MovieChat Forums > London Has Fallen (2016) Discussion > who here believes 9/11 was staged?

who here believes 9/11 was staged?

posted 9 years ago by Intothenightalone
33 replies | jump to latest

i do for a few reasons

1) the insurance taken out on the buildings just prior to the attacks
2) the maneuvers of the plane were more like fighter jets, so they weren't commercial jets
3) the speed of the plane was faster than those can go
4) the terrorists were apparently amateur pilots yet most commercial airline pilots could not hit those buildings
5) plane left outline after entry, including wings. Wings can't cut steal. They screwed up the visual with the outline explosion which took place AFTER planes appeared to melt into the building.
6)explosions were going off as buildings burned, weakening the core with mini-nukes
7) as building imploded, they hit thermite explosions, as evidenced by debris flying up and out at speeds faster than freefall
8) debris was fine dust, finer than a fire, finer than a regular demolition
9) 70% of the building blew away
10) molten steel in ashes could not be the result of an office fire
11) testing showed dust was nuclear contaminated
12) 1st responders are dying of cancer
13) building 10 fell like a demolition, not a fire
14) Pentagon attack looked staged and no plane found
15) the crime scene was cleaned up and the evidence sold to china as scrap metal right away
26) no testing could replicate theory of office fire melting beams

[–] ABN-Para 9 years ago

So...what happened to 16-25?
Let me guess..you agree with Rosie Odonnell with the whole "steel doesn't melt" argument. You do know how steel is made, don't you?

An "office Fire?" You mean the World Trade Center was taken down with burning papers and office furniture?

No mention of jet fuel? You do know that burns rather hot, don't you? I mean...they chose aircraft that would have full tanks for a reason...you did know that, didn't you?

I have a few questions. Who took out the insurance? From what company?
What speed were the aircraft going? What is their max speed?
Why couldn't commercial pilots have hit the two tallest buildings in NYC?
Your proof on the mini-nukes is what? Same for the thermite?
What does the fact that 1st responders having cancer have to do with anything?
And again.....what happened to 16 thru 25? I think THAT is a bigger conspiracy.

[–] Intothenightalone 9 years ago

lol it was an obvious typo.

The jet fuel. The planes were running very low by that stage. Most fuel, if not all, would have exploded on impact. The color of the smoke showed that it was an oxygen starved fire, not a raging inferno melting steel. Jet fuel burns as hot as kerosine, which is not hot enough to melt huge steel beams.

As for the planes, they were doing faster than the top speed of these babies at altitude. The towers, despite being high, are considered "grown level" and the air is dense as hell. It's near impossible for them to fly this fast this low. They should have been falling apart at the seams. So the planes were either 1) military planes, 2) drones with holograms or 3) added in post production

I personally think that the most logical is the drone with hologram, given the image of the plane melting into the building from several angles without it changing trajectory/buckling etc

[–] louise-reay 9 years ago

Thanks for the laugh.

The thought of the US government being able to organise that many people into a conspiracy that noone breaks silence on for 15 years, is hilarious.

[–] Intothenightalone 9 years ago

Yup, it's only a matter of time before someone comes clean. I do know that a former CIA operative said right after it that it was a drone with hologram projection was murdered. So you do run the risk of death.

[–] Intothenightalone 9 years ago

oh, and science doesn't follow a script. Science tells the true story.

[–] ABN-Para 9 years ago

Ahhhh, the old "drone with hologram" ploy, huh?

As far as the "running very low" on fuel, that is incorrect. The flights were chosen because they were cross country flights. They took off and within a half-hour they were hijacked and turned around. There was plenty of fuel on those aircraft.

Air density has zero affect on the speed of an aircraft. But again, how fast were they flying and what is the top speed of those particular aircraft?

[–] jim914109 8 years ago

"The jet fuel. The planes were running very low by that stage."

Of course he's a troll. The planes were running low on fuel? These were planes that had just taken off from Boston and Newark, headed for the west coast, totally full of fuel. I stopped reading your post at this.

If you're going to troll, you have to do better than this. Go back to your mother's basement and play video games.

[–] celtics187 9 years ago

Well since we know they lied to us about who was responsible (Saudi`s who donate lots of money to Bush, Hillary, Obama) I think anything is possible. I absolutely believe Larry Silverstein was involved.

[–] Ashaod43 9 years ago

Nothing would surprise me with out crappy government but your theories are too far fetched for this to be a conspiracy. It is far easier for me to believe we are a very laid back unprepared country. To not have a homeland security force before 911 is unbelievable to me or the fact we couldn't get water down to the superdome for 4 days.

[–] totalbollacks 8 years ago

No I don't believe it was staged and you have no more valid information than I do to claim it was.

[–] Intothenightalone 8 years ago

There is tons of evidence. Go read up with the architects for 9/11 truth say.

[–] Terrapin2212 8 years ago

You are crazy and paranoid if you think 9/11/01 was staged.

However I believe 9/11/12 was avoidable and that it happened because of Obama and Hillary.

[–] blade101167 8 years ago

For heaven's sake, once and for all, the steel did not melt!!!

The jet fuel fire did however burn hot enough to structurally weaken the steel supports - which in combination with the truss floor design of the towers - was significant enough for the upper floors - weighing thousands of tons - to crash downwards onto the floors beneath them. Anyone watching the footage of the tower collapses can literally see this with their own eyes.

The NIST reports on the aircraft strikes and subsequent tower collapses can be read and understood by almost anyone with even a rudimentary knowledge of science - no need for ridiculous theories concerning hidden explosives.

[–] Intothenightalone 8 years ago

except the low fuel levels of these planes that had been flying for hours would have all ignited on impact. What was left was an oxygen starved office fire. What are offices made out of? Fire-retardant materials. The black smoke is science 101... an oxygen starved fire, meaning it wasn't burning hot at all. The fact that people were standing in the burnt out offices crying for help proved that it wasn't that hot. They were trying to escape because of smoke inhalation. They were literally choking to death.

[–] blade101167 8 years ago

My God, you really have done no research on this before coming on here have you? I think you're probably the intellectually dumbest 9/11 nutjob I've ever come across in the fifteen years since it happened.

Here's a hint... if you're gonna go around spouting conspiracy garbage at anyone who'll listen to you, at least build yourself some solid foundations first using widely available, undisputed data and then go from there.

[–] centauri2014 8 years ago

The jet fuel fire did however burn hot enough to structurally weaken the steel supports

Not to mention the structural damage that occurred simply from the impact of an airliner into the building. We can talk about theoretical this and plausible that all day long, but some things can only be known through real world examples. The Bay Bridge in the Bay Area was supposed to be able to withstand an earthquake of magnitude 8.0, but as we saw in 1989 during the Loma Prieta quake, it took far less then that to severely damage it.

Ladies and gentlemen...Mr.Conway Twitty

[–] Intothenightalone 8 years ago

Did the plane crash into the foundations of the building? I must have missed that. Oh that's right, detonations were being heard after the planes hit. These were the mini-nukes that were used to turn the core to mush, creating the initial implosion, which was the cue to pull each level. Bam! Bam! Bam! Watch the video.

[–] centauri2014 8 years ago

Well, um...ok then. I have no answer for "mini-nukes". Sounds more like an episode of "Criminal Minds". I continue to be utterly astonished at the "facts" that 9/11 conspiracy theorists bring to the table. Like many have said, one could only wish in there wildest dreams that our government was able to pull off such a complicated scheme with years of planning and NO ONE ever leaking a word of it. Not possible. The simple fact is that we were attacked. It sucks to admit it, I know, but that's what happened. Not everything is a conspiracy or has some unknown agenda behind it. Sometime bad things just happen.

McGarrett and the team go after Wo Fat when he threatens Honolulu with "mini-nukes"...next week on "Hawaii-Five-0".

Ladies and gentlemen...Mr.Conway Twitty

[–] Intothenightalone 8 years ago

The fires at 9/11 burned for 100 days. Molten steel fused with concrete. It was the aftermath of a nuclear explosion.

[–] onenonlyscotia-294-403869 8 years ago

wow you are an idiot. Go on youtube if you want to discuss assinine conspiracy theories, this isnt the place for it. and go to thru your "theories"

1) the insurance taken out on the buildings just prior to the attacks (taken out by who? what CONCRETE proof do you have)
2) the maneuvers of the plane were more like fighter jets, so they weren't commercial jets (they were commercial jets, where do you and every OTHER idiot who is so bored with life that they have to make up things say to where all the people went? The ones on the planes? if there werent commercial jets hitting it then where did the people go? Two of those planes were from boston and one was FROM new york so they would ALL have PLENTY of fuel still in them, try looking it up, boston and new york are right damned next to each other)
3) the speed of the plane was faster than those can go (you clearly have no idea how fast a commercial JET can go)
4) the terrorists were apparently amateur pilots yet most commercial airline pilots could not hit those buildings (how do you figure? The whole reason they have a flyover zone over buildings is so buildings AREN'T hit..you can run into a building the same with a plane as with a car because believe it or not you STEER both objects)
5) plane left outline after entry, including wings. Wings can't cut steal. They screwed up the visual with the outline explosion which took place AFTER planes appeared to melt into the building. (yeah whatever, again do your homework)
6)explosions were going off as buildings burned, weakening the core with mini-nukes
7) as building imploded, they hit thermite explosions, as evidenced by debris flying up and out at speeds faster than freefall *beep* just total *beep* watch a few demolition videos of buildings demolished..if its done right (on LOWER buildings than this) it looks just like that (the way it collapses on ITSELF..i watched the tv all that day because my husband was meant to be on one of those planes and i saw nothing flying "up and out)
8) debris was fine dust, finer than a fire, finer than a regular demolition (where did you get your demolition license?)
9) 70% of the building blew away (if seventy percent of the building "blew away" again not something I saw)
10) molten steel in ashes could not be the result of an office fire (says who?)
11) testing showed dust was nuclear contaminated
12) 1st responders are dying of cancer (they are dying of cancer from the ASBESTOS you idiot)
13) building 10 fell like a demolition, not a fire
14) Pentagon attack looked staged and no plane found
15) the crime scene was cleaned up and the evidence sold to china as scrap metal right away (actually MOST of the useable "evidence" has been donated to museums and artists around the world to be made into things in rememberance..again look it up)
26) no testing could replicate theory of office fire melting beams (no testing to my knowledge was DONE to see if this could be redone..there was some idiot in japan or china or somewhere that wanted to replicate it..its almost impossible to EXACTLY replicate everything because the building/circumstances/weather/a MILLION other things) aren't factored in

[–] Intothenightalone 8 years ago

Just because you don't like those points, doesn't mean you had a contradictory argument. Read up on what the aviators for 9/11 truth and architects and engineers for 9/11 truth have to say on this.

[–] L_Ron_HubbaHubba 8 years ago

1. Not suspicious but Silverstein did get a double payout

2. disinformation

3. disinformation

4. disinformation. They were amateurs, they did hit the buildings.

5. disinformation

6. disinformation

7. disinformation

8. There was a fire and it wasn't a regular demolition

9. It was pulverized. Dust tends to blow away.

10. disinformation

11. disinformation

12. They breathed in a pulverized building/bodies and a bunch of other stuff. Bush/EPA/Christine Whitman lied and told them it would be safe to do that.

13. wrong building. Dumbass

14. disinformation

15. Good point

16. disinformation

[–] closeyoureyessammy 8 years ago

Don't you have some current crisis you could be concentrating you incredible deductive skills toward solving?? No? So you're just gonna obsess over this one for 20-30 more years? Maybe Homeland Security should be watching YOU.
Get off the IMDb boards with this crap. Moron.