9/11; Bombs in the building?

[The Resurrected One]

So I thought I'd bring this up. Were there bombs in the buildings in 9/11 before the planes crashed? There has been talk about it in the VT Snopes thread, and I was wondering if anyone knew about this or had sources to any sites or articles explaning this.

[CaptainObvious]

Definitely not. The "evidence" for this theory is grainy images of matter shooting out of the building near the bottom as it collapses. But that's not particularly good evidence, since the collapse itself could easily have caused that phenomenon.

[Random_oso06]

but still there are always the chance that they planted it before the plane crash

[DarkWingedAngel]

^^ yea exactly

[CaptainObvious]

Yes, and there's the chance that the towers were actually brought down by an invisible unicorn. But until you can provide some evidence of either assertion, I'll continue life as if neither is true.

[The Batman]

It just doesn't make any sense. The only explosion I saw was when the planes hit. There are conspiracy theories circulating the internet and none of them have any real proof. They are all just claims with lack of evidence, for instance who planted the bombs and how come no one saw them do it?.

[DarkWingedAngel]

well they could have planted it in the front of the plane

[CookieMonster]

I highly doubt it. Yes, there very easily could have been a couple people working on the inside, but I've seen no proof other than stupid videos on youtube trying to make proof. None have succeeded yet.

[DarkWingedAngel]

well im going to do more research in this
but all i have to say is something blew up before the plane even hit the building
but im not completely sure

[The Batman]

Desi research isn't watching videos on youtube. It's watching the real videos and listening to people who know what they are saying.

[DarkWingedAngel]

yea and i have
i watch more videos on you tube
but i also look on sites and stuff
and have looked it up in the library(wow i just realized if i did as much homework and school work as a do research i would be a strait A student)

[Random_oso06]

ha well us and are conspires

[Oblivion]

well im going to do more research in this
but all i have to say is something blew up before the plane even hit the building
but im not completely sure

But where, I ask, is your 4 or 5 years of research?
Is it all on YouTube?

[DarkWingedAngel]

no it's not all from you tube

[The Resurrected One]

...So why don't you tell us what the other sources are?

Sorry to say Dezi, but your points are not clear.

[DarkWingedAngel]

my points are never clear
but i will try to make them clear
i got some from yahoo answers and some from www.theworldtradecenter.org
and when i figure out more i will post it

[Oblivion]

Desi, that redirects to a blank web page. It redirects to http://www.globalseeker.com/archives/

[The Batman]

You found info on an Archive site :confused:

[DarkWingedAngel]

oops wrong site address
oh great now i have to find it agen

[Bobby]

Okay, I'd like to see some debating.

[DarkWingedAngel]

yeaaaa
no
im to tired, they can though
but would like to say i did not find the site yet(agen)
i will look some more tomorrow
but for now im off to bed

[iJack]

If Desi dosent find legitimate info from a site with a .org TLD, then she has no real proof.

[DarkWingedAngel]

i will find it agen don't worry but right now im really tired and could not be bothered to do this right now

[iJack]

What ever you say, Desi, if that is your real name.

Also, don't assume, because it makes an ass of you and me.

[The Batman]

I find it funny how all these conspiracy theory's never seem to explain themselves they just state it and leave it up to the people to create the facts. Oh wait they do add some false facts.

[DarkWingedAngel]

What ever you say, Desi, if that is your real name.

Also, don't assume, because it makes an ass of you and me.
haha very funny :mad:

[Antares]

Okay, I am going to add to this DEBATE!
There are conspiracy theory videos that I MYSELF have personally commented on, on this site less than a month ago.
SO!
I will posts links in a few but otherwise START DEBATING! Not going back and forth like 'idiots' :P

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ9BofDUXv0
Theres one...ish.
Basically that whole series by NuffRepect (user) sums up all 9/11 conspiracy theories :D

[Θάνατος]

well they could have planted it in the front of the plane

OK if there was a bomb on the front of the it would have exploded on impact instead of when the plain hit the inside of the building.


The building collapsed because it could not hold the weight of the rest of the building. The fire was so hot it melted the support system on the floors the fire was on. It you watch the video of the towers falling the floors just started falling on top of each other until the whole building collapsed.

The plan was to knocked the building over by hitting the top at a high rate of speed. It failed but the fire from the jet melted the support system and caused the floor above the fire to collapse and once it started to collapsed it just went

So get your facts straight before you start posting as bunch of crap about what happened. I remember it vividly I was 11 when it happened. Here is a video link you should watch of what happened.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8vmIGGKvIms

[Antares]

Bombs on the front of the plane? Wow. Didn't see that one coming.
Thats physically impossible for that bomb to remain dormant until it can explode at some point. It was wayyyy to hot for wayyyy to long.

[Oblivion]

Has anyone found solid information suggesting that it wasn't the planes that caused the explosion?
Like a real website perhaps? [NOT including YouTube]

[theOperaGhost]

I don't think that is going to happen, Nick...

[Oblivion]

But that's the whole point of this thread
Without any proof of it being true, there's only one end of a debate
Whats the point of this thread if its not a debate?

[theOperaGhost]

I don't feel there is any proof that that there were bombs in the World Trade Center, because I don't feel there were...so if someone finds something CREDIBLE, I might change my mind, but I highly doubt that...

[The Batman]

There really isn't anything that is solid about this debate only videos.

[Θάνατος]

I don't feel there is any proof that that there were bombs in the World Trade Center, because I don't feel there were...so if someone finds something CREDIBLE, I might change my mind, but I highly doubt that...

There really isn't anything that is solid about this debate only videos.

I agree with both of you here.

If there was a bomb in the World Trade Center why was there no explosions. Second if it was a bomb, then the building would have collapsed from the bottom up instead collapsing from the top to the bottom.

[Underground_Network]

This all ties into my theories and philosophies. We can't say there was a bomb in the building, but we can't say there wasn't a bomb in the building either. Neither has enough proof to be CONFIRMED. Now I see the likeliness of there being a bomb on the inside of the building is as likely as a dodo bird spontaneously spawning in my living room, but still, there's that slight possibility that it might've occurred/could occur. So its tough to argue on something like this, it seriously is almost like Evolution vs. Creationism, in that one may have much more evidence than the other, but people are still going to suggest the other is true, and with no DEFINITIVE proof drawn from either side it is impossible to draw a conclusion that pleases everyone, because people will always point out a loophole or a lack of evidence.

[Sugaree]

There have also been claims that planes didn't hit the towers and that government missles are to blame. There are also claims that say that Bush did it to start a war.

I don't believe in any right wing nutjob conspiracy theories that these asses come up with. You could tell me that it was all a dream and that towers are still standing. I still wouldn't believe them.

As for the thread; I'd like to say that this is false. I don't think that bombs were in the towers but rather on the planes. There were reports on United Airlines Flight 93 that it seemed that one of the hijackers had a bomb on board so I believe that the hijackers of the planes that hit the towers had bombs and that they exploded on impact with the towers to make more damage.

[CaptainObvious]

There have also been claims that planes didn't hit the towers and that government missles are to blame. There are also claims that say that Bush did it to start a war.

I don't believe in any right wing nutjob conspiracy theories that these asses come up with. You could tell me that it was all a dream and that towers are still standing. I still wouldn't believe them.

As for the thread; I'd like to say that this is false. I don't think that bombs were in the towers but rather on the planes. There were reports on United Airlines Flight 93 that it seemed that one of the hijackers had a bomb on board so I believe that the hijackers of the planes that hit the towers had bombs and that they exploded on impact with the towers to make more damage.

Seriously? You're aware that those planes contained around 40,000 liters of fuel? Do you understand how big a bomb would have to be to significantly add to that amount of explosive power? Airport security was not great (obviously), but they sure as hell weren't bad enough to miss a bomb that big.

The thing that conspiracy theorists never realize is that the burden of proof lies on them. A sequence of events that don't include any bombs has been definitively shown to be true and also to have been sufficiently destructive to bring down the towers. Therefore, if you want to posit that bombs were involved, you must show additional evidence to substntiate that assertion. Saying "but they could have been there" is meaningless. So far, the fact that you've shown no evidence, and there is decent evidence against it (the unlikelihood of a bomb big enoug to change anything having been snuck past security) bodes ill for your theory, such as it is.

*edit* Btw to add some numbers to this, a gallon of jet fuel releases about 34 million calories in combustion. Combusting the fuel in the plane would've resulted in an explosive charge of ~340 tons of TNT. That's a lot. Posit how somebody could bring a bomb big enough onboard to make that explosion much bigger and we can talk. :P

[Sugaree]

Seriously? You're aware that those planes contained around 40,000 liters of fuel? Do you understand how big a bomb would have to be to significantly add to that amount of explosive power? Airport security was not great (obviously), but they sure as hell weren't bad enough to miss a bomb that big.

The thing that conspiracy theorists never realize is that the burden of proof lies on them. A sequence of events that don't include any bombs has been definitively shown to be true and also to have been sufficiently destructive to bring down the towers. Therefore, if you want to posit that bombs were involved, you must show additional evidence to substntiate that assertion. Saying "but they could have been there" is meaningless. So far, the fact that you've shown no evidence, and there is decent evidence against it (the unlikelihood of a bomb big enoug to change anything having been snuck past security) bodes ill for your theory, such as it is.

The bomb didn't have to be as big as you say it should have been. It still would have done damage none the less. Of course security was to blame. It's always to blame for something like this. They're the ones who allowed, no, scratch that, basically INVIVTED them and, in theory, said "Go ahead with your bomb onto the plane. We won't ask questions."

Of course, you are right about the teorists and that the "proof" that they have is also a burden. If they can not come out with the information then they just aren't worth the time IMHO.

You are also not getting this. You don't realize just how much power any type of bomb has. This bomb could have been the size of a small carry on bag and could have added to the damage. It's not like it had to be the size of a huge luggage carrier or suitcase you can take on a plane.

It's all a matter of personal opinion and not actual fact. The only thing we know as of this moment, is that these planes were hijacked and had specific targets. The targets, in the radical's minds, were symbols of American power and prestige and that they thought it was a disgrace to the weakness of other countries so they took it upon themselves to kill hundreds of thousands of people for no real good reason.

[Underground_Network]

^^ Matt, you don't know much about bombs do you... Terrorists could not sneak a bomb small enough and explosive enough to add to that explosion. The only types of bombs I know that are that small and that explosive (or even more so) are one of three things: 1) Theoretical. 2) Need certain conditions to explode, would require certain things that would basically involve making the bomb while flying the plane (instantaneous explosion of sorts, not impossible, but I doubt these terrorists were bomb experts in that sense). 3) The only types of bombs that small that do that much damage well, don't exist, there are bombs small enough that would do A LOT more damage than that, but besides that, no. The only other possibility would've been something radioactive, and trust me, a radioactive bomb did not go off there. That would've been impossible to cover up and no one would be living in that area any more.

Btw, I'm not a bomb expert, I don't even know specifics, but I know a decent enough amount about bombs and warfare in general that I wouldn't consider myself "ignorant" on the topic.

[CaptainObvious]

The bomb didn't have to be as big as you say it should have been. It still would have done damage none the less. Of course security was to blame. It's always to blame for something like this. They're the ones who allowed, no, scratch that, basically INVIVTED them and, in theory, said "Go ahead with your bomb onto the plane. We won't ask questions."

Of course, you are right about the teorists and that the "proof" that they have is also a burden. If they can not come out with the information then they just aren't worth the time IMHO.

You are also not getting this. You don't realize just how much power any type of bomb has. This bomb could have been the size of a small carry on bag and could have added to the damage. It's not like it had to be the size of a huge luggage carrier or suitcase you can take on a plane.

It's all a matter of personal opinion and not actual fact. The only thing we know as of this moment, is that these planes were hijacked and had specific targets. The targets, in the radical's minds, were symbols of American power and prestige and that they thought it was a disgrace to the weakness of other countries so they took it upon themselves to kill hundreds of thousands of people for no real good reason.

Sorry bud, but you don't understand how much power a bomb has. Are you telling me that you know of an easily concealed (aka small) bomb whose presence would not be detected (i.e. same combustion profile as jet fuel, if there was a bunch of TNT on the aircraft we'd know because TNT, as with any other compound, leaves a distinctive combustion signature)? If so, please tell us what it is.

This argument is going like all conspiracy arguments go. I have provided facts and cold hard numbers to point out exactly what the conditions would necessarily have to be for a bomb to have had any additional impact on the collapse. Your response has been to ignore the numbers and basically say "I don't believe you."

Fine. If you think a bomb was on the plane, let's see some evidence. Starting with some numbers as to how a bomb would feasibly worsen the impact, and what kind of bomb it would have to be. Because until you provide some facts or numbers, we're just playing "what-if" tag, and it's a game I'm not particularly interested in.

[The Resurrected One]

Ok I won't read this whole thread.

In one word, is it true or not.

[Requin]

I can't see how this can be. I mean, with rumours such as this, you need to do certain things. You need to find out where the rumour started and by whom.
I don't know when or where this started as this is the first time i have heard of it, so....

But i don't want to sound mean here, but does it really matter? It was a tragedy and lots of people died in it. We can't change it, so why do we keep discussing things like this, it won't bring the people who died back will it?
That's the one thing that i don't like about conspiracy theories, it's not needed and it doesn't help.

Can't we just forget this tragedy and put it to rest now, no more conspiracy's, no more programme's about it, let it die.
And remember the dead in your own way.
So i have no opinion on this theory.

[Sugaree]

But i don't want to sound mean here, but does it really matter?

^^This is the reply I've been looking for. I don't think it matters, but I do find it a good debate. I just tired of having to look and hear about it.