gains lift at 215 KIAS (Knots Indicated Air Speed) and stalls (lack of airflow over the wings) below that. Being that they had just left JFK shortly before that they were still at MAX GROSS.
At 400,000+ lbs in a shallow dive, those 747s would be travelling at least 475KIAS, plenty enough to destroy it on impact.
E=MC2
E=400,000 x 300,000 x 300,000
E= 45 to the 15th power.
That's alot of 'E'.
Yeah. I'm bored with this semi-joke, super-mathematical post. I'm gonna rub on some Aspercreme and crash.
|
|
|
9/11
Jan 9, 2008 0:33:18 GMT -5
Post by edlin on Jan 9, 2008 0:33:18 GMT -5
Yes, nice job, that's how much energy the 747s would release if annihilated with an equal amount of antimatter.
|
|
|
9/11
Jan 9, 2008 1:53:19 GMT -5
Post by Captain Awesome on Jan 9, 2008 1:53:19 GMT -5
KE = 1/2mv^2
(400,000kg x (212m/s x 212m/s)) / 2
= 8,988,800,000 J
...which is a lot of energy, not to mention the energy stored in highly flammable jet fuel.
|
|
|
9/11
Jan 9, 2008 16:05:35 GMT -5
Post by GetZ on Jan 9, 2008 16:05:35 GMT -5
Yes, nice job, that's how much energy the 747s would release if annihilated with an equal amount of antimatter. ...Well, he used lbs as a measure of mass. It's not. Pounds are a measure of force. Also I wouldn't use E=MC² Anyways, I tend to think that the US gov. knew that something was on the way because I saw a video that pointed out that there were some curious behaviors surrounding security measures that were apparently taken at the WTC in the weeks leading up to the events on 9/11. I doubt that anybody knew exactly what was going to happen and I doubt that it was taken as anything more than a serious threat. I also don't think that it would've mattered who was president at the time. It's just hard to believe that absolutely no intel. at all was in existence regarding a possible attack on this scale and in this manner by Bin Laden; everybody already knew about the training camps and the ideas being taught there. On a related note, I saw "Charlie Wilson's War" last weekend. It doesn't really provide any new insight into the workings of Afghanistan that most people don't already know. But it does tell a very interesting story that I had no idea existed. I never knew that that is how the US became involved in fighting the Soviets over there in the 80's.
|
|
|
9/11
Jan 9, 2008 18:43:07 GMT -5
Post by Classicblast on Jan 9, 2008 18:43:07 GMT -5
I don't doubt there were some threats but I'm with GetZ that I doubt they knew exactly what was going to be the nature of the attacks.
But security and worries threats of problems like this are plentiful so I don't doubt that government officials had some suspicion that something was up.
But for me to believe that the US government was involved in a conspiracy that allowed such a tragedy and let it happen anyway for an excuse to go to wary I just can't believe that.
|
|