twin tower bombs

Discussion in 'Conspiracy' started by cooler king, May 29, 2013.

  1. cooler king

    cooler king Guest

    Hi, really enjoy reading these conspiracys but I have noticed a lot of people keep saying about the twin towers were rigged to collapse after the planes hit by america itself!! If there were really bombs at strategic points why did they start to fall floor by floor from the place the planes hit surely it would have buckled lower down or something.
  2. jambo101

    jambo101 Member

    Conspiracy theories and logic dont always go together.
    sure there are some unexplained events that happened in the WTC tragedy but i dont immediately think it was an inside job committed by our own government, to rig the WTC buildings and other buildings with explosives would have been the biggest demolition job in history,would have involved hundreds of people and would have required tons of explosives,to believe it all could have been done covertly with no one saying anything is a rather very long stretch of the imagination.
  3."]Loose Change 2nd Edition (Full Length) - YouTube
  4. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    chaney, rove and rumsfield were the masterminds, ben lauden was the subcontractor.
    yes exploding jet fuel from the planes weakened the building's structure sufficiently to bring them down. how they were brought down wasn't the conspiracy nor part of it.

    how the attack was carried out however, was kristal noct, not pearl harbour.

    what i mean is that there is reasonable cause for suspician, and that they need to be tried in international court. i don't mean to imply that i and those who agree with me couldn't be mistaken, i just mean there is overwhelming evidence in the public record to suggest this as being a very real probability. one with more then enough suspicious cause, as to mandate criminal proceedings.
  5. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    rumsfield recruited ben lauden as contractor, carl rove was the master mind, and dick cheney financed the opperations. that's my speculation.

    bush himself was mushruoom farmed. not that i think he would have choosen to be innocent, or that he was entirely unaware, but i don't think he entirely realized it was actually rove pulling his puppet strings. that he may have actually imagined he had been put in charge.

    but i don't think the troika actually trusted him enough not to stupidly get under foot.

    like i said before, that's all speculation, and it needs and should be up to a court of law, probably something like the nurnberg war crimes tribunal after the attrocities of hitler's minions from world war two, to be given unfettered access to all pertenit documentation and objectively decide.
  6. Pressed_Rat

    Pressed_Rat Do you even lift, bruh?

    Anyone who doesn't think the towers were brought down in a controlled demolition need only look at the perfect collapse of WTC-7 on the evening of 9/11. I personally don't think the towers were brought down the same way, but if one building was intentionally demolished that day, what makes it so hard to believe the others were not as well? Never before 9/11 have buildings collapsed from what we were told the main cause of the collapses on 9/11 to be: fire.
  7. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    The trade center was actually built to withstand the impact of a jet. So we either have a shitty engineer or a lie. Allot of evidence would support the lie, but to believe that would mean the government does not have your best interest in mind. This is the part people can not get their head around so they label anyone who asks questions as a nut.
  8. themnax

    themnax Senior Member

    building 7 very likely did have a self destruct mechanism, triggered by the impacts of the collapse of towers one and two. that part is reasonable. to protect the secricy of classified documents archived there.

    how the buildings were brought down isn't the important question, and there's no reason to assume the colapse of towers one and two couldn't have been as claimed.

    what matters is WHY they were brought down. why those planes were deliberately crashed into them.

    sure ben lauden and al-cia-da, but did they just have a wild hair up their ass, or were the subcontracted by inside interests in the u.s. to pull it off, and for what reason?

    could it not possibly to make excuses for the very actions that fallowed? the so called patriot act that so closely mimics hitler's enabling legislation and so on?

    how it was done, is really not the part that matters, that it was a krystal knockt, and not a pearl harbour is.

    GLENGLEN Lifetime Supporter


    Cheers Glen.
  10. RIPTIDE59

    RIPTIDE59 Banned

    Personally , the only conspiracy I can see is a concerted effort on the part of an islamo friendly administration to remove islam from the murders of 9/11 ASAP. Can barry even say the ISLAMO TERRORISM?
  11. odonII

    odonII O

    Not open to scrutiny?
  12. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    What is the purpose of this in your opinion? I think your missing the big picture but I am curious.
  13. odonII

    odonII O

    I think RIPTIDE59 likes the term: ISLAMO TERRORISM
  14. graxton

    graxton Member

    The WTC towers were designed to sustain an impact of a jet liner and they did. There wasn't shitty engineering or a lie.

    The engineers in the 1960's didn't consider the weakening effects of ensuing fires after an impact of the magnitude that occurred on 9/11. For skyscrapers the size and height of the towers and the type of impact, it would have been difficult and expensive to design a way of controlling the ensuing fires even if it had been considered. It also would have been difficult to justify such a cost in the 1960's era when an event such as 9/11 had yet to be seen.

    It's remarkable that both towers survived the impact of a large aircraft with full tanks of fuel and remained standing for an hour. Conspiracy theories could easily be concocted that government agents sneaked into the towers and secretly reinforced them so that they would survive for an hour after impact to maximize the duration of dramatic effect on the public.
  15. Dude111

    Dude111 An Awesome Dude

    Its good you are awake!!!

    Welcome to Hipforums :)
  16. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    They didn't, they would not have fallen otherwise at any point. It's ridiculous to think that heat can cause bolts to pop out.And even if it did the building would have fallen in a random manner. Like one side colapses. The way those buldings fall is only possible with a controled demolition.

    And there is building 7 which was not "hit by a plane" and yet it falls hours later despite having several buildings between it and the trade centers which did not fall.

    People don't want to believe this because it means accepting their government does not have their best interest in mind.
  17. odonII

    odonII O

    This is so patronising :frown:
  18. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    It's not my intention to insult anyone. But that is the issue right? You believe the government therefore the idea that they would be behind 9/11 is unacceptable. I realize it is not your government , but our two governments are very close and one knows what the other is doing.
  19. odonII

    odonII O

    Your comment presumes I can't believe anything other than an alternative theory. I'd be a mug to.

    With out going into great detail:

    'It's ridiculous to think that heat can cause bolts to pop out.And even if it did the building would have fallen in a random manner. Like one side colapses. The way those buldings fall is only possible with a controled demolition. '

    From what I could see, the area above the plane strikes (you do accept aeroplanes hit the towers, right?) lent and then fell - because the vast majority of that area had been damaged. So, hot/melted bolts had no real baring on if the tower(s) stood or fell. One side did collapse. That's why the portion above the strikes leans.

    I'm not trying to get into a big debate about the incident - just the notion I can't have any other opinion because 'the gov' doesn't agree with you, and is more inline with what I think. My thoughts came first - a long time before I had read anything 'the gov' had to say on the matter.

    'your entitled to your opinion. But until you accept it is possible to be lied to there is nothing I can say to convince you.'

    I can conceive 'I was lied to' - I just don't think I was.
  20. unfocusedanakin

    unfocusedanakin The Archaic Revival Lifetime Supporter

    No, I am not sure if if a plane did hit actually. If it did it was not a commercial aircraft. That sort of plane would not be black with no windows.

    The passengers on the planes were not everyday people. There was motivation to make sure they did not talk. The plane they were on was flown to some base and they were never heard from again.

    But many people initially said it was explosions at the base of the towers. The plan story came out a few hours later. It's not hard to make a plane appear on TV. It is possible to beam a hologram into the sky, it has been tested.

    How would you explain the pentagon attack? The size of the hole in that building does not even come close to being big enough for an air craft? And the footage that has gotten out despite their efforts shows a explosion from inside the building, but no plane.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice