Metal Reviews
https://metalreviews.com/phpBB/

9/11 conspiracy theories:
https://metalreviews.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?f=11&t=7172		 Page 1 of 4
Author:  Cú Chulainn [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:07 pm ]
Post subject:  9/11 conspiracy theories:
bollocks or not?
Author:  Al@metalreviews [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
The world is never that interesting. Bollocks
Author:  Astaroth [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:13 pm ]
Post subject: 
i don't think it's entirely bollock. But some of it is, without daubt.

but you can see this, and i believe some of the stuff he sais (untill the opposit is proven), best video i've seen so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYepwRb ... on%20crash

He's discussing the laws of nature which were violated the 9-11.

- f.ex. the fall took 10 sec which is the same as free fall (without any resistance).. and no buildings fall with the speed of free fall, especielly not the way the WTC's collapsed

- The metal beams could withstand a whole lot more heat (4-6 times more, 3000 fahrenheit) and for a longer period of time, 6 hours at 2000 fahrenheit, . But the WTC collapse only 45 mins after, even into their own footsteps. Highest temperature: 1300 fahrenheit, average (500-600)

- First time in history a buildings made of steel collapse that way due to fire on an upper floor.

Most likely to have been rigged.
Author:  stuartn15ted [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
any of you guys seen loose change???
Author:  Carnifex Umbris [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
The WTC towers fell the way they did because they were designed to do so. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had fallen sideways???
Author:  Astaroth [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 9:58 pm ]
Post subject: 
Carnifex Umbris wrote:
The WTC towers fell the way they did because they were designed to do so. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had fallen sideways???


yup, i could :wink: .. but the towers were designed not to fall in the first place, they were designed to withstand heavy damage from big motherfuck planes :D



btw, i talked to a guy who told me he had seen an amateur videoclip of the Boeing chrashing into the Pentagon.. i've looked all over the net for it, but hasn't found it.. does any of you guys/girls know anything about that? cuz the official released videoclip is beyond worthless.
.. of course, he could have been talking about the WTC towers, he's not the brightest person i know
Author:  leee [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:27 pm ]
Post subject: 
Astaroth wrote:
i don't think it's entirely bollock. But some of it is, without daubt.

but you can see this, and i believe some of the stuff he sais (untill the opposit is proven), best video i've seen so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYepwRb ... on%20crash

He's discussing the laws of nature which were violated the 9-11.

- f.ex. the fall took 10 sec which is the same as free fall (without any resistance).. and no buildings fall with the speed of free fall, especielly not the way the WTC's collapsed

- The metal beams could withstand a whole lot more heat (4-6 times more, 3000 fahrenheit) and for a longer period of time, 6 hours at 2000 fahrenheit, . But the WTC collapse only 45 mins after, even into their own footsteps. Highest temperature: 1300 fahrenheit, average (500-600)

- First time in history a buildings made of steel collapse that way due to fire on an upper floor.

Most likely to have been rigged.


Go read the Popular Mechanics article the debunks all of the points you just made in a scientific way. Is an interesting read.

I say bullshit......
Author:  Orion [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:30 pm ]
Post subject: 
100% bollocks
Author:  stuartn15ted [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:36 pm ]
Post subject: 
Astaroth wrote:
i don't think it's entirely bollock. But some of it is, without daubt.

but you can see this, and i believe some of the stuff he sais (untill the opposit is proven), best video i've seen so far:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaYepwRb ... on%20crash

He's discussing the laws of nature which were violated the 9-11.

- f.ex. the fall took 10 sec which is the same as free fall (without any resistance).. and no buildings fall with the speed of free fall, especielly not the way the WTC's collapsed

- The metal beams could withstand a whole lot more heat (4-6 times more, 3000 fahrenheit) and for a longer period of time, 6 hours at 2000 fahrenheit, . But the WTC collapse only 45 mins after, even into their own footsteps. Highest temperature: 1300 fahrenheit, average (500-600)

- First time in history a buildings made of steel collapse that way due to fire on an upper floor.

Most likely to have been rigged.

That was an intresting vid. I already knew about most of it because i have seen loose change but he put an interesting new angle on it. One thing that i didn't know was the when Bush and Chaney testified to the 9/11 comission they refused to do so under oath, I find that quite incredible.

Astaroth wrote:
btw, i talked to a guy who told me he had seen an amateur videoclip of the Boeing chrashing into the Pentagon.. i've looked all over the net for it, but hasn't found it.. does any of you guys/girls know anything about that? cuz the official released videoclip is beyond worthless.
.. of course, he could have been talking about the WTC towers, he's not the brightest person i know

Such a video does not exist, the only known tapes are from the gas station over the road from which the stills are taken and from a hotel also over the road and a road traffic camera. All of these tapes were taken by the FBI within minutes of the 'plane' crash.

Carnifex Umbris wrote:
The WTC towers fell the way they did because they were designed to do so. Can you imagine what would have happened if they had fallen sideways???

as astaroth said, they were designed to withstand a plane crash, the link he post before has more information on that.
Author:  stuartn15ted [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 10:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
leee wrote:
Go read the Popular Mechanics article the debunks all of the points you just made in a scientific way. Is an interesting read.

I say bullshit......

a link for that would be great thanks!
Author:  Astaroth [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:01 pm ]
Post subject: 
stuartn15ted wrote:
leee wrote:
Go read the Popular Mechanics article the debunks all of the points you just made in a scientific way. Is an interesting read.

I say bullshit......

a link for that would be great thanks!


http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... page=1&c=y here you go!


i have to admit that some of the claims were rather stupid, and i've never believed those, heh.
I'm happy that some of the claims very debunk, but i still think they needed to debunk a whole lot more of the "myths", before i'm fully satisfied... and some of the planeparts that was found at Pentagon didn't match the Boeing, they should have dealt with that as well as the speed of the falling towers.

also the smaller myths, like these f.ex.: How can 19 terrorist with box cutters hijack several planes, and why are several of them still alive? ( i'm not saying i fully believe them, but they should have taken their time to debunk those as well)


anywho, you can say that the terrorist attack is a conspiracy theory as well to some extend
Author:  Ness [ Fri Aug 18, 2006 11:32 pm ]
Post subject: 
Orion wrote:
100% bollocks
Author:  noodles [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:07 am ]
Post subject: 
Loose Change was interesting until the narrarator turned into a raving lunatic.
Author:  Orion [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 1:17 am ]
Post subject: 
noodles wrote:
Loose Change was interesting until the narrarator turned into a raving lunatic.



Yeah, the first 5 seconds or so were great.
Author:  heatseeker [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 2:19 am ]
Post subject: 
I used to have this great video that talked a lot about the Pentagon strike, but I've lost it...it pointed out some great stuff, like how clean the holes made through the Pentagon were and the fact that there was no airplane debris in the area...if I find it I'll post it here.
Author:  Azrael [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:10 am ]
Post subject: 
there's an article on it at Maddox's site, with links to websites that debunk the theories (including the popular mechanics article).

(http://maddox.xmission.com)

but really, wouldn't all this be taken into consideration during planning if this was actually an "inside job"?
Author:  Anonymous [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 5:20 am ]
Post subject: 
Azrael wrote:
there's an article on it at Maddox's site, with links to websites that debunk the theories (including the popular mechanics article).

(http://maddox.xmission.com)

but really, wouldn't all this be taken into consideration during planning if this was actually an "inside job"?


but the government is like stupid lolz. :dio:
Author:  Tlaloc [ Sat Aug 19, 2006 6:26 am ]
Post subject: 
I just recently watched a dvd called "9/11 Confronting the Evidence". Although some of the theories are pretty silly, overall one can't ignore how dodgy the government's role in it is.
Author:  Mintrude [ Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:09 pm ]
Post subject: 
Most of it's bollocks, but there's still something deeply weird about it. Maybe the Western World wanted a new enemy to replace Communism.
Author:  Legacy Of The Night [ Sun Aug 20, 2006 6:59 pm ]
Post subject: 
Bollocks... whatever the hell that means. I'm assuming it means that it's all a bunch of bullshit, which it is.

I like Maddox's article on it.
Page 1 of 4 All times are UTC + 1 hour
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/