Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
News
Original poster

investigate 9/11

1000 replies

BeetrootsResolution · 30/12/2006 12:39

My uncle sent me this and thought it was an appropriate time to share it with you

The Truth?

OP posts:
ludaloo · 31/12/2006 11:25

Well....there you go...!
I'm no building expert by any means...that may well be the exact cause of WTC 7 falling.

The pictures of it falling are however extraordinary...and you can see why people are slightly sceptical.

I still sit on the fence....

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:26

Erm but the two I posted WEREN'T straw men - they are direct responses to questions that you were asking. I can't see how that is invalid OR a straw man.

JanH · 31/12/2006 11:26

"The entire building fell in on itself, with the slumping east side of the structure pulling down the west side in a diagonal collapse."

No it didn't! You can see it in one of those videos, dropping to the ground in a nice neat straight line in 6.6 seconds.

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce · 31/12/2006 11:28

"A straw man argument is a logical fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw-man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent."

They were both questions you were asking and both questions asked by 911 conspiracy theorists, so how is that a straw man by that definition?

JanH · 31/12/2006 11:30

Also, WTC7 was on a different block from the towers - and there were plenty of other buildings around it - none of those collapsed.

More detail about WTC 7's collapse

JanH · 31/12/2006 11:32

I didn't say that those were straw men, just that some of the points in the piece are.

And it is wrong about the way WTC7 collapsed.

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:32

The think is Janh, this is difficult. I'm a good scientist, but I am no expert in this. It is darf=d to understand how metals act under pressure and heat, and people spend a life time working on this stuff.

So it is hard to understand. And we all need to understand stuff. It is ahuman drive above most things

So likewise evolution is hard to undertstand, people don't understand it, but can undestand creationism.

This sounds patronisng, it isn't honestly. It is much easier to accpt the easy answer, we all do it all the time.

I've just done a thread on here about misunderstandings in scince. These happen everywhere, in every culture and are deeply embeded. We have this huge drive to have an answer, and if we can't understand the 'real' one, we make up our own. It is natural, inherant.

I'll be honest, I don't undetstand the big bang theory. So I find 'The Lord said, 'Let there be light' a charming and passable explanation of what happened. I wouldn't argue the toss with Stephen Hawin tho!

ludaloo · 31/12/2006 11:34

WTC7 FALL

Hope this works...not great at links!

This is a comparison against a controlled fall and gravity

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:46

So, their thesis seems to be (and I'll be honest the voice was so awful I may have drifted ) The building fell faster than free fall. This isn't possible. I'm putting money on their calculations being crap, or the simulation of the free fall being crap. You are trusting to the programmers of the simulation being fullty correct. I've used some that were dodgy in the past.

Your choice, a. cock up in calculations

b. The CIA did it.

I'm still going with a. myself

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:48

Oh, and theu only appraesed to be doing the catculations for the metal supports, not all the other stuff in the building....or was that in the bit where i drifted off?

ludaloo · 31/12/2006 11:51

I have to say...My speakers don't work...I have listened to this one with dh at his work..that was a while ago now.

I agree with you again MB...its all a bit inconclusive...just it does make me raise an eyebrow

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 11:54

www.911myths.com/WTCREPORT.pdf

links to a site by a guy who appears to understand his physics rather well.

I'll be up front, the maths is beyond me, but it doesn't seem to be beyond him

and this pulls me back to my point, since I donbt that many of us can understand this guy, but want to undestand the whole thing, it is 'easier' to go with the conspiracy thing.

sandcastles · 31/12/2006 12:00

Sobernow, so he was asked not to discuss it?

But he discussed it with you? Not very reliable, is he?

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 12:05

what is the significance of building 7? What was in there?

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 12:06

It fell much later in the day. To the conspiracy theorist this is 'proof' that all of them were brought down by controled detonations within the buildings. However that doesn't really explain what the planes were for.......

Papillon · 31/12/2006 12:10

RubberDuckWithCranberrySauce I just read that link you posted that MB posted about "...a whole load of stuff about the science behind WHY the WTC towers collapsed"

The article states an expert saying "It's very hard to document where the fuel went," - video footage showed a big fuel fire ball outside the WTC building. They say that steel twists, warps, bends and sags. The WTC did not do much warping! I am posting a link of the Madrid skyscraper fire. The 2nd link shows lots of photos of the fire - so much more extensive than the WTC fires - and the building did not collapse.

While the process "pancaking" does not require an explosion to begin, how such pockets of fire could enter the lifts shafts when there would not be enough oxygen to sustain the fire?? I remember something in the video about that - would have to watch it again though!

Madrid skyscraper burns

good pictures of the fire

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 12:11

Yes but what I mean is that if the conspiracy theories are correct and WTC7 was a government controlled demolition then there must have been a specific reason for demolishing that particular building? Why not one adjacent to the WTC which would have been more logical.

I have in the something in the back of my mind about who was housed in this building but can't for the life of me remember!

Blandmum · 31/12/2006 12:17

There would be lots of oxygen in there....that is what the people were breathing!

What they say is that you can't prove where the av fuel when....because no-one can, but gases expand when heated and flow.

and there is documented evidence that some lifts were on fire...and the people in them

The theorist feel that because they have shown that wtc7 was 'demolished' ,m which, INHO they have not, the other two were demolised as well. Which still doesn't explain the planes. Why fly planes in, if you are just going to blow the things up, why add things that might go wrong!

You always keep things as simple as you can if you are spreading a lie!

JanH · 31/12/2006 12:24

mb, I tried really really hard with that scientific report but went cross-eyed very early on

JT, WTC7 was full of government departments - they are listed in the Loose Change film - including one which was investigating financial irregularities in Wall Street.

Incriminating data was recovered later by a computer salvage company (if that's the right term) from hard discs found in the rubble, handed over to investigators and never heard of again. Allegedly.

ruty · 31/12/2006 12:25

I find it so weird that people get really into the conspiracy theory, but get quite bored by the real, scandalous, facts about the case. And they are that yes, the Bush family had business links with the Bin Ladens, and were responsible for both Saddam Hussein's rise to power and Osama Bin Laden's success in Afghanistan. Yes, the Bush govt was gagging to get into Iraq and take financial control, they were going to find a wy with or without an attack on the USA. Yes, the Bush govt ignored all warnings of attacks and were deliberately unprepared. Clinton nearly got impeached for having a blow job and Bush has got away with all of this. And
I find that much harder to believe than believing two aeroplanes could bring down the WTC.

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 12:25

I've come up with my own theory for the WTC's collapse (I should start a website )

What if ..........................

there were more terrorists inside the WTC on 11 September and the plan was to raze the towers to the ground all along. So along with training terrorists to fly they also had explosive experts who planted bombs in the two towers on days leading up to 9/11 and who detonated those bombs at an arranged time after the planes crashed.

Maximum impact to a world audience.

ruty · 31/12/2006 12:26

sorry, the American govt was responsible for Saddam and Bin Laden's rise to power, not the Bush family all on their own...

Papillon · 31/12/2006 12:26

Lies can often tend to get out of control though - on both sides of the fence imo!

There were fires in lifts with people in them I would have thought the first thing to not be used would have been the lifts and use the stairs.

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 12:27

oh thanks Jan - I think that's where I'd heard it - I watched Loose Change last year so have forgotten!

What do you think of my theory?

JoolsToo · 31/12/2006 12:37

so ridiculous it demolished the thread - down you went like a controlled implosion

I'll get me coat

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Join Mumsnet Log In
This thread is not accepting new messages.