Skip to content
View in the app

A better way to browse. Learn more.

Thailand News and Discussion Forum | ASEANNOW

A full-screen app on your home screen with push notifications, badges and more.

To install this app on iOS and iPadOS
  1. Tap the Share icon in Safari
  2. Scroll the menu and tap Add to Home Screen.
  3. Tap Add in the top-right corner.
To install this app on Android
  1. Tap the 3-dot menu (⋮) in the top-right corner of the browser.
  2. Tap Add to Home screen or Install app.
  3. Confirm by tapping Install.

911 Proof

Featured Replies

Everyone here and everyone in the world for that matter only knows what has been told to them ...

Didn't some of us watch the twin towers fall?

The first link given by Tornado contains this gem:

EXPERTS

Numerous experts have stated that the collapse of the world trade centers looked like controlled demolitions:   

A professor of physics from Brigham Young University stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on why buildings collapse said controlled demolitions make buildings fall straight down (as opposed to falling over like a tree, which is what normally happens when buildings collapse) because the vertical columns are destroyed simultaneously by explosives, and "that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened" on 9/11

The head of a national demolition association  stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

This is near the very beginning of the web page. With ridiculous garbage like this forming part of the foundation of this "911 Proof" why is there any need to read more?

  • Replies 122
  • Views 1.4k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

RDN - least someone gets it. It doesnt take a genius to understand why the buildings collapsed - support beams melted due to the intense heat, floors then collapsed on top of each other like falling dominos. End of story. :o

RDN and Brit, is there really not one shred of coubt in your mind as to what happened with the 9/11 incident?

Not one niggling thought that it may have been controlled explosions, or even forgetting that point, is their no doubt in your mind that the government may have covered up some facts and offered us an alternative truth to the real story?

In fact, do you really believe 100% whatever the governments tell you?

  • Author
Everyone here and everyone in the world for that matter only knows what has been told to them ...

Didn't some of us watch the twin towers fall?

The first link given by Tornado contains this gem:

EXPERTS

Numerous experts have stated that the collapse of the world trade centers looked like controlled demolitions:   

A professor of physics from Brigham Young University stated that the world trade centers were brought down by controlled demolition

An expert on why buildings collapse said controlled demolitions make buildings fall straight down (as opposed to falling over like a tree, which is what normally happens when buildings collapse) because the vertical columns are destroyed simultaneously by explosives, and "that's exactly what it looked like and that's what happened" on 9/11

The head of a national demolition association  stated that the collapse of the towers looked like a "classic controlled demolition"

This is near the very beginning of the web page. With ridiculous garbage like this forming part of the foundation of this "911 Proof" why is there any need to read more?

######, is it that far fetched? :o I would suggest read on. If thats your best paragraph to debunk the info, you might have to try harder :D

  • Author
RDN - least someone gets it. It doesnt take a genius to understand why the buildings collapsed - support beams melted due to the intense heat, floors then collapsed on top of each other like falling dominos. End of story. :D

Thats the whole point though, numerous highly educated metalurgists, professors and the like from around the world, dont agree with you - but then again, you probably know more than them :o

what a weak argument - you dont agree, so it is so. :D

RDN - least someone gets it. It doesnt take a genius to understand why the buildings collapsed - support beams melted due to the intense heat, floors then collapsed on top of each other like falling dominos. End of story. :D

Thats the whole point though, numerous highly educated metalurgists, professors and the like from around the world, dont agree with you - but then again, you probably know more than them :o

what a weak argument - you dont agree, so it is so. :D

Numerous engineers/metalurgists, professors do agree with what I say, so where does this lead us??? :D I know a faire bit about engineering, so I'm not exactly a novice in the area. In addition I went up to the world trade center site a few weeks after, and certainly doesnt have the indications of a bomb blast. I'll see if I can dig up some photos and scan some for you. (melted beams were pretty much the common site I saw)

  • Author
RDN - least someone gets it. It doesnt take a genius to understand why the buildings collapsed - support beams melted due to the intense heat, floors then collapsed on top of each other like falling dominos. End of story. :D

Thats the whole point though, numerous highly educated metalurgists, professors and the like from around the world, dont agree with you - but then again, you probably know more than them :o

what a weak argument - you dont agree, so it is so. :D

Numerous engineers/metalurgists, professors do agree with what I say, so where does this lead us??? :D I know a faire bit about engineering, so I'm not exactly a novice in the area. In addition I went up to the world trade center site a few weeks after, and certainly doesnt have the indications of a bomb blast. I'll see if I can dig up some photos and scan some for you. (melted beams were pretty much the common site I saw)

:D so the "experts" you have read are right and these ones in the links are wrong? :D

please provide some links. please provide some info on heat temperatures that melt steel of the same type in WTC.

You see Brit, if you post a few things to back up you way of thinking, you might start some real discussion, instead of the did not, did to, responses you give.

you seem to have a lot of free time at work, so this shouldnt be a problem for you.

  • Author
The patronising way you Bushites put things  :D, self deluded knows alls that you are. What would you really know about 911? you know what has been told to you!

Everyone here and everyone in the world for that matter only knows what has been told to them Torny. You cannot use that as something to validate your opinions.

It isnt to validate my opinion Trip, it is to let these guys know, that no one knows what happened, we ALL only know what has been told to us. I just take it a little further and read some compelling info and I post it. These guys just state, that it didnt happen like that. :o At the end of the day, who the ###### knows, but I find it fun to actually look through the "proof" on all sides and come up with my own ideas.

The patronising way you Bushites put things  :D, self deluded knows alls that you are. What would you really know about 911? you know what has been told to you!

Everyone here and everyone in the world for that matter only knows what has been told to them Torny. You cannot use that as something to validate your opinions.

It isnt to validate my opinion Trip, it is to let these guys know, that no one knows what happened, we ALL only know what has been told to us. I just take it a little further and read some compelling info and I post it. These guys just state, that it didnt happen like that. :o At the end of the day, who the ###### knows, but I find it fun to actually look through the "proof" on all sides and come up with my own ideas.

Torny Some fun sites for you:

http://www.oilempire.us/bogus.html

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/ - even a forum on this one, might have fun there. :D

  • Author

well done Brit, now we have a discussion with something to read to validate your points. I will read your links and get back to you.

Anyone interested to know the truth about 911 should watch "Loose Change - Let's Roll"

I have the Bit Torrent file for download if anyone is interested.

The footage and the early witness testimonies from the live coverage that morning speaks volume about those "discrepancies"

First at the Pentagon:

1. No Plane Debris

2. No Engine Debris (made from Titanium)

3. Witness account of a missile and a military airplane above the Pentagon when it happened

4. The extension of the damage (3 ring deep) that is not possible from an Airplane

5. The parking lot video with the missing frames (National Security) which only show the explosion and NO AIRPLANE or debris of an airplane flying !!!

6. The slip of a tongue from Cheney and Rumsfield who said publicly that it was a missile (2 different instances from 2 different high ranking officials)

That alone should wake you up that you are being fed a story. However some people feel unconfortable questioning the government and wouldn't mind to be sheep and follow the official story for confort.

But don't say that 911 happened like it did because it didn't

This is near the very beginning of the web page. With ridiculous garbage like this forming part of the foundation of this "911 Proof" why is there any need to read more?

:o

And how this is garbage ???? what a beta comment this is. I think you are afraid to see something deeper and you are just trying to find silly arguments not to read further. Show a little bit of courage and read it. You might learn something. Or at least be honnest by telling us you don't feel confortable questioning the official story.

RDN - least someone gets it. It doesnt take a genius to understand why the buildings collapsed - support beams melted due to the intense heat, floors then collapsed on top of each other like falling dominos. End of story. :D

Thats the whole point though, numerous highly educated metalurgists, professors and the like from around the world, dont agree with you - but then again, you probably know more than them :o

what a weak argument - you dont agree, so it is so. :D

Numerous engineers/metalurgists, professors do agree with what I say, so where does this lead us??? :D I know a faire bit about engineering, so I'm not exactly a novice in the area. In addition I went up to the world trade center site a few weeks after, and certainly doesnt have the indications of a bomb blast. I'll see if I can dig up some photos and scan some for you. (melted beams were pretty much the common site I saw)

:D

A few facts from the WTC destruction:

1. Despite the second plane hitting the second tower 30 min later than the first tower, the second tower collapsed first. Humm, so why the first tower didn't collapse first after the first 30 min it was hit like it did with the second tower ??? and why it took more than 2 hours for the first tower to collapse under the same condition of the second tower ? and why the collapse happened within 4 min of the second tower ? strange isn't it ? this is definitely not right.

2. Numerous account of explosions from different witnesses (including policemen, news reporter, firefighters, all this live on TV) right before the fall of the first tower and the second tower

3. You can actually see explosions on lower floors as the towers collapse. This is mind blowing. Watch it and be amazed.

4. All the BlackBox (made of titanium with 1000 C resistance) have disappeared because of the "inferno" but yet, a passport (made of paper) is recovered by the FBI ???? you got to be kidding. The bigger the lie, the more likely they will believe it. Right.

5. Firefighter calls who went to the floor where the plane hit and said they could go there to end the small fire there (little oxygen for burn) with only 2 lanes. Now that's interesting. I guess it wasn't so hot there as previously thought if the firefighters were making calls to go there !!!

now explain me again your theory about collapsing floors :D

RDN and Brit, is there really not one shred of doubt in your mind as to what happened with the 9/11 incident?

Not one niggling thought that it may have been controlled explosions, or even forgetting that point, is their no doubt in your mind that the government may have covered up some facts and offered us an alternative truth to the real story? 

In fact, do you really believe 100% whatever the governments tell you?

First you talk about doubt about what happened - two planes being flown into the towers - and then you somehow get to "do you believe whatever the government tells me".

Of course I don't believe everything they tell me, but I know what I saw. I don't know who was behind it or why, but I don't believe for a nanosecond that the US government had anything to do with it.

The idea of controlled explosions causing the collapse is plain ridiculous. Just because some people say "it was like buildings collapse when they are blown up" does NOT mean that the towers were blown up! It's what some people tried to convey to reporters about what they had seen.

The bit that I find laughable is the idea that these massive structures should have fallen over like a tree does when you chop at it with an axe. Does the author not have any concept of mass, inertia, gravity? Does the author realise how much energy would be required to push those building 1 foot sideways? Does the author really believe that the buildings should collapse where the plane hit, and then pivot on the bit of steel and concrete left on the other side? When it started to collapse, there was only one way it would go - straight down. To try to compare a collapsing building with a falling tree is crazy.

And some people thought they saw smoke coming out therefore it must have been an explosion. Once again these people are trying to connect what they saw with what they have experience of - so they say "explosion". There was no explosion, it was just all the air being forced out as the floors became compressed to nothing.

I don't know why the obvious is so hard to accept.

As for reading the rest, well, when I find something that is so daft right at the beginning, it doesn't really matter what else there is. It shows the quality of the thought behind the web site.

And I don't know why, but I find reading these types of web sites quite angering. It's probably a mixture of "how dare they insult my intelligence by posting such garbage" and "how dare they insult the memories of al the people who died". I also feel sad that some people who I actually enjoy reading on this forum, and who I personally like, are "taken in" by this stuff. I am not trying to be offensive to you conspiracy believers, but I just wonder why you believe the almost unbelievable rather than the clearly obvious.

Anyway, this is probably the longest post I've ever made, and I always promised myself I would not get sucked in to these crazy threads. Ah well, my pen rai. I suppose I'll have to keep debating with you guys now, but I'm not going read all these web sites - they just get my dander up!

1. Despite the second plane hitting the second tower 30 min later than the first tower, the second tower collapsed first. Humm, so why the first tower didn't collapse first after the first 30 min it was hit like it did with the second tower ??? and why it took more than 2 hours for the first tower to collapse under the same condition of the second tower ? and why the collapse happened within 4 min of the second tower ? strange isn't it ? this is definitely not right.

The second plane hit lower on the building meaning there were more floors/weight bearing down on the weakened area from above. Maybe that's why the second building collapsed first. The two planes entered the buildings at different points. The first seemed to hit dead center, the second didnt. This may have also played into the second building falling first. Maybe the second plane took out the additional steel beams supporting the elevator shaft while the first plane missed this additional support structure.

Just because an explosive expert said it looked like a controlled demoliton doesn't mean he said it was a controlled demolition.

RDN and Brit, is there really not one shred of coubt in your mind as to what happened with the 9/11 incident?

Not one niggling thought that it may have been controlled explosions, or even forgetting that point, is their no doubt in your mind that the government may have covered up some facts and offered us an alternative truth to the real story? 

In fact, do you really believe 100% whatever the governments tell you?

Having doubt and believing in conspiratorial fantasies are two different matters. I think these stories are almost baseless because of logic, not politics. I may be left, and I hate Bush with the best of them, but that doesn't mean that I need to cling to any crackpot theory that comes along.

Who was the person that posted about an expert from Brigham Young University :D BY University is a fundamentalist religous Christian college. These are the same people that want to phase out scientific evolutionary theory and replace it with intelligent design - uhm - theory :D

I don't have time for a long post right now, but I am a bit intrigued by *the above post . I agree that there is some suspicious shit amok, but I also believe that the planes that crashed into the towers were not commandered by the US Government. That is different than saying said government was without blame.

However, the whole thing about the towers - read RDN's post. I'm not an engineer, but I can tell you that I went to school with some of the top engineering students and professors from around the world. I guarantee you, amidst a lot of discussion about the mechanics of the structure and collapse, not one of them was promoting this bullshit :o

*edit: sorry, I thought I was referring to Butterfly's post about the Pentagon. I posted BKK's post above by accident, but do agree with his comments also to a degree, but not to the point where I can support ridiculous conspiracy theories.

edit again: However, I want to add, in spite of everything I just said, I always take claims of new information seriously, and look into them for myself. I will follow up on everything you guys say, but so far I haven't found anything that I cannot easily discredit with common sense.

1. Despite the second plane hitting the second tower 30 min later than the first tower, the second tower collapsed first. Humm, so why the first tower didn't collapse first after the first 30 min it was hit like it did with the second tower ??? and why it took more than 2 hours for the first tower to collapse under the same condition of the second tower ? and why the collapse happened within 4 min of the second tower ? strange isn't it ? this is definitely not right.

The second plane hit lower on the building meaning there were more floors/weight bearing down on the weakened area from above. Maybe that's why the second building collapsed first. The two planes entered the buildings at different points. The first seemed to hit dead center, the second didnt. This may have also played into the second building falling first. Maybe the second plane took out the additional steel beams supporting the elevator shaft while the first plane missed this additional support structure.

Just because an explosive expert said it looked like a controlled demoliton doesn't mean he said it was a controlled demolition.

Speculation like the rest of the other tinfoil hat theory. Except you are following the government line in this case.

What about the Pentagon ? the planes smashed and disintegrated over glass and a few steel beams but over at the Pentagon it goes through 3 ring with a small hole on the last ring ? :o:D

There is no doubt in my mind that the Government lied about the Pentagon. The evidence are there and no matter how deep you want to put your head in the sand, they will not go away. If they lied about the Pentagon, what else did they lie about ?

I don't know what really hit the Pentagon (we can only guess a missile from those evidence, what kind and who send it, that we don't know), but if the government is trying to cover it up or lie about it, what motives do they have ?

I find it sad that the only ones asking the right questions or challenging the official theory are being labelled "tinfoil hats" or "conspiracy nuts". This is the same strategy that the NeoCons use on everyone who dare to question the government agenda by labelling them "anti-patriotic" and some other pro-American BS.

If you don't ask those questions, even if they are sometimes silly, then you have given up on learning or finding the truth on important issues. What are the "followers" excuse ? Mind lazyness or incuriosity ?

RDN, Kat, thanks for those replies, I didnt even read Tornys website, coz I do know a lot of that stuff is a bunch of crap, I was just interested on how people here come to their views.

Too many people believe everything that told to them and thats the difference between having/watching a decent debate or people banging their heads up against a brick wall whilst in search of answers.

Does the author not have any concept of mass, inertia, gravity?

And that's exactly the problem because you don't either. You have no idea if what he is saying is right or wrong. You can only speculate with your assumptions. But the truth is that you and the author don't know. You have no possibility to prove that he is wrong, and the author has no possibility to prove he is right.

Still the "circumstance evidence" should be enough to give you a clue that something is not right. Nobody is denying that the 2 towers were hit by 2 planes. Look at the "facts" around the hitting of the 2 towers to start understanding the "story" and see how much it stinks. You are being fooled by looking at the end result instead of the surrounding events. A classic magician trick.

RDN, Kat, thanks for those replies, I didnt even read Tornys website, coz I do know a lot of that stuff is a bunch of crap, I was just interested on how people here come to their views.

  Too many people believe everything that told to them and thats the difference between having/watching a decent debate or people banging their heads up against a brick wall whilst in search of answers.

BKK - its not about accepting what the govt tells you - its more about doing your own reading and research.

Unfortunately I watched what was going on live, I've visited the World Trade Centers before and 2weeks after 911. I'm no expert but I'm pretty confident with what I saw with my own two eyes.

Torny - the last two links I gave you were fun conspiracy sites. (figured I'd add it to your growing list) :o

1. Despite the second plane hitting the second tower 30 min later than the first tower, the second tower collapsed first. Humm, so why the first tower didn't collapse first after the first 30 min it was hit like it did with the second tower ??? and why it took more than 2 hours for the first tower to collapse under the same condition of the second tower ? and why the collapse happened within 4 min of the second tower ? strange isn't it ? this is definitely not right.

Just because an explosive expert said it looked like a controlled demoliton doesn't mean he said it was a controlled demolition.

All these conspiracy theories about the WTC collapse are complete balderdash!

Each and every beam and girder in the WTC towers had an identifying mark on it, indicating the specific location in the structure. That is the way modern buildings have been constructed for a century or more.

After the attack, each and every beam was taken to a New Jersey scrapyard and forensically analyzed in detail by the best structural engineers in the business. They identified the causes of all of the various structural failure points, and there was absolutely nothing remotely related to controlled demolition.

Frankly, as someone with a degree in physics and quite a bit of structural and vibration design experience, my initial thoughts were and have been that it is quite remarkable that the buildings withstood the initial impact, resulting fires and fatigue as well as they did. It is a part of a lasting testament to excellent engineering and construction in these buildings, that only a couple thousand people perished in the disaster.

So bash-bush if you want to ... but give the <deleted>' conspiracy theories a rest!

...You have no idea if what he is saying is right or wrong. You can only speculate with your assumptions...

Back to the falling towers... did you not see the films of the towers falling? I did. I saw it live on TV in my office. One of them - I can't remember which - had a pole at the top and when it fell it started to fall at an angle. You could see the pole tilt. But then, as the collapsing building fell further, the poll went vertical again - it straightened up. So the structure of the building was helping it fall straight down.

So why does this "Engineer" quoted by the web site insist that it should've fallen over like a felled tree?

That is just one example of where what I saw does not tie in with what the web site is saying.

But the main argument that I have against these web sites is that they produce a lot of inconsistencies in what people think should have happened and what did happen, and try to join up all these little inconsistencies to make one big conspiracy.

But the problem is, all these little things are just that - little things. You cannot add them up to make one big thing - they are not "addable". The are not 1+3+2+5=11. They are 1% of one possibility, 3% of another, and so on. They work in parallel, they are not serial. None of them gets to 100% proof.

But the main argument that I have against these web sites is that they produce a lot of inconsistencies in what people think should have happened and what did happen, and try to join up all these little inconsistencies to make one big conspiracy.

But the problem is, all these little things are just that - little things. You cannot add them up to make one big thing - they are not "addable". The are not 1+3+2+5=11. They are 1% of one possibility, 3% of another, and so on.  They work in parallel, they are not serial. None of them gets to 100% proof.

I agree and there is no doubt that some of those sites are for loonies and are quite fun to read. Still they bring interesting questions.

However, some of thoses sites have made excellent points with some of the evidence. You have to remove the noises. They might be right on one point or two and be wrong with the conclusions or the rest of the connecting dots. They are not going to be 100% right and therefore you can't discount them all because they reached the wrong conclusions. Nothing is going to be 100% accurate, not even the government story. They couldn't even get their story right for Iraq, do you think they could for 911 ???

Some of those sites have shown "anomalies" in the official story and we need to focus on those anomalies. The Pentagon story is definitely "fishy" and there is so much evidence out there that you can't ignore that you were lied to.

Now the motives of the lies ? I don't know. Who ordered the job ? we don't know. But I think it's more than the "phantom" of AQ which in fact has never existed except in the mind of the FBI for their investigation of Bin Laden terrorist activites in the light of the 1993 WTC bombing (they needed to identify an organization to charge Bin Laden without arrest)

From Kennedy to Roswell to the Illuminati,

Yes, it's all clear now, 9/11 was merely a vehicle to get us in the Middle East ... :D

Now if someone can come up with a conspiracy to get us out, :o

But the main argument that I have against these web sites is that they produce a lot of inconsistencies in what people think should have happened and what did happen, and try to join up all these little inconsistencies to make one big conspiracy.

But the problem is, all these little things are just that - little things. You cannot add them up to make one big thing - they are not "addable". The are not 1+3+2+5=11. They are 1% of one possibility, 3% of another, and so on.  They work in parallel, they are not serial. None of them gets to 100% proof.

I agree and there is no doubt that some of those sites are for loonies and are quite fun to read. Still they bring interesting questions.

However, some of thoses sites have made excellent points with some of the evidence. You have to remove the noises. They might be right on one point or two and be wrong with the conclusions or the rest of the connecting dots. They are not going to be 100% right and therefore you can't discount them all because they reached the wrong conclusions. Nothing is going to be 100% accurate, not even the government story. They couldn't even get their story right for Iraq, do you think they could for 911 ???

Some of those sites have shown "anomalies" in the official story and we need to focus on those anomalies. The Pentagon story is definitely "fishy" and there is so much evidence out there that you can't ignore that you were lied to.

Now the motives of the lies ? I don't know. Who ordered the job ? we don't know. But I think it's more than the "phantom" of AQ which in fact has never existed except in the mind of the FBI for their investigation of Bin Laden terrorist activites in the light of the 1993 WTC bombing (they needed to identify an organization to charge Bin Laden without arrest)

:o

RDN - can't explain logic to these lot - dog chasing our tails here!!! :D

But I think it's more than the "phantom" of AQ which in fact has never existed except in the mind of the FBI for their investigation of Bin Laden terrorist activites in the light of the 1993 WTC bombing (they needed to identify an organization to charge Bin Laden without arrest)

When does an organization with a 15+ year track track record of causing anti-social anti-personnel back-water religious fundamentalist mayhem and more than 4,000 murders in more than a dozen countries around the world cease to be a "phantom?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm

You really are delusional Butterfly. :o

But I think it's more than the "phantom" of AQ which in fact has never existed except in the mind of the FBI for their investigation of Bin Laden terrorist activites in the light of the 1993 WTC bombing (they needed to identify an organization to charge Bin Laden without arrest)

When does an organization with a 15+ year track track record of causing anti-social anti-personnel back-water religious fundamentalist mayhem and more than 4,000 murders in more than a dozen countries around the world cease to be a "phantom?"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/3618762.stm

You really are delusional Butterfly. :o

you never heard of AQ before 1993 so stop drinking the government Kool Aid, OK ? :D

You take lies as facts when they come from your government. Funny you weren't that gullible when it was Clinton at the top :D

:D

RDN - can't explain logic to these lot - dog chasing our tails here!!! :D

:o and still you will believe the government story "inconsistencies" :D

Who is the "sucker" with the 911 story ? :D

If one day the Pentagon story is "uncovered", it will be fun to see you guys face in light of the "revelation" :D

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

Recently Browsing 0

  • No registered users viewing this page.

Account

Navigation

Search

Search

Configure browser push notifications

Chrome (Android)
  1. Tap the lock icon next to the address bar.
  2. Tap Permissions → Notifications.
  3. Adjust your preference.
Chrome (Desktop)
  1. Click the padlock icon in the address bar.
  2. Select Site settings.
  3. Find Notifications and adjust your preference.