Conspiracy on 9/11?

[Lazermon]

Just as a fyi, I'm only starting this topic just for fun and to see what others think.  I am neutral in this matter and I'm not taking a side.

Alrighty partners, everyone has heard two sides to the 9/11 attack.  "Terrorist did it! or the famous "No they didn't.  It was a conspiracy that the government planned!"

So, how many of you think there was an actual attack on our world trade center towers in New York by terrorist, or how many of you think it was a US government conspiracy and/or cover up of something else?

Cast your vote and please explain your answer.

EDIT: Someone has already posted a vote and not a reason, lol. 

[Quinnzel]

Not a conspiracy.

The first sign of trouble in this thread, it will be closed. I remember all too well what happened last time we had this discussion.

[Lazermon]

I remember as well Myooze.  Will close if I see trouble as well.

Eh, now I feel like posting my opinion.

Its not a conspiracy.  Reason being is there was eye witnesses of the plane hitting the towers.

[iMon]

No, it's not a conspiracy.

However, there WERE bombs inside the WTC. That can be noticed by looking at the video. At the time of plane crash you see some little explosion way below of it. Also, WTC engineers themselves have admitted that WTC was made so it would resist a plane crash as well. Not only that, but if the WTC would fall, it would fall like a tree, not the way it did. It definitely had bombs.

[Lazermon]

No, it's not a conspiracy.

However, there WERE bombs inside the WTC. That can be noticed by looking at the video. At the time of plane crash you see some little explosion way below of it. Also, WTC engineers themselves have admitted that WTC was made so it would resist a plane crash as well. Not only that, but if the WTC would fall, it would fall like a tree, not the way it did. It definitely had bombs.

Hm...that's weird.  I've watched a lot of videos on that from a assortment of different angles and I never saw a little explosion.  Anyone happen to know what the explosion was for?  We know its from some placed bombs, but anyone know for what cause they went off?

[iMon]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

P.S: I don't understand why Pentagon's video doesn't show an aeroplane. They have loads of cameras there, can't they put up some good video at a decent angle?

[Lazermon]

That's so weird...

Guess there was bombs in the WTC.  This makes me want to become a high-ranking military officer or something to know everything that goes on with stuff like this.  That would be really cool, lol.

[Diamond Wings]

Oups, clicked wrong and I said yes but it's no... I don't believe that was a governement thing, it was by terrotists and I've got a proof... In 5/11 they exploded with Spanish trains and these terrotists organize the days that they will "attack" and they use dates... They use a lot the number 11...

[Lazermon]

Oups, clicked wrong and I said yes

I make polls to where you can change your answer, so you can do so.

[Quinnzel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8n-nT-luFIw

Mmm. I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k

Also, more on the squibs: http://debunking911.com/overp.htm

"Also, WTC engineers themselves have admitted that WTC was made so it would resist a plane crash as well. Not only that, but if the WTC would fall, it would fall like a tree, not the way it did. It definitely had bombs."

Your source on them saying the buildings were built to resist planes, please.

Fall like a tree when both buildings were hit above their mid sections? Both towers were aflame for quite some time. The steel's prolonged exposure to the flames plus the towering weight above caused it to bend and eventually collapse. The result is called "pancaking" and it's not exactly uncommon.

[iMon]

Mmm. I don't think so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tacYjsS-g6k

Also, more on the squibs: http://debunking911.com/overp.htm

"Also, WTC engineers themselves have admitted that WTC was made so it would resist a plane crash as well. Not only that, but if the WTC would fall, it would fall like a tree, not the way it did. It definitely had bombs."

Your source on them saying the buildings were built to resist planes, please.

Fall like a tree when both buildings were hit above their mid sections? Both towers were aflame for quite some time. The steel's prolonged exposure to the flames plus the towering weight above caused it to bend and eventually collapse. The result is called "pancaking" and it's not exactly uncommon.

I've seen it on TV, inteviewing WTC engineers and the architects also said that flames could not have made it fall.

It explained a bit about WTC architectures, how it had some support stuff in there. They also went on and said that no random explosion can make it fall. The bombs would have been put in certain tactical position for it to fall that way.

WTC wasn't an ordinary building. It was meant to hold.

Also, that debunker site, is no proof really, neither mine or your video. I just put my video to show Lazermon that there is a theory as well about what I said.

As for the pancake: http://www.911blogger.com/node/20429 You should read the PDF inside that page. It also explains how crazy it is that WTC7 fell without even a plane damage.

It needs to be damaged symmetrically to have that effect, WTC didn't.

However, it's an endless fight. Us people that discuss these stuff are no engineers.

[rubenjrc]

so at least we agree on something, there was a plane crash and not a consperice

[Quinnzel]

@iMon: Actually there is AN ABSOLUTE TON of proof and evidence on Debunking 9/11 website. Read it. It's all backed mathematically, scientifically, and logically. Loads of interviews with those who work in government and construction. I remember seeing an interview before where one of the builders said it was built to hold against small plane crashes, but nobody could have predicted a full-scale Boeing would hit head on. And it did resist, but it is a fact that if you expose steel to flame and heat, eventually it will bend. Everything has it's breaking point. The towers may have been built to sustain damage, but they still fell within the hour. Also, WTC7 didn't need plane damage when it was being constantly hit with huge amounts of piling debris from the towers not to mention the fires going on inside. I'd rather believe science and logic than those that quote out of context. But then, it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist, because truth just fuels their lies.

@rubenjrc: Your sentence doesn't make sense, but yes. There were planes. That debate was one of the things that caused this conversation to get out of hand the last time.

[Lazermon]

so at least we agree on something, there was a plane crash and not a conspiracy.

Ya, so far no one is saying its a government planned thing or aliens visited earth.

but it is a fact that if you expose steel to flame and heat, eventually it will bend.  this conversation to get out of hand the last time.

Yup, I agree with that.  Metal will eventually bend and start to melt if you hit the right temperature.

[iMon]

@iMon: Actually there is AN ABSOLUTE TON of proof and evidence on Debunking 9/11 website. Read it. It's all backed mathematically, scientifically, and logically. Loads of interviews with those who work in government and construction. I remember seeing an interview before where one of the builders said it was built to hold against small plane crashes, but nobody could have predicted a full-scale Boeing would hit head on. And it did resist, but it is a fact that if you expose steel to flame and heat, eventually it will bend. Everything has it's breaking point. The towers may have been built to sustain damage, but they still fell within the hour. Also, WTC7 didn't need plane damage when it was being constantly hit with huge amounts of piling debris from the towers not to mention the fires going on inside. I'd rather believe science and logic than those that quote out of context. But then, it's pointless to argue with a conspiracy theorist, because truth just fuels their lies. 

http://www.ae911truth.org/downloads/29_Structural-Civil_Engineers_2009-06-17.pdf

Not sure if you saw that.