9/11 was a conspiracy theory?

[maxwinedog]

Many still believe (especially the americans themselves) that 9/11 was an inside job setup by the US govt. What do you tthink?

We will never know the real truth
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

[Maybelater]

Really, ten out of four an hour later actually think 9/11 was an inside job? The mentality that goes behind actually believing 9/11 was a set-up is just insane. I like how that Dylan Avery tool has needed to make four versions of the "truth".

This is going to be a fun thread.

[dandia89]

why dont you just bump one of the ten million other 911 conspiracy threads instead of creating another thread

[gretz]

You should have a 4th choice > it never happened, like the holocaust :nut:

[kvg]

Originally posted by dandia89
why dont you just bump one of the ten million other 911 conspiracy threads instead of creating another thread

Useless tread:closed:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Feruk]

Say the US government wanted to expand it's grasp over the Middle East and need popular support to go to war. What could be better than attacking it's own civilians, thus making them want revenge? Pick the right scapegoat and you're good to go.

Having said that, I doubt Bush's entire cabinet wouldn't be smart enough to come up with that, so I say no chance.

[oupzwrongthread]

Educate yourself kids! http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=92662&page=1

In the early 1960s, America's top military leaders reportedly drafted plans to kill innocent people and commit acts of terrorism in U.S. cities to create public support for a war against Cuba.

Code named Operation Northwoods, the plans reportedly included the possible assassination of Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees on the high seas, hijacking planes, blowing up a U.S. ship, and even orchestrating violent terrorism in U.S. cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Northwoods

[dirtsniffer]

before every major war of the 20th century the united states used a false flag to get into it, its hard to not atleast suspect them of being involved somehow

[CapnCrunch]

BLAH BLAH BLAH, Just let this shit die already.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[beyond_ban]

Was 9/11 a conspiracy theory? That is a poorly worded question. There are theorys that it was a conspiracy, but no one can prove them 100% right or wrong so we will never truly know. I believe that there is a high liklihood that the Americans were behind the attacks... but like posted above, this thread is useless because whichever side of the debate you are on is the same side you will always be on so a debate does little good.

[oupzwrongthread]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Theorizing something and actually doing it is two entirely different things. Besides all I see in that wiki link is references to unmanned drone ships and deception… nothing about killing civilians.

Even if such a devious plan were ever conceived and carried out… killing a huge chunk of your countries top economic citizens and military advising personal, wiping out two landmarks and crippling the stock market is totally counterproductive to strengthening the country. I am sure they could have blown up an empty cargo ship or something else highly visible if they really wanted to fabricate something.

Being that terrorist attacks are being carried out on a pretty regular basis around the world it is stupid to think the US government had anything to do with it.

There is a lot of info on north wood. ~4k people is not a huge chunk. A war makes more $ than the stock market any day of the week, especially if said country see's an unavoidable and systematic market crash. I am not suggesting that 911 was an inside job, simply stating that is isn't as "stupid" as people think to suggest a govt is capable of it.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[bspot]

Originally posted by maxwinedog
Many still believe (especially the americans themselves) that 9/11 was an inside job setup by the US govt. What do you tthink?

We will never know the real truth
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

We know the truth. There is just a very dedicated group of retards working hard to come up with wilder and wilder theories because they need something to cling to, 12 years and counting. Pathetic. Go take some physics and chemistry.

[est1989]

Originally posted by bspot


We know the truth. There is just a very dedicated group of retards working hard to come up with wilder and wilder theories because they need something to cling to, 12 years and counting. Pathetic. Go take some physics and chemistry.

9 years and counting. Go take some math

[03ozwhip]

^^10 years and counting, YOU go take some math.

[cherpintow]

Whenever I try to believe that there is nothing fishy about 9/11, I can't get past building 7. How the hell did this thing collapse?

For all the other events, too many people would have to be involved, especially when it comes to planting explosives in a busy office building.

[oupzwrongthread]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I certainly don't think it is stupid to theorize what transpired, however if you actually believe something that outlandish based on non-existent evidence, well I stand by my original post.

This is all I was saying. :thumbsup:

[kvg]

Originally posted by maxwinedog
Many still believe (especially the americans themselves) that 9/11 was an inside job setup by the US govt. What do you tthink?

We will never know the real truth
http://www.911sharethetruth.com/

http://www.pamil-visions.net/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/do-not-feed-the-troll.png

[anarchy]

Originally posted by 03ozwhip
^^10 years and counting, YOU go take some math.
It's actually 9 years, 10 in September :D



I'm not arguing either side, but man if you want people to believe your theories, maybe try not to build your site like it's your old geocities page and you'll have a bit more respect.

[bspot]

See, so long ago, and so obvious, I forgot.

Plane hits towers.

Terrorists say they did it.

Yup, dead terrorists in there.

Move along.

[v2kai]

Originally posted by cherpintow
Whenever I try to believe that there is nothing fishy about 9/11, I can't get past building 7. How the hell did this thing collapse?


I concur

[dirtsniffer]

^^yup it wasnt even mentioned during the sept11 commision

[-Jay21-]

Thermite was found in the wreckage of the both towers. Set off alarm bells for me.

I don't know what to believe. And what the hell happened to building number 7?

Anyone who doesn't ask these questions is burying their head in the sand.

[ChappedLips]

lol @ building 7 theories...

Imagine a 100 story building collapsing sending huge chunks of concrete, steel and other debris in all directions. These chunks are going to be massive and are going to weigh thousands of pounds. Lots of those chunks and debris hit building seven which took out some of the support beams for the building. You now have a 47 story building with maybe 60-70% of its original support and then it started on fire which weakened it even more. The building didn't look to be too damaged because of all the smoke but all the fire fighters and police knew it was doomed and got out of there.

[topher91]

Originally posted by v2kai


I concur

I agree as well.

Don't forget the lack of airplane debris from Flight 93 or the one that hit the Pentagon??

JZekosYOmXc&feature

[calgarydub]

Lots of hearsay in this thread....

This wasn't an inside job, however there is evidence that the US intelligence knew about it, but failed to respond accordingly.

[A790]

Poll edited for accuracy. :D

Fuck I hate these threads.

[bspot]

Note to self, come in this thread for a roll call of beyonders who are of below average intelligence.

[revelations]

Originally posted by calgarydub
Lots of hearsay in this thread....

This wasn't an inside job, however there is evidence that the US intelligence knew about it, but failed to respond accordingly.

BINGO


From the books written by former white house staffers who were present just prior, and during 9/11 .... all the intelligence reports were detailing ACTIONABLE evidence (contrary to what Con Rice was saying). Richard Clarke had a few really good books too.

All this ACTIONABLE evidence ended up in the laps of 2 men:

Cheney and Rumsfeld

Thats ***ALL*** the people it took to do NOTHING.

They let 9/11 happen. No bombs in buildings, missiles, etc.

[Toma]

The FACTS are interesting....

Black boxes claimed never recovered, yet witnesses claim they saw at least 2 recovered (See "Conspiracy Theory" Jesse Ventura" 911 episode). Also, ALL 'indestructible' black boxes 'destroyed', yet random terrorist passport found at scene unharmed.

7 of the named terrorists/suicide bombers still somehow alive after the fact..... wrongly ID'd? SO who REALLY did it?

Box Cutters? Really?? Fuck off.

Thermite found.

No actual credible proof EVER presented that OBL was responsible. No proof that would stand in court. In fact, the FBI wanted him for previous stuff, but never included 911 on his "rap sheet".

Lots more.....
:thumbsup:

Not sure US government actually carried it out, or was directly involved, but something is VERY fishy.

80% of Americans do not buy the story "as is".

[topher91]

^^ yes evidence and facts speak loud!!

[revelations]

Originally posted by Toma
Not sure US government actually carried it out, or was directly involved, but something is VERY fishy.


Thats probably the best summary. Its not black and white like many seem to think.

[HuMz]

Originally posted by revelations


Thats probably the best summary. Its not black and white like many seem to think.

I feel the same way....there's too many discrepancies and it doesn't all add up.

[calgarydub]

Originally posted by Toma
The FACTS are interesting....

Black boxes claimed never recovered, yet witnesses claim they saw at least 2 recovered (See "Conspiracy Theory" Jesse Ventura" 911 episode). Also, ALL 'indestructible' black boxes 'destroyed', yet random terrorist passport found at scene unharmed.

7 of the named terrorists/suicide bombers still somehow alive after the fact..... wrongly ID'd? SO who REALLY did it?

Box Cutters? Really?? Fuck off.

Thermite found.

No actual credible proof EVER presented that OBL was responsible. No proof that would stand in court. In fact, the FBI wanted him for previous stuff, but never included 911 on his "rap sheet".

Lots more.....
:thumbsup:

Not sure US government actually carried it out, or was directly involved, but something is VERY fishy.

80% of Americans do not buy the story "as is".


How can you seriously take facts from Jesse Ventura:? Unbelievable :facepalm:

[Kennyredline]

Originally posted by topher91


I agree as well.

Don't forget the lack of airplane debris from Flight 93 or the one that hit the Pentagon??

JZekosYOmXc&feature

Don't tell me your one of those people that thinks just because there was little wreckage found on the surface that there was no plane crash at all....?
Flight 93 and the Pentagon plane were both travelling at well over 500 MPH (FIVE HUNDRED MILES PER HOUR) when they impacted. What do you honestly expect to see left behind?
100 tons of airplane hits the ground at that speed almost nose-first.
I have recently done a look at the theories for an inside job, and they make no sense. Truthers disbelieve everything they're told, and will not believe even the science behind the events.
No one will make me believe the towers were brought down with thermite...there is no way to pack everything in those towers that was needed to bring them down.
Look at any interview George Bush ever did; does he look even remotely smart enough to pull all that off?
fixed.

[dirtsniffer]

100000 tons eh?

[revelations]

Originally posted by Kennyredline
Look at any interview George Bush ever did; does he look even remotely smart enough to pull all that off?
fixed.

Again, Bush 43 had little knowledge of what really went on. Bush 43 was the opposite type of president, as compared to Clinton for eg. who wanted details about everything.

B43 hated reading long intelligence reports and had them, quite literally, dumbed down for his viewing.

Cheney and Rumsfeld held all the cards and chose to do nothing about the impending event, even with actionable intelligence, because they had their own personal and political motives (Iraq).

[Merritt]

Whoa...I just saw these on another board, I don't know if this is real or fake. :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek: To my guess, it could be fake and done by CGI. :dunno:

http://s7.postimage.org/fm78h0u0a/1319929460042.jpg

http://s4.postimage.org/6d6r8cb6j/1319929580947.jpg

http://s1.postimage.org/yzwwfmn7x/1319929023601.gif

Link: http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/44286/NEW_9_11_VIDEO_MISSILE_STRIKE_PENTAGON/

[Merritt]

Another thing, I'm not a conspiracy nut or anything, but...


In a Parade Magazine interview, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, made his infamous slip of the tongue, "here we’re talking about plastic knives, and using an American Airlines flight filed with our citizens, and the missile to damage this building and similar (inaudible) that damaged the World Trade Center."

[dirtsniffer]

that video of the rocket is pretty crazy. it's also crazy that the fbi confiscated all surveillance videos from every business anywhere near the pentagon. I'm fairly certain that video is real.

:nut:

[slinkie]

Originally posted by ChappedLips
lol @ building 7 theories...

Imagine a 100 story building collapsing sending huge chunks of concrete, steel and other debris in all directions. These chunks are going to be massive and are going to weigh thousands of pounds. Lots of those chunks and debris hit building seven which took out some of the support beams for the building. You now have a 47 story building with maybe 60-70% of its original support and then it started on fire which weakened it even more. The building didn't look to be too damaged because of all the smoke but all the fire fighters and police knew it was doomed and got out of there.

http://i53.tinypic.com/mrtxkg.png

http://www.ae911truth.org/

1,632 verified architectural and engineering professionals have signed the petition demanding of Congress
a truly independent investigation.

WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed.

I think average people like us will never know what really went on that day, for a long time anyway



:clap: Love working halloween:banghead:

[thetransporter]

http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html

[01RedDX]

.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

Originally posted by thetransporter
http://killtown.911review.org/pentalawn.html

The only things I love more than half-baked conspiracy theories are WordArt and Comic Sans. :rofl:

[403Gemini]

I selected "No Idea" cause let's be honest, none of us have any idea.

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by 403Gemini
WTC Building #7, a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane, exhibited all the characteristics of classic controlled demolition with explosives:

1. Rapid onset of collapse

2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor – a second before the building's destruction

3. Symmetrical "structural failure" – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall acceleration

4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed in its own footprint

5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic-like clouds

6. Expert corroboration from the top European controlled demolition professional

7. Foreknowledge of "collapse" by media, NYPD, FDNY

In the the aftermath of WTC7's destruction, strong evidence of demolition using incendiary devices was discovered:

8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples

9. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly qualified witnesses

10. Chemical signature of the incendiary thermite found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples

WTC7 exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire:

1. Slow onset with large visible deformations

2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)

3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel

4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never collapsed. .

Personally, I think there's far more to this story than meets the eye.

That being said, I find the above talking points rather weak, and easily accounted for by more mundane, and more plausible explanations.

[broken_legs]

I find it amazing that despite what your eyes and your brain tell you, you'd rather believe in "more plausible and mundane" explanations.

Try to divorce yourself from what the media has said, all of the conspiracy theories, just trust your own two eyes.

What was your first impression when you saw this on TV?

Was it
A.) "That looks like a controlled demolition! WTF!"

Then a short time later, the implications of what that thought actually meant force your brain to come up with some other "more plausible and mundane explanations"?


Or maybe you immediately thought:
B.)"Gee, thats a funny coincidence that all three of those building fell exactly like a controlled demolition... What are the chance of that! huh huh huh"

Or maybe you thought:
C.) "Obviously the structural strength of the steel was weakened due to fires and after some time this caused them to collapse, pancaking the floors. This 1/1,000,000 chance fluke of nature which has just been scientifically re-created in front of my eyes 3 times, has given me a great idea! I should become a demolition expert, because I can explain how to demolish highrise building without the use of exploives. Imagine all the money I could save on explosives!"


If you thought A, you weren't alone. You'd be in agreement with physics, common sense, and all the news reporters that said the same thing on air that day.

If the obvious truth of this didn't demand conspiracy, and require everyone to question everything they know and understand, there would be no debate.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak

If you actually looked at the design of the building you would understand why it collapsed the way it did.



And building 7 was just a random coincidence? Or was this another uniquely designed building that self destructs from fire?

So when you first saw this on TV, before anything else about conspiracies and the 9-11 comission etc,,. What did you think?

A B or C or D??

[dirtsniffer]

A. I read somewhere that no steel building has ever collapsed from fire. Also read that half of the support columns were perimeter and half were core. People will just say that wtc7 was hit with too much debris... maybe it was?:dunno:

[broken_legs]

This is an interesting video

hZEvA8BCoBw


These are experts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Architects_%26_Engineers_for_9/11_Truth

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/evidence.html

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Mar]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
while this building was actually supported around the perimeter. Essentially each floor was suspended from the outside,
No it wasn't.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/3164790270_9ced8464a1_b.jpg


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Anybody that believes this was an inside job is an idiot
:closed:

Haha, ya, what kind of idiot would believe the US government would/could hire a terrorist organization to make an attach on the World Trade Center? Oh, wait......that did happen in 1993.


In the course of the trial it was revealed that the FBI had an informant, a former Egyptian army officer named Emad Salem. Salem claims to have informed the FBI of the plot to bomb the towers as early as February 6, 1992. Salem's role as informant allowed the FBI to quickly pinpoint the conspirators out of hundreds of possible suspects.
Salem, initially believing that this was to be a sting operation, claimed that the FBI's original plan was for Salem to supply the conspirators with a harmless powder instead of actual explosive to build their bomb, but that the FBI chose to use him for other purposes instead. He secretly recorded hundreds of hours of telephone conversations with his FBI handlers.[25]

So the cops told him to give a bomb to people that wanted to blow up the building? Okay.....:dunno:

But you're right, I'd have to be a stupid idiot to believe that. Especially when they have physical evidence that a plane crashed in Pennsylvania. Could you......please circle a piece of plane in this picture? Any piece....

http://stj911.org/evidence/docs/P200059_1.jpg

But yes, you're right.....the idea of a nation's leader to fake an attack on its own building........it's symbol of its nation.........just to blame it on the opposition is absurd. Oh wait, that happened too when Hitler burned down his own Reichstag and blamed it on the Jews. Yes, I realize it was never proven but it's very similar to our own predicament, ja?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire

But of course Hitler was a crazy coot and in no way anything like one of our leaders, correct? Of course our leaders have never waged a false flag attack to enter a war. Oops, that happened too......Gulf Of Tonkin incident.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_of_Tonkin_incident

And who was it that said Building 7 fell from fire? In the history of planet Earth, no steel supported building had ever come down from fire, including a similar height building that burned in Spain for 2 days.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/4263667.stm

So what happened to it? Maybe we can get some insight from Larry Silverstein, the holder of the lease for Building 7 at the time of the incident, what does he have to say?

7WYdAJQV100

Oh, so he was the one that decided to pull the building, that makes sense. He released a statement afterwards that his order to pull the building meant to get the firefighters out but there's a major problem with that. There weren't any firefighters in Building 7 according to the report.

I'd rather people say I'm an idiot than to try and swallow the official release of the story. I have no idea what really happened but that country has a shitty track record.

[corsvette]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I watched a documentary which featured the engineer who designed those particular towers. The design of that building is very much unique, most buildings are supported from columns throughout while this building was actually supported around the perimeter. Essentially each floor was suspended from the outside, which is why when one floor let go... it just pancaked downward breaking the connections of each floor as it went. If you actually looked at the design of the building you would understand why it collapsed the way it did.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tube_(structure)

I watched a few shows myself about the actual design of the buildings. One of the designers stated they were specificly designed to withstand a plane crashing into them, this was a requirement set out when building a structure that high. They were also the first modern post war buildings in history to collapse from aircraft. One of many "first's" that happened that day.

[Mar]

Originally posted by corsvette


I watched a few shows myself about the actual design of the buildings. One of the designers stated they were specificly designed to withstand a plane crashing into them, this was a requirement set out when building a structure that high. They were also the first modern post war buildings in history to collapse from aircraft. One of many "first's" that happened that day.
They were designed to handle a 747 impact at any point. They were hit by 767 airliners.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[01RedDX]

.

[kertejud2]

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/jet_fuel.png

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 01RedDX
[B]
I'm sorry, but I've never seen two jumbo jets with a full fuel load crash into a skyscraper before. How many have you seen? I'm serious, how many jumbo jets laden with fuel have you seen crash into 100+ story buildings? You must have seen some, because what else would make you so confident that you know exactly how those buildings should fall - should they have fallen sideways, not fallen at all, or halfway? Or invariably yield the same result?


I believe I said, divorce yourself from the news and the conspiracy theories.

What does it look like? A controlled demolition.

So wouldn't the scientific method demand that you investigate whether or not there was a controlled demolition by examining the evidence and trying to disprove that theory?

Instead what we got was a goal seek sham where any evidence that didn't fit into the official pre-ordained theory was left out and not even addressed.

How exactly does that fit your definition of Plausible and mundane?




So far, most of the official explanations seem a lot more plausible than all the conspiracy theories to me and it's not because I'm a sheep, it's because I've never witnessed such an event, and would rather listen to an impartial expert who has a pretty good idea on what should have happened. But here you are, still rehashing the same old talking points without bothering to address any of the strongest evidence against them, and telling me that MY thinking process is somehow flawed. C'mon man, you're a really smart guy, don't you think it's a bit pretentious?


In your opinion the official report is more plausible. Why?

Only because the alternative requires you to believe in a conspiracy. Thats the only "un-plausible" aspect of the controlled demolition theory.

You're looking at a picture of a cat and trying to explain away why it's actually a poodle.



Let's say it WAS a controlled demolition (entirely possible) and these massive buildings got rigged for demolition without a single witness, (a mind-boggling undertaking) and yet got demolished in such a way as to leave room for other explanations, ones that the majority of experts finds completely plausible... after 2 massive planes hit the area first. In other words, a completely perfect and bulletproof conspiracy.


It's far from bullet proof. Why do you think so many people believe otherwise? Because they are all crazy and want to believe the government is out to get them?

c'mon man. None of the evidence to suggest this was a demolition has ever been addressed by any official investigation. Thats not scientific. The official story relies on so much one of a kind and special circumstances to explain away things that have never happened before in history - meanwhile there is all this real evidence that suggests it was a demolition that has never been addressed.

How can you accept the official story knowing full well that the conclusion was reached before the investigation was even started?





It's possible, yes, but most people don't find this explanation very plausible, and you can't honestly fault them for this, especially when your side has little actual proof except to say that's what it "looked" like to me.


Physics.
Highlight reel of other building collapsing in the EXACT same way, repeatable, way as every other controlled demolition. Thats Empirical evidence of a known phenomenon.
Thermite found in the debris.
Melted steel.
Steel beams cut at angles.
Temperatures way higher than can be explained otherwise (without thermite being used)
Exploding windows
Eye witness reports of molten steel before building collapsed
Eye witness reports of explosions before and during collapse


Then theres the official story:

A single column failed and brought the entire building down at the same speed as gravity - First time in history.
The column failed because of an office fire - First time in history.
No investigation of any of the unrefuted evidence suggesting there may have been a controlled demolition.
Did not follow the proper procedures in the investigation that requires them to look at a possible bomb or other attack.

As far as I know, there is no actual evidence. This is just a theory. An interpretation of how a poodle can actually be a cat.

Again. I ask you to disregard any conspiracy theories, and just look unbiased at the evidence.



Still, I concede, like anything, it's entirely possible. The problem is, while I'm willing to see your side, you're completely dismissive of ours and claiming that your way of thinking is the only way, which just comes across as snide condescension. That is the problem with most of you 911 truther folks.


I think you've got it backwards. But w/e



Tell me why your theory is any more plausible than this? http://www.structuremag.org/Archives/2007-11/SF-WTC7-Gilsanz-Nov07.pdf
I'm genuinely curious. Until then, you are basically saying that I should disregard all reasonable, plausible scientific explanations in favor of convoluted and ridiculous conspiracy theories. Well, sorry man, I may be stupid, but I'm not crazy.

See above. At best its a poor theory. Theres no evidence to support any of it.

Believing that the building came down as a result of a controlled demolition doesnt mean there was a conspiracy. Believe what ever you want, terrorizers could have planted those bombs, we don't know.

A duck is a duck.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by broken_legs

In your opinion the official report is more plausible. Why?

Only because the alternative requires you to believe in a conspiracy. Thats the only "un-plausible" aspect of the controlled demolition theory.

You're looking at a picture of a cat and trying to explain away why it's actually a poodle.



That's the only reason?

You're viewing the conspiracy as a single factor without actually looking into the factors to make the conspiracy successful:

The buildings were rigged with explosive charges, and then flew planes into them before detonating it? There are more than a few problems with this scenario, but they all boil down to this: as the complexity of the theory grows the conspiracy would need to grow to incredibly large size to cover itself up. First, rigging two buildings this size for a planned demolition would take months. Months of literally thousands of explosive charges being brought in, floors and ceilings being ripped open as they are attached. Wires would need to be run through ducts (since you cant have them running through crowded offices). This means hundreds of people from security guards, janitors, demolition experts, and construction workers would need to have been in on the big secret months before anything happened. Second, there would be a lot of evidence of such a controlled demolition: unexploded ordinance and blast residue for example. Add the state and local fire departments, police departments, and other first responders, the cleanup crews hired to cart away the debris, the FBI, and the FAA.

Next, a plane hitting the building and exploding is inherrently a wildly unpredictable event. They had no way to tell when the buildings would be hit, where they would be hit, even IF they would be hit. Once they hit, the plane could or could not have exploded, could have punched through the other side, could have knocked off the top, toppled the builings by themselves, and on and on. I doubt they actually simulated the exact effects beforehand (massive computer model taking weeks if not months to program and once again adding loads of people to the conspiracy), and since nothing like this has ever happened before or was anticipated by the designers, the result could not have been precisely known beforehand by even the most sophisticated engineers.

Then there is the matter of timing, administration and motive. 9/11 happened 8 months after the Bush administration started. That means they pretty much got into office and then immediately got to planning 9/11. Diplomatic row with China, getting their priorities through congress, an energy crisis, setting their economic policies all took a back seat to something which was insane from the get go, and really not even necessary. I mean, what huge interest in Afghanistan did we even have? The supposed oil pipeline? Puhleese. The WTC by itself generated far more economic activity. If it was to pave the way for Iraq, why not plant evidence in that direction (ie use chemical weapons as part of the WMD narrative)? For that matter there is the question: Why could the government plan so flawless and grand a conspiracy, but was not competent enough to manufacture evidence of an Iraqi WMD program? It seems it would have been unbelievably easy by comparison, and at least there would have been a clear political motive.



But all of this ignores the simple fact that they didn't actually need the buildings to collapse to get the reaction they needed. Building demolitions fail, it's an inherent risk. Why take that risk when you needed the planes to hit the buildings to go through with the demolition anyway?





Believing that the building came down as a result of a controlled demolition doesnt mean there was a conspiracy. Believe what ever you want, terrorizers could have planted those bombs, we don't know.

:nut:

[LollerBrader]

Originally posted by broken_legs
I find it amazing that despite what your eyes and your brain tell you, you'd rather believe in "more plausible and mundane" explanations.

Try to divorce yourself from what the media has said, all of the conspiracy theories, just trust your own two eyes.


How patronizing. You presume that because I'm skeptical of your little 911Truth tip sheet that I've bought into the mainstream narrative.

My worldview allows for more nuanced understanding than the false dichotomy you present.


Originally posted by broken_legs
What was your first impression when you saw this on TV?


It was HOLY FUCK THAT BUILDING IS CRASHING IN HOLY FUCK.

It did not occur to me analyze the building in terms of engineering or demolitions, as these are areas I'm not familiar with - Moreso, I acknowledge that the many unique elements at play that further defy straightforward analysis.


There's tons of fishy things about 911 - One of which is the 911Truth movement, which seems built on dramatic, weak arguments. As the truths comes out over the next decade, it would not surprise me to find out that this movement itself is part of a smokescreen to delineate the boundaries of discussion to a safe, yet kooky, corner.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by kertejud2


That's the only reason?

You're viewing the conspiracy as a single factor without actually looking into the factors to make the conspiracy successful:

blah blah blah.


I'm going to explain to you why I don't have to to consider any alternative to the official story because the alternative is too crazy. Now let me continue by debating the conspiracy theory and not addressing any actual facts or arguments that show the official story is a crock of shit.

You just provided an excellent example of what i've been saying all along.

Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at the evidence in front of you.

Just ask yourself this:
What event describes the events you witnessed perfectly?




And as far as them planning this "perfect" conspiracy, obviously it wasn't perfect if there are still so many unanswered questions and people who believe it was a conspiracy.

And as for how they might do it, in about 30 seconds I came up with this:

Small group of terrorists/rogue government w/e plan to take down the towers. Hire 30 mexican labourers, give them whatever was used to take down the building, and have them install it over a period of months. Just tell them its routine maintenance etc...

Have the CIA "disappear" each mexican after the job is completed. The agents don't know why, they just an order and execute it. Have another couple of agents disappear the agents that took out the mexicans, again they don't know why, they are just doing their job.

There you go. 3 degrees of separation with not a whole lot of people involved - Obviously it'd be a little more complicated but I think its easy to demonstrate this is very possible. Everyone claims it must be impossible and involve too many people as if everyone in the buildings, all the owners, every single person in government would have to know about it. Anything is possible.

[gyu]

Wasn't American Airlines stock being traded heavily the days before the attack? I think something like 10 times its usual activity the day before.

[dirtsniffer]

ya, no modern steel skyscraper has ever been imploded in the old cut the columns method. But every building when it is built needs to provide a plan on how it can be demolished, it would be interesting to know how the creators planned on taking it down. I also read that the wtc buildings were full of asbestos and were going to cost billions of dollars to renovate

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Mar

No it wasn't.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3257/3164790270_9ced8464a1_b.jpg How does that image support your claim that the building wasn't supported around the perimeter? All I see is that each building had 4 cranes, each closer to the center of the tower.

Did you know that the supports for these cranes usually run up the elevator shafts so that the entire scaffolding can go right down to ground level? Thanks for showing me where the elevator shafts are.


Originally posted by Mar

They were designed to handle a 747 impact at any point. They were hit by 767 airliners. Are you fucking serious? please provide a cite for that. A 747? A fully loaded 747 can weigh as much as 975,000 pounds (almost 500 tons), and can carry up to 64,000 gallons of fuel.

How can you design any building to withstand the impact caused by that?

By contrast, the 767s that actually hit the towers had maximum weights of 395,000 pounds and carried a maximum of 24,000 gallons of fuel.

IIRC, I also saw the interview with one of the designers and he said that, yes it was designed to withstand an airplane impact, but they weren't planning for commercial airliners, but much smaller planes. Also, they didn't know to take into account factors like the fact that a massive crash could scrape the fireproofing off of the metal and the steel could then have prolonged exposure to burning jet fuel.

But if you say they were designed to withstand a 747(!) impact, then it must be true. Please provide your cite though, because I think it would be very interesting reading.

And for these people who say OBL never claimed he was responsible for these attacks - what about the video that was released in which he talks about the fact that he had expected beforehand that the buildings would topple over and was surprised that they ended up falling straight down?

[Toma]

Originally posted by dexlargo
....
Are you fucking serious? please provide a cite for that. A 747? A fully loaded 747 can weigh as much as 975,000 pounds (almost 500 tons), and can carry up to 64,000 gallons of fuel.

How can you design any building to withstand the impact caused by that?

By contrast, the 767s that actually hit the towers had maximum weights of 395,000 pounds and carried a maximum of 24,000 gallons of fuel.

IIRC, I also saw the interview with one of the designers and he said that, yes it was designed to withstand an airplane impact, but they weren't planning for commercial airliners, but much smaller planes. Also, they didn't know to take into account factors like the fact that a massive crash could scrape the fireproofing off of the metal and the steel could then have prolonged exposure to burning jet fuel.

But if you say they were designed to withstand a 747(!) impact, then it must be true. Please provide your cite though, because I think it would be very interesting reading.

And for these people who say OBL never claimed he was responsible for these attacks - what about the video that was released in which he talks about the fact that he had expected beforehand that the buildings would topple over and was surprised that they ended up falling straight down?

Listen, since you are blatantly oblivious, the towers WERE in fact constructed with a tremendously strong CENTRAL support section.

This has been even showcased on the fucking discovery channel, Google is your friend. It was a core/perimeter system that maximized floor space, but was tremendously over engineered.

Also, yes, the buildings WERE designed to take the impact of the biggest jet liners of their time. (there weren't any 747's yet).

The towers design engineers, architects etc are on RECORD as saying the towers were designed to withstand multiple hits for the then 707 or DC8 type aircraft. In later interviews they stated they would withstand 747 type impacts.


Leslie Robertson, member of the WTC design team, who is featured on many documentaries about the attack, said he "designed it for a (Boeing) 707 to hit it." 2 Statements and documents predating the attack indicate that engineers considered the effects of not only of jetliner impacts, but also of ensuing fires.



John Skilling was the head structural engineer for the World Trade Center. In a 1993 interview, Skilling stated that the Towers were designed to withstand the impact and fires resulting from the collision of a large jetliner such as Boeing 707 or Douglas DC-8.

Our analysis indicated the biggest problem would be the fact that all the fuel (from the airplane) would dump into the building. There would be a horrendous fire. A lot of people would be killed, ... The building structure would still be there. 3

This is from a design analysis in 1968.... note the SPEED!

The buildings have been investigated and found to be safe in an assumed collision with a large jet airliner (Boeing 707—DC 8) traveling at 600 miles per hour. Analysis indicates that such collision would result in only local damage which could not cause collapse or substantial damage to the building and would not endanger the lives and safety of occupants not in the immediate area of impact.


Frank A. Demartini, on-site construction manager for the World Trade Center, spoke of the resilience of the towers in an interview recorded on January 25, 2001.

The building was designed to have a fully loaded 707 crash into it. That was the largest plane at the time. I believe that the building probably could sustain multiple impacts of jetliners because this structure is like the mosquito netting on your screen door -- this intense grid -- and the jet plane is just a pencil puncturing that screen netting. It really does nothing to the screen netting./[quote]

[quote]According to the 1964 white paper cited above, a Tower would still be able to withstand a 100-mile-per-hour wind after all the perimeter columns on one face and some of the columns on each adjacent face had been cut. 8 Also, John Skilling is cited by the Engineering News Record for the claim that "live loads on these [perimeter] columns can be increased more than 2000% before failure occurs." 9


Hyman Brown, the construction manager of the Twin Towers, said: “They were over-designed to withstand almost anything, including hurricanes, . . . bombings and an airplane hitting [them]” (Bollyn, 2001).


Thomas Eagar, an MIT professor of materials engineering who supports the official theory, says that the impact of the airplanes would not have been significant, because “the number of columns lost on the initial impact was not large and the loads were shifted to remaining columns in this highly redundant structure” (Eagar and Musso, 2001, pp. 8-11).

[quote]

[dirtsniffer]

whups... nvm

[Mar]

Originally posted by dexlargo
Are you fucking serious? please provide a cite for that. A 747? A fully loaded 747 can weigh as much as 975,000 pounds (almost 500 tons), and can carry up to 64,000 gallons of fuel.

How can you design any building to withstand the impact caused by that?

By contrast, the 767s that actually hit the towers had maximum weights of 395,000 pounds and carried a maximum of 24,000 gallons of fuel.
I stand corrected, it was designed to withstand a 707, I may have misheard the interview.

And your numbers are wrong:
Maximum take off weight for Boeing 747: 440 metric tonnes
Maximum take off weight for Boeing 767: 204 metric tonnes

[01RedDX]

.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by 01RedDX

Haha seriously? You are going to use one of the worst, most easily disproved examples to support your theory?
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe workers had to cut those beams for removal after the collapse, before the pictures were taken? Because that's exactly what happened.
I was going to address your other points but the fact that you are still clinging to this example tells me that it's a waste of time, as usual.
Good day sir. :facepalm: :rofl:

Yes they cut beams after to clear up the mess.

But for every lame attempt to debunk something, there's an ever better video showing the truth.

jpPNRrylH00

[NuclearPizzaMan]

The results of this poll are fucking embarrassing our entire species.

[broken_legs]

Originally posted by NuclearPizzaMan
The results of this poll are fucking embarrassing our entire species.


You should write an email to the Firefighters who, unlike you, were actually there, and tell them what an embarrassment they are to the human species.

Heres the link:
http://firefightersfor911truth.org/

Post your email and the response you get.

[dexlargo]

Originally posted by Mar

I stand corrected, it was designed to withstand a 707, I may have misheard the interview.

And your numbers are wrong:
Maximum take off weight for Boeing 747: 440 metric tonnes
Maximum take off weight for Boeing 767: 204 metric tonnes sigh. Do you notice I spelled it "tons"? Did you know that imperial tons are different from metric tonnes?

My comment: almost 500 tons.
Actual weight: 487.5 tons = 975,000 lbs. = 442,000 kg = 442 tonnes

Again, how does the photo help your argument that it's not a tube structure?

And thank you Toma for correcting me about airline crashes from smaller 707s being included in the design of the towers. I was mistaken on that point.

My recollection was that the point of the interview was that the designer indicated that what hadn't been taken into account in the design was the fact that the fireproof coating on the steel members could be ripped off by the impact of an airplane, and that the exposed steel if exposed burning jet fuel for a couple of hours might then lose its structural integrity. So, not so much the impact itself, but the fire following the impact heating the now exposed structural members is what caused the collapse.

[kertejud2]

Originally posted by broken_legs


You just provided an excellent example of what i've been saying all along.

Forget the conspiracy theory. Just look at the evidence in front of you.

Just ask yourself this:
What event describes the events you witnessed perfectly?


A building collapsed. There are many ways a building can collapse, choosing one (i.e. controlled demolition) is jumping to a conclusion and leads to confirmation bias (i.e. you accepting debunked claims as evidence).

Thinking it was a controlled demolition means you need to accept the scope in which a controlled demolition covers. To believe that you must believe in a conspiracy unless you think only one guy did everything on his own accord. Possible I suppose, but the evidence doesn't support it since two planes (thus at least two people flying them) were also in on it, unless the demolition and the hijackers weren't connected and just happened to occur on the same day. A possible coincidence, but the evidence doesn't support it (by not supporting a demolition).


And as far as them planning this "perfect" conspiracy, obviously it wasn't perfect if there are still so many unanswered questions and people who believe it was a conspiracy.

There are only unanswered questions because the people asking them aren't accepting the answers or are asking questions without answers. Such rationale gives weight to the people who believe that reptilians are in government. 'Why hasn't Obama taken his mask off and shown us his real face?!' How long will such questions go unanswered?


And as for how they might do it, in about 30 seconds I came up with this:

Small group of terrorists/rogue government w/e plan to take down the towers. Hire 30 mexican labourers, give them whatever was used to take down the building, and have them install it over a period of months. Just tell them its routine maintenance etc...

Just think of the money that could be saved knowing that 30 Mexicans without any special training or experience can carry out the largest controlled demolition in the history of the world. In secret no less. It took (so-called) professionals 8 months to plan the Odgen grain elevator demolition, what a bunch of slackers. If only they had the work ethic and a bottomless pit of CIA supplied materials.


Have the CIA "disappear" each mexican after the job is completed. The agents don't know why, they just an order and execute it. Have another couple of agents disappear the agents that took out the mexicans, again they don't know why, they are just doing their job.

Why kill the agents who killed the Mexicans but not the agents who killed the agents? And you left out the agents who would have organized the purchase and transport of the explosives, wiring, blasting caps and other thousands of pounds worth of equipment needed. Plus the people who would have made the hundreds of trips to the WTC in order to deliver it to the Mexicans (see how these things grow) etc.


There you go. 3 degrees of separation with not a whole lot of people involved - Obviously it'd be a little more complicated but I think its easy to demonstrate this is very possible. Everyone claims it must be impossible and involve too many people as if everyone in the buildings, all the owners, every single person in government would have to know about it. Anything is possible.

It's possible that the government could have just used their Earthquake machine in Alaska to do the job too. Doesn't mean it happened, or that it's the most likely, or that it's even plausible. It could have been the magic elves the CIA genetically engineered at Area 51. Or it could have been just the way they tell it.