Liverpool FC Forum

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:17 am

as have all the official explanations

Really? By whom?

Certainly no one on this message board.

And no one on the multiple paranoid websites across the net.

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:22 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
as have all the official explanations

Really? By whom?

Certainly no one on this message board.

And no one on the multiple paranoid websites across the net.

you said they have been reasonably explained, i think the people arguing against the official explanation have also given reasonable explanations. remember we are talking about structural engineers, pilots, scientists etc here, and all respect mate but i will put more credence on what an explosives expert has to say than what you say, and if one can cast doubt on the event then i will listen to him, and if it sounds reasonable then i have to question the official verdict.

personally i know how easy it is and how often evidence is changed or exaggerated by official bodies, i have first hand knowledge of this and i do believe that it can be and has been done on a much larger scale and people who think otherwise are being very naive

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:23 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
And right now all we have are two conflicting theories.

No, we don't.

All the "evidence" you have presented, including photographs have been reasonably debunked and explained.

There is no conflict.

At the end of the day, there is only one official (or true) theory as to why the towers fell. This is a fact. The "Pancaking" Theory, or Truss explanation are the two main cases for the officials. Still only theories, and even these have been apparently debunked by other sources. What to believe, it's up to the individual.

Not meaning to drag this on, but there are other issues unexplained, and have as yet to be explained by anyone but the theorists. After the towers fell, the rescuers reported massive and intensely fierce fires still burning beneath the mound, several stories underground in the basement of the building where the central support beams are situated in the bedrock of the foundation. These fires were recorded by a NASA satellite to have reached well over 3000 degrees. Think that there are real combustible sources to keep the temperature that high, seeing that everything was reduced to powder, and another thing that this was certainly not the work of jet fuel, as that would have been well spent in the first few hours. Site workers reported pools of molten metal actually fussed with rock. Extreme heats are only capable of doing this. If there was little oxygen and little source fuel, what kept these fires burning for so long and at such high temperatures enough to melt steel and rock? One theory is Thermite. This stuff can get hot enough to cut through metal like it were butter, and continue to work even in low oxygen environments. Thermite could have easily been used in the basement of those buildings to bring it down from the bottom.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:31 am

you said they have been reasonably explained, i think the people arguing against the official explanation have also given reasonable explanations. remember we are talking about structural engineers, pilots, scientists etc here, and all respect mate but i will put more credence on what an explosives expert has to say than what you say, and if one can cast doubt on the event then i will listen to him, and if it sounds reasonable then i have to question the official verdict.

The official verdicts come from structural engineers, fire experts etc....yet those explanations are rejected. Why? Because of the conspiratorial mindset that assumes that all official sources MUST be sinister as demonstrated below:

personally i know how easy it is and how often evidence is changed or exaggerated by official bodies, i have first hand knowledge of this and i do believe that it can be and has been done on a much larger scale and people who think otherwise are being very naive

At the end of the day, there is only theory as to why the towers fell. This is a fact. The "Pancaking" Theory, or Truss explanation are the two main cases for the officials. Still only theories, and even these have been so called debunked by other sources. What to believe, it's up to the individual.

They haven't been debunked at all.

The pancake effect and truss issues have been explained.

There's no need to look for darker deeper reasons to explain why the WTC floors collapsed because the explanations provided answers to all the questions.

by **Emerald Red** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:39 am

The Pancake theory is still just that - A theory. It explains things, yes. But so does a lot of the other things the theorists claim. Both can make sense. It's just that the pancake theory still doesn't explain a lot of the other things. Not for me anyway.

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:41 am

Not meaning to drag this on, but there are other issues unexplained, and have as yet to be explained by anyone but the theorists. After the towers fell, the rescuers reported massive and intensely fierce fires still burning beneath the mound, several stories underground in the basement of the building where the central support beams are situated in the bedrock of the foundation. These fires were recorded by a NASA satellite to have reached well over 3000 degrees. Think that there are real combustible sources to keep the temperature that high, seeing that everything was reduced to powder, and another thing that this was certainly not the work of jet fuel, as that would have been well spent in the first few hours. Site workers reported pools of molten metal actually fussed with rock. Extreme heats are only capable of doing this. If there was little oxygen and little source fuel, what kept these fires burning for so long and at such high temperatures enough to melt steel and rock? One theory is Thermite. This stuff can get hot enough to cut through metal like it were butter, and continue to work even in low oxygen environments. Thermite could have easily been used in the basement of those buildings to bring it down from the bottom.

Link

Link

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:44 am

The Pancake theory is still just that - A theory. It explains things, yes. But so does a lot of the other things the theorists claim. Both can make sense. It's just that the pancake theory still doesn't explain a lot of the other things. Not for me anyway.

There is no "pancake theory" in the same sense that one might have a "magic bullet theory".

The pancaking of floors was simply the consequence of the damage sustained.

Link

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:53 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:

The official verdicts come from structural engineers, fire experts etc....yet those explanations are rejected. Why? Because of the conspiratorial mindset that assumes that all official sources MUST be sinister as demonstrated below:

i never said i rejected them, i do however question them. if there is also evidence to show something else and i think that evidence is reasonable then as an intelligent person it is prudent of me to consider it. if we never questioned evidence there would be no need for courts. If i told you i just saw a 6 foot rat you would want evidence (it is feasible after all to have a rat so big, just because you never saw one doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

the fact does remain that many things happened, and for these things to happen certain luck needs to be involved, and nobody is that lucky that all these things go in your favour. as an example every building that collapsed that day 'pancaked', this is the favoured method of demolitions as it leaves a much smaller footprint, the WTC collapsed into its own basement (where for this to happen certain explosions would have had to happen down there).

in this instance i think there are two many coincidences and failures by the worlds only superpower. even bush said he had just seen the plane hit the first time when at that time there was no footage available, added to the fact his bodyguards left him sitting there for a few minutes, is the president informed immediately every time there is a plane crash in america, or just on this occassion, "mr president the first plane has struck"

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:00 am

I never said i rejected them, i do however question them. if there is also evidence to show something else and i think that evidence is reasonable then as an intelligent person it is prudent of me to consider it. if we never questioned evidence there would be no need for courts. If i told you i just saw a 6 foot rat you would want evidence (it is feasible after all to have a rat so big, just because you never saw one doesn't mean one doesn't exist.

No, but if someone was claiming that a six foot rat existed, then the burden of proof would be on them to present evidence for it's existence.

the fact does remain that many things happened, and for these things to happen certain luck needs to be involved, and nobody is that lucky that all these things go in your favour. as an example every building that collapsed that day 'pancaked', this is the favoured method of demolitions as it leaves a much smaller footprint, the WTC collapsed into its own basement (where for this to happen certain explosions would have had to happen down there).

The North Tower imploded essentially, because of the nature of the way it's interior was damaged. That's why it appeared to be a relatively neat collapse. The South Tower broke in half, which is why it's collapse appeared far more chaotic. In both cases, the point of collapse was clearly visible in the footage and it occured high up inside the structures.

in this instance i think there are two many coincidences and failures by the worlds only superpower.

Again, this is the argument from incredulity. America are a superpower in the sense that they've got a powerful military. I would argue that thinking oneself as being mega powerful makes you vunerable to a surprise shocking attack.

even bush said he had just seen the plane hit the first time when at that time there was no footage available, added to the fact his bodyguards left him sitting there for a few minutes, is the president informed immediately every time there is a plane crash in america, or just on this occassion, "mr president the first plane has struck"

Keywords "Bush" and "Said"

This buffoon is prone to making incoherant comments.

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:13 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:This buffoon is prone to making incoherant comments.

and being manipulated

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:16 am

while we are on the subject of bush lets not forget he never even won the first election that got him into power, the whole disenfranchised scandal that surrounded his election and the following condoning of this by the supreme court, this was done in the open yet people still believe they can't do anything wrong against their people

by **babu** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 5:58 am

hehe once again can i say this is a great thread, and Manhattan is a good example of disagreeing without starting flame wars.

keep it up :buttrock

by **dawson99** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:03 am

its all about the new world order people, that giant owl as well has a lot to answer for :blues:

by **The Manhattan Project** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:16 am

and being manipulated

His track record of saying incoherant things is long and established.

I think rather than conspiracy, Bush simply being mistaken and mixing up times when he saw something is more likely.

while we are on the subject of bush lets not forget he never even won the first election that got him into power, the whole disenfranchised scandal that surrounded his election and the following condoning of this by the supreme court, this was done in the open yet people still believe they can't do anything wrong against their people

And Bush and those involved in that election have been constantly criticised by a sizable number of the American population ever since. It's not as if the American people simply accepted his election blindly.

by **112-1077774096** » Mon Oct 15, 2007 8:21 am

The Manhattan Project wrote:
and being manipulated

His track record of saying incoherant things is long and established.

I think rather than conspiracy, Bush simply being mistaken and mixing up times when he saw something is more likely.

while we are on the subject of bush lets not forget he never even won the first election that got him into power, the whole disenfranchised scandal that surrounded his election and the following condoning of this by the supreme court, this was done in the open yet people still believe they can't do anything wrong against their people

And Bush and those involved in that election have been constantly criticised by a sizable number of the American population ever since. It's not as if the American people simply accepted his election blindly.

no, but the supreme court ratified the election, (and i know the courts really should not be influenced by the government) showing that the american government are not squeaky clean and are well versed in pulling the wool over the eyes of americans. but in all fairness even the american government doesn't really control america, it is controlled by big business who can lobby as and when they feel like. bush is a puppet for these people

Liverpool FC Forum

Conspiracy theories - Which do you believe

Who is online