'9/11' WTC

[Roch]

Not sure if this has been done on here before...There seems to be a number of Americans seriously questioning the official version of events.  Hundreds of architects and scientists have formed a group questioning the scientific facts relating to the collapse of tower 1, tower 2 and tower 7.  Tower 7 wasn't hit by any plane, yet collapsed in a simlar manner to the two main towers, which broadcast footage showed had appeared to be hit by planes.   Some of the people commenting on this have claimed that there was Israeli / Mossad / American Neo-Con involvement in this attack and also, other notable 'terrorist' attacks. 

[No-Bits]

Not sure if this has been done on here before...There seems to be a number of Americans seriously questioning the official version of events.  Hundreds of architects and scientists have formed a group questioning the scientific facts relating to the collapse of tower 1, tower 2 and tower 7.  Tower 7 wasn't hit by any plane, yet collapsed in a simlar manner to the two main towers, which broadcast footage showed had appeared to be hit by planes.   Some of the people commenting on this have claimed that there was Israeli / Mossad / American Neo-Con involvement in this attack and also, other notable 'terrorist' attacks.

I think that is bonkers. 

What do you think?

[susan]

Morning harters  have not got a clue what Roch is talking about way over my head

[No-Bits]

Morning harters  have not got a clue what Roch is talking about way over my head

Morning Susan, I'm sure you are not alone. 

[lookout]

 This was a theory being bandied around.One in which I don't believe,sorry Roch.

[nugnug]

i have heard loads of theory's about this some of them were credible to start with but they just got daft and   after as they went on.

[gringo]

Not sure if this has been done on here before...There seems to be a number of Americans seriously questioning the official version of events.  Hundreds of architects and scientists have formed a group questioning the scientific facts relating to the collapse of tower 1, tower 2 and tower 7.  Tower 7 wasn't hit by any plane, yet collapsed in a simlar manner to the two main towers, which broadcast footage showed had appeared to be hit by planes.   Some of the people commenting on this have claimed that there was Israeli / Mossad / American Neo-Con involvement in this attack and also, other notable 'terrorist' attacks.

There is much about the official story which is questionable Roch and I don't believe that 9/11 could have been pulled off without state/secret service involvement.
        To believe the official version is to believe the biggest "conspiracy theory" of all.

[nugnug]

i find it hard to belive the amercan goverment did it themselves i could believe they knew and let it happen though.

[Roch]

I think that is bonkers. 

What do you think?

I think the focus on who was or was not responsible should be secondary to the science and engineering debate.  If people feel assured and comfortable with the official version of who was responsible, they could still explore the scientific debate from that standpoint. 

This is the Architects & Engineers site:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

Judy Wood's work is also interesting:
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Cant access her official sites for some reason. 

[Jo]

I've watched several conspiracy programmes along with them being debunker in the same way I've watched conspiracy theories about the assassination of JFK, the death of Princess Diana and I can't say I', swayed by any of them. People (some of them) seem to love a good conspiracy.
The only thing that struck me was a programme regarding the building of the towers and how well they faired despite being 'planed' and the fact they stood long enough for some people to escape, especially Brian Clarke and the rescue of Stanley Praimnath.
The only one true conspiracy regarding 9/11 is Tania Head.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tania_Head
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcKIp-PR4XM

[No-Bits]

I think the focus on who was or was not responsible should be secondary to the science and engineering debate.  If people feel assured and comfortable with the official version of who was responsible, they could still explore the scientific debate from that standpoint. 

This is the Architects & Engineers site:
http://www.ae911truth.org/en/home.html

Judy Wood's work is also interesting:
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/

Cant access her official sites for some reason.

Yeah but what do you think?  :D

As per my last PM, I don't have any particular knowledge of the processes involved in the collapse of the buildings at the WTC.

We do have regulations over here concerning 'Disproportionate Collapse' which relate to the ability of a building to stay standing following the damage or removal of key structural beams/columns. This came about following the collapse of Ronan Point in London in the 60's (due to a gas explosion I think, can't quite remember  ).

I've seen a few different videos regarding the WTC collapses, those towing the official line refer to 'Progressive Collapse' which involves the damage to a structural element which in turn causes excessive loads to other structural elements, making them then fail, the process repeating until the building can no longer stand.

There are then a whole bunch of other videos which offer up the various conspiracy theories, I recall seeing one which claimed that there was the remains of a US warhead visible in the debris at the Pentagon. Another suggested the plane which crashed before allegedly reaching its target was actually shot down.
One of the more recent videos that I've seen concentrated on the WTC7 building and suggested it had been destroyed by controlled demolition.

I haven't really spent too much time looking at the conspiracy theories, but to me personally, it all sounds a bit far fetched.

I find the whole disaster quite interesting (as many people do), it's one of those events that I can instantly remember where I was, watching it on the news at a golf club, thinking a plane had accidentally collided with the towers, when the second plane then struck live on the news report.

I think it's an event which sparks the imagination and lends itself to conspiracy theorists very easily.

[Roch]

Yeah but what do you think?  :D

As per my last PM, I don't have any particular knowledge of the processes involved in the collapse of the buildings at the WTC.

We do have regulations over here concerning 'Disproportionate Collapse' which relate to the ability of a building to stay standing following the damage or removal of key structural beams/columns. This came about following the collapse of Ronan Point in London in the 60's (due to a gas explosion I think, can't quite remember  ).

I've seen a few different videos regarding the WTC collapses, those towing the official line refer to 'Progressive Collapse' which involves the damage to a structural element which in turn causes excessive loads to other structural elements, making them then fail, the process repeating until the building can no longer stand.

There are then a whole bunch of other videos which offer up the various conspiracy theories, I recall seeing one which claimed that there was the remains of a US warhead visible in the debris at the Pentagon. Another suggested the plane which crashed before allegedly reaching its target was actually shot down.
One of the more recent videos that I've seen concentrated on the WTC7 building and suggested it had been destroyed by controlled demolition.

I haven't really spent too much time looking at the conspiracy theories, but to me personally, it all sounds a bit far fetched.

I find the whole disaster quite interesting (as many people do), it's one of those events that I can instantly remember where I was, watching it on the news at a golf club, thinking a plane had accidentally collided with the towers, when the second plane then struck live on the news report.

I think it's an event which sparks the imagination and lends itself to conspiracy theorists very easily.

I feel that one side may have presented an accepted 'conspiracy theory' already.  I certainly didn't question the official version.  I now worry that there's far more to the incident than the official version I accepted.  I feel less confident in my previous assumption that both towers collapsed as a direct result of being hit by planes.  I was not previously aware that other WTC structures had collapsed on the same site, without being hit by planes.  I no longer feel UK/USA Govt can be trusted to tell the truth.  I look at the WMD fiasco prior to the Iraq war and I no longer maintain the previous levels of acceptance I once casually adhered to.

[No-Bits]

I feel that one side may have presented an accepted 'conspiracy theory' already.  I certainly didn't question the official version.  I now worry that there's far more to the incident than the official version I accepted.  I feel less confident in my previous assumption that both towers collapsed as a direct result of being hit by planes.  I was not previously aware that other WTC structures had collapsed on the same site, without being hit by planes.  I no longer feel UK/USA Govt can be trusted to tell the truth.  I look at the WMD fiasco prior to the Iraq war and I no longer maintain the previous levels of acceptance I once casually adhered to.

Wow, that's a bit deep Roch. 

[Roch]

Wow, that's a bit deep Roch. 

Sorry, I didn't mean to sound deep.  I've just become extremely sceptical, compared with how I used to be.   

[lookout]

I can even remember what I had for my tea when that tragedy unfolded,because after being glued to the TV,I could no longer eat it. The time on the clock was 5.10pm.
Son-in-law turned the TV on and calmly said " look at this ". It shocked me to the core.