I don't think it was intended to make people hate the Middle Eastern, but rather a scare tactic. Studies show that when the public are in fear that drives sales up. I.E, Y2K drove up the economy because people were buying shit tons of water, same with 2012 and quite a few other instances. I wouldn't doubt 9/11 was similar, and they may have gone with a more violent approach this time because it also gave them "a reason" to invade the middle eastern to look for "weapons of mass destruction" aka oil.gunnar said:i don't think you'll offend a lot of people b
it happened and that's it
speculation speculation blah blah blah
in the end it doesn't matter if we did it to make the public hate middle eastern people or whether they did it
all that matters is that some people died and that we don't forget memories of them
but society has gone to shit
if you use the internet you'll see this is a giant meme if you don't already know
Krish said:I will post my response to this later, this is a great topic for an essay I'll be writing. I do believe it is an inside job. I will edit my post to a link to my essay when I'm done.
old said:Of course it was an insode job. This is actually something a great deal of the american public believes. I came to america after 9/11, so I look at it without any emotional bias. The way the buildings toppled were inconsistent with any accidents and it most definitely looked like a controlled demolition rather than a national disaster. most importantly, JET FUEL CAN'T MELT STEEL BEAMS. If anybody wants to debate this topic with me further feel free to do so. I get on every so often and can go into further detail if needed.
Doubtfully, but possibly. But the planes hit near the top of the towers. It wouldn't make the whole tower topple demolition style.Circuit said:Wouldn't the impact from the plane be enough to bend the steel beams and collapse the building?
Hmm I'm not disagreeing with your point of view of it being an inside job and this may sound a little nerdy but according to physics the weights of any part of the building above the crashing point coming down with such force will cause the rest of the tower to fall floor by floor making the falling force greater after every floor it destroys. Like I said, still believe it was inside though.old said:Doubtfully, but possibly. But the planes hit near the top of the towers. It wouldn't make the whole tower topple demolition style.
we are talking about building built to withstand earthquakes and similar disasters. a plane taking out two floors of a multistory building and having them all fall just doesn't sound feasable. plus since the plane crashed into one side you would assume that the building would topple to that side since it would be dramatically weaker woth a huge gorge thereBlast said:Hmm I'm not disagreeing with your point of view of it being an inside job and this may sound a little nerdy but according to physics the weights of any part of the building above the crashing point coming down with such force will cause the rest of the tower to fall floor by floor making the falling force greater after every floor it destroys. Like I said, still believe it was inside though.
The steel columns used in those buildings weren't HSS or channels, the were 30 foot thick solid steel pillars at the base up through the first half of the building, 20 foot thick for the next quarter, then finally HSS and channels. If the HSS and/or channels were bent, then, by that logic, the top quarter of the North Tower should have bent in the direction the plane was traveling. The only plausible explaination for either tower falling in the manner that they did is pre-planted explosives located in places that would cause a controlled demolition. This is what that looks like; [video=youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/video]Circuit said:Wouldn't the impact from the plane be enough to bend the steel beams and collapse the building?
Cannabis said:To say the least, it was a great causa belli. Particularly for someone who is in the oil industry in the area of the world that is going to be attacked and doesn't live there, is the head of the invading force, and is smart enough to use the resulting conflict as a reasonable excuse to raise the price of oil. Sounds like someone that was voted in 15 years ago, but I'm not going to name names.
The steel columns used in those buildings weren't HSS or channels, the were 30 foot thick solid steel pillars at the base up through the first half of the building, 20 foot thick for the next quarter, then finally HSS and channels. If the HSS and/or channels were bent, then, by that logic, the top quarter of the North Tower should have bent in the direction the plane was traveling. The only plausible explaination for either tower falling in the manner that they did is pre-planted explosives located in places that would cause a controlled demolition. This is what that looks like; [video=youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SaBQ3AkRetI[/video]
So based on that, thoughts?
Oh, also, don't forget about the multi-billion dollar insurance policy that went into effect earlier that week.
Ron said:Very compelling evidence, I think it was without a doubt that the US Government had some involvement in this travesty.
I'll edit my post tomorrow with my thoughts and theories on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?