9-11 facts revisited...

[just4u]

Regardless kung ano talaga, kawawa mga inosente...

up until now may casualty ang 9/11 na ito... site workers who helped clean the area and find survivors may mga sakit na from exposure daw from dangerous levels of toxins.... some died of black lung and cancers of the esophagus and pancreas.... kawawa naman....

[kimpOy]

9.8 Meter/Second SQ ang falling rate...naks sa physics ko nalaman yan...

[ILuvDetailing]

Lets say this conspiracy theory is true, would they be willing to sacrifice all those people working in the WTC?

[theveed]

Honestly eto iniisip ko...

Muka bang dinemolish WTC through controlled demolition? Sakin yes, pati mga buildings sa gilid... C'mon, daming buildings sa gilid na same height ng Bldgs 5-7 bakit yung same land/owner lang gumuho and not the others?

Kahit nga mga slowpoke bumbero dito pumunta sa burning building na charred up building nakatayo padin mga bakal na 1/2" diameter ang poste, yung pang WTC pa kaya...

Pero ang tanong ko lang what for and pano nila natimingan/naplanuhan to do this alongside the 2 plane attacks?

Possible bang hindi militant Islams ang naglipad ng eroplano at alam lang nila na Al Queda will always claim the glory of ANY attacks against the west? Kaya kahit sila gumawa, sasalohin ng Al Queda regardless since Al Queda doesn't care who did it?

Kakaduda din nga yung low volume of passengers ng lahat na sumakay sa 3 hi-jacked planes... Kahit off peak di pa ako nakaranas na 20% lang laman ng large plane sa US... Yung mga 50 seater siguro yung tipong 3 states lang lipad... Went to FL dati off peak, week day from Boston to Daytona halos puno din flight...

Wala din akong nabalitaan na reports sa black boxes ng 3 planes, puros control tower conversation lang diba...

Tapos meron din dati nagsabi na yung plane that crashed na di umabot sa Capitol Hills (yung lumaban ang passengers), na nakatawag pa yung passenger using the plane's cell phone system... If may naghijack ng plane, do you have time (let alone the presence of mind) to grab your AT&T or credit card, punch all those numbers and call?

Di naman pick-up and dial straight ang plane phones diba?

Hmm...

But still... why? For the economy? Dahil nga basta may gera may trabaho dahil sa manufacturing ng arms?

[ILuvDetailing]

Since we're in the topic of conspiracies, lets get the ball rolling.

But still... why? For the economy? Dahil nga basta may gera may trabaho dahil sa manufacturing ng arms?

To give President Bush reason to invade Iraq and control one of the world's major crude oil producers?

[Karding]

For the economy? Dahil nga basta may gera may trabaho dahil sa manufacturing ng arms?

Defense contractors like Boeing, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, Raytheon, Northrop, Titan Corp., CSC, L-3 Comm, ITT do have contracts with the Gov't. But then again, most of these companies' civilian and federal contracts are larger than the Department of Defense contracts. As well, most defense contracts have been negotiated or won before 9/11. So, there is no need to stimulate the economy by weapon production. The company that I am working for never hired massive add'l employees after 9/11. So, that just tells you that creating war does not mean creating jobs. Also, new technology mean less manpower. Way back in WWI and WWII where manpower is needed to create weapons, it was true that war can stimulate the economy.

In addition, most employees of the above companies belongs to the National Guard or Armed Forces Reserves. Guess where some of my co-workers right now? That's right, Iraq/Afghanistan. To top if off, they get paid wayyy less than what they get from their civilian employer. (i.e. a $50,000 civilian salary person may only get paid $35,000 when called for active duty in the military depending on their rank where most of us are in the $35,000 range.) So, employee like me are actually taking a loss in salary while deployed or serving actively. And why do we sacrifice our paycheck?! ahhh, a reason that most people will never understand,

Since we're in the topic of conspiracies, lets get the ball rolling.

To give President Bush reason to invade Iraq and control one of the world's major crude oil producers?

the same conspiracy theorist as the Pearl Harbor attack which is more possible than economy theorist mentioned above.

FYI: the US imports their oil largely from the following countries. as of January 13, 2006

(thousands barrels per day)
1. Canada (1776)
2. Mexico (1543)
3. Saudi Arabia (1231)
4. Nigeria (1163)
5. Venezuela
6. Angola
7. Iraq (468)
8. Algeria
9. Ecuador
10. Colombia
11. Kuwait (234)
12. UK
13. Norway
14. Equatorial Guinea
15. Trinidad and Tobago

http://www.eia.doe.gov/pub/oil_gas/p...nt/import.html

US liberated Kuwait but why cant we get enough crude oil from them? Iraq was 'invaded' but how come they arent paying the US with crude oil? Why couldnt the US control Kuwait and Iraq if oil was really the reason for war anyway. If Canada and Mexico is the US largest supplier, why not invade those two countries first?! Afterall, they're a step away from the border. Maybe they're next? hehehe.

Wait, GW is trying to finish what the dad had started :bwahaha:

[theveed]

Invade Canada... Hmm, is Canada a country? hehehehe

[Karding]

Invade Canada... Hmm, is Canada a country? hehehehe

lagot ka kay Glenn :hihihi:

anyway, kung totoo nga ang conspiray theory, kawawa nga ang mga inosente. Ano nga ulit ang tawag ng mga Military doon?! Collateral Damage?

[mrpink]

casualties of war ..

pero parang wala naman ako nabasa na traces of explosives sa site .. give the size of the towers .. dapat considerable amout of explosives ang ginamit to bring it down ..

[van_wilder]

we are into construction... and we demolish structures... just like what theveed said... it is impossible for wtc to be demolished at that rate... and sa tibay ng wtc... it is impossible na mademolish sha basta basta...

the wtc collapsed not because of the impact of the planes... but the extreme heat in the metal beams which came from the burning fuel of the planes... if hindi lumiyab yun hindi gigiba ang wtc... one thing na namiss ng al-queda...

[niky]

Hay naku.... ENOUGH WITH THE CONSPIRACY THEORIES.

Here's my view on the "controlled collapse" scenario.

1. inertia: How many thousands of tons would you say each tower was? For either WTC tower to fall sideways, an enormous amount of lateral stress would have to be put on either tower. Once you start a few thousand tons moving straight down, it would take an awfully unbalanced load stress on it, or possibly one side of the building being ten or twenty times stronger than the other to make it collapse to the side.

Regarding the local collapses, one was due to an earthquake, which was stress failure from lateral strain, and another was from poor ground conditions, which caused the building to lean to one side.

2. The WTC was not a monument. It was a living, breathing office building. Over ten thousand people worked there. To install demolition charges, one would have to strip the fire insulation and non-structural walls away from the beams. To wire the entire building up with explosives would take months. If it were necessary to carry out the operation without anyone noticing, it would take years. And at that point, the condition of the explosives that were originally wired would be in question. In all that time, people would have to be transporting tons of explosives past security personnel, office workers and maintenance people.

3. The pancaking effect doesn't have to be sequential in the sense that the building falls one floor at a time. Structural members on skyscrapers are not built on a per-floor basis, as they are in smaller structures. The larger structural supports span tens of floors. The shockwave of collapse from the initial structural failure can travel at supersonic speeds through the steel itself. Consider, if all the floors were under the same stress, wouldn't it be logical for all of them to collapse?

None of us can say what the WTC should or should not have been able to withstand. No one, and I mean absolutely no one has had any experience with the collapse of a structure this tall and large.

4. Regarding fires. The planes sliced through the towers, spreading aviation fuel across the floors where the initial impact occured and down elevator and ventilator shafts. Some witnesses described the elevators as falling down the shafts, and flames shooting out of the doors into the lobby, incinerating many people there. After the initial amount of aviation fuel was used up, the fires that were started continued on for a long, long time.

Now, fire retardant material is merely that. Fire retardant... not fire-proof. Not even metal is fire-proof. Once non-structural materials start burning, structural steel weakens. It may take 1800 degrees to melt steel, but it'll lose much of its strength at lower temperatures. NIST reports now confirm that pockets of fire actually did surpass 1800 degrees.

And with fires in the elevator shaft, some of those pockets were near structural hardpoints on a large number of floors, all the way down to ground level.

5. Regarding the lack of larger pieces of airplane at the Pentagon site. If you're a fan of accident investigations, you'll note that in many plane crashes, investigators have to reconstruct the plane from hundreds of thousands of tiny scraps of metal. What more if the metal had slammed into reinforced concrete?

6. Logistics: And finally: If you wanted to simulate an "Attack on America", how would you do it? Simple, hire a terrorist cell to do exactly what they did. Unnecessarily complicated plans lead to an unnecessarily large number of people involved in carrying them out. That's what conspiracy theorists always fail to take into account.

To wire up two hundred story towers for a controlled collapse would have involved dozens, if not hundreds of demolition experts, many of them civilian. To fake the disappearance of even one plane would require the complicity of dozens of civilian air traffic controllers and/or a few dozen air force personnel. Plus the dozens of technicians who wired up and controlled the drone or aerial bomb that hit the Pentagon and the life-sized "fake" airliners that hit the Twin Towers.

Plus they would have to have the people who made the cellphone calls on their side, or they would have to be able to force them to comply with the deception. That would have taken days. And take note: Nobody made any calls saying "The Army has taken over our plane!" And the pilots would have to be in on it, too.

And take note: Those who say cellphones can't be used in airplanes... ever watch Die Hard 2? :lol: ...and these planes were flying low, trying to avoid radar... within easy reach of ground-based cell sites.

So, so far, I count at least a thousand or so people involved in the conspiracy, with at least a fourth of them civilian. With America's fondness of conspiracies, secret revelations and media attention, isn't it strange that no one has come forward saying: "Hey, I was in on it!"... of course, the CIA could have had them all killed... but then, where are the missing people reports? Also, knowing killing American civilians is something I don't think American soldiers are willing to stomach. I know the CIA could do it, but come on.

Like I said: Want to fake an attack on the WTC? Just have someone do it... for real.