Thread: Do you think 9/11 was staged?

Originally Posted by Invader

No opinion here yet, but I have questions..

One of the common claims I see is that both towers collapsed as if in free fall. Can that happen if there are obstructions to the collapsing floors on the way down?

Okay I admit, the tower was actually an empty box.

New Footage of WTC North Tower Collapse - YouTube

The debris ejected from the tower (the large piece thrown off to the right) is patently falling faster than the building disappears.

The loads in the falling tower would multiply to become vastly beyond what each individual floor was supposed to support (i.e. the upward force provided), so it would of course fall quickly. It's a concrete building.

The other thing I noticed are puffs of what looks like dust or smoke coming out of the windows at least 10-20 stories below where the floors are beginning to collapse.
If you go to 2:20 in this video, you'll find a clear shot of what I'm talking about. The "puffs" can be seen on the right side and the forward face of the building on the same floor, at the same time. What might have caused that? It shows up in videos of both buildings.

You really can't think of the answer yourself?

Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad

The official explanation for the puffs is compressed air forcing itself outwards due to the collapsing debris above. This is questionable due to it being dust and debris that is being expelled, not just air, but maybe the air compression would force out a bunch of material with it.

Yeah, maybe if you blow dust it will move. Good thinking.

Originally Posted by Xei

Yeah, maybe if you blow dust it will move. Good thinking.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

And if you saw how much work it takes to bring down a building, you'd find the controlled demolition idea equally inconsistent.

And if you saw how much work it takes to bring down a building, into its own footprint, you'd find the idea of crashing a plane into it (or starting a fire in it, which was the case with building 7), as a means of bringing it down perfectly, equally inconsistent.

Can't highlight one inconsistency and completely ignore the rest. Not saying that there aren't explanations for both, but neither idea is completely without its fair share of questions.

[edit]
Oh, but to answer your earlier question, I haven't seen the alien thread in IS. Which one are you talking about?

Find it hard to believe that is "falling" down on it's own.

Building 7 was actually a controlled demolition due to damage suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2, but that fact has been lost in the annals of history. But it wasn't a conspiracy. I actually remember watching CNN (or something) that day any they explicitly said that 7 was being demolished. And then somehow the whole record of the demolition got lost in government bureaucracy. Then the "truthers" latch onto it and force the government to take the opposite position, ie. it was NOT demolished.

But yes, 7 was a controlled demolition. No, there was no conspiracy.

As for 1 and 2, if you think they look even remotely like demolitions, then you're an idiot. Go on youtube and watch a real demolition. Nothing alike.

Originally Posted by cmind

As for 1 and 2, if you think they look even remotely like demolitions, then you're an idiot. Go on youtube and watch a real demolition. Nothing alike.

I have a dream, that one day we will have a forum where all of our community members possess the mental capacity, maturity and self-control to be confident enough in their opinions to express them without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks as their crutch.

I HAVE A DREAM, TODAY....

Shout it out Brother O!! Halleluja!!

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I have a dream, that one day we will have a forum where all of our community members possess the mental capacity, maturity and self-control to be confident enough in their opinions to express them without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks as their crutch.

You do the same thing, just in a less direct way. At least I can admit that I think some people are morons, and have the courage to tell them. On a forum.

Originally Posted by Xei

You really can't think of the answer yourself?

Well, let's see. Dust/debris/smoke blew out on each side of the tower from the same floor, about twenty stories below where the collapsing layers were. The floor that the debris blows out of isn't the next floor to break either, the floors are still collapsing in succession above. If a floor is being rammed down to the floor below, the debris should blow out of the window of that floor. And I don't see how debris is blowing out of the floor that hasn't even broken yet. Debris from a clean floor? Was everything covered in dirt?

Yea, I can think of an answer Xei. But I wasn't interested in my answer.

Originally Posted by cmind

You do the same thing, just in a less direct way. At least I can admit that I think some people are morons, and have the courage to tell them. On a forum.

What you fail to realize is that disagreeing with someone on any particular topic (even if you feel your views are the obvious truth) does not make that other person a 'moron,' an 'idiot,' or anything of the like. It simply means they may not have a good grasp of the particular topic. Someone who doesn't understand a certain subject could very well prove to be 1000x times smarter than you in other areas, so to declare that person a 'moron,' just because they have what you see as a lack of perspective on a certain issue is both unnecessary and often inaccurate. Otherwise, your own lack of perspective on this issue would justify me calling you a moron, using your own standard. Right?

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

What you fail to realize is that disagreeing with someone on any particular topic (even if you feel your views are the obvious truth) does not make that other person a 'moron,' an 'idiot,' or anything of the like. It simply means they may not have a good grasp of the particular topic. Someone who doesn't understand a certain subject could very well prove to be 1000x times smarter than you in other areas, so to declare that person a 'moron,' just because they have what you see as a lack of perspective on a certain issue is both unnecessary and often inaccurate. Otherwise, your own lack of perspective on this issue would justify me calling you a moron, using your own standard. Right?

That's your prerogative. I'm not going to censor myself any time soon, so get used to it.

Originally Posted by cmind

That's your prerogative. I'm not going to censor myself any time soon, so get used to it.

You see, that's the wonderful thing about forums having moderators. It's expressly stated in the forum rules that there is little to no tolerance for people who are constantly beligerent, disrespectful, or simply refuse to treat our community members civily. Seeing as how you seem to be that type of person, you won't have to 'censor yourself' (we can do it for you), and I definitely don't have to get used to it.

'9/11 truthers are idiots' is now a statement that will be censored on DV. This is to help achieve maximum truth.

I think the conspiracy theories sound very far fetched, and am inclined to buy the official version.

Originally Posted by cmind

That's your prerogative. I'm not going to censor myself any time soon, so get used to it.

That's it! Tell of the mods. That'll teach them!

Originally Posted by cmind

As for 1 and 2, if you think they look even remotely like demolitions, then you're an idiot. Go on youtube and watch a real demolition. Nothing alike.

Especially true since demolitions always look the same, regardless of the building that's being destroyed. Not to talk about the fact there is only one type of explosive on this planet that can be used for demolitions so they all even look alike as if they are twins. The demolition of a tower looks just like that of a bridge, right?

Err, no seriously now, without irony. Demolitions barely look alike, there are several types of buildings, construction materials just as well as deconstruction materiels. C4, TNT and shaped charges, to name just a few of the deconstruction ones.
If you take two buildings for demolition and they are constructed the same way, then the demolition will probably look alike, yeah. I didn't see any WTC like buildings demolished so far. Maybe that's due to the fact only two towers of that type were constructed so far.
If you just go on youtube for a few minutes, watch a few demolitions and think you're ready to tell how a demolition looks like and how not, you're probably taking the wrong turn in terms of thinking somewhere.


Also adding to this:

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

I have a dream, that one day we will have a forum where all of our community members possess the mental capacity, maturity and self-control to be confident enough in their opinions to express them without resorting to childish ad hominem attacks as their crutch.

As well as basing their opinion on thorough thought or scientifical facts. Not on a few youtube videos here and there.

Originally Posted by cmind

Building 7 was actually a controlled demolition due to damage suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2, but that fact has been lost in the annals of history.

Wait, so they went inside the building during the day while it was on fire to plant explosives?

Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad

Wait, so they went inside the building during the day while it was on fire to plant explosives?

It wasn't on fire, it just had structural damage. But yes, they planted charges after the collapse of 1 and 2 and then they demolished 7 in the afternoon. Again, this is not a conspiracy, it's just bureaucracy.

WTC 7 fires and south side hole - YouTube

Looks like fire to me.

Maybe you are right, but it seems odd that their official statement mentions nothing about demolitions. Do you have any links?

Staged I have seen a video that clearly shows and explosion PRIOR to the plane's impact.

Could I see it please?

Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad

Maybe you are right, but it seems odd that their official statement mentions nothing about demolitions. Do you have any links?

Like I said, it was lost in the bureaucracy. There was a lot of confusion that day. Is it so hard to believe that the city did something without bothering to tell the federal government?

And I've already said this once, but I guess I'll say it again: the "Truthers" have forced the government to take the opposite position of whatever they say, lest they get credibility. They say that 7 was demolished (which it was, but not as a conspiracy), which forces the government to stick to the (incorrect) story that it collapsed. Try to remember that the people in power are all too human.

While this may be a superficial concern, after reading the open letter Osama Bin Laden wrote to the United States... he makes so many good points for why he warranted the attacks. Honestly, I think it was not staged, because the US would have made him seem much more irrational if they devised an open letter.

He mentioned various military actions taken by the United States on Muslim nations, our support of dictators that the people do not support, our sanctions and how they cause the death of millions due to starvation and inability to import food and goods, and the bases we have in their Holy Land (along with our support for Israel who was established after WWII as a form of reparations).

He said he would like diplomacy with us to discuss our problems. He also wanted us to reconsider our principles and stop enforcing them around the world, because we did not live by our own principles. He wrapped up most of his argument with "Do not interfere with our politics or forms of education. Leave us alone."

These do not sound like someone who "hates our way of life." it sounds like someone who had a legitimate reason to attack.

Also keep in mind he denied involvement in the attacks initially. Osama bin Laden Denies Involvement in the 9/11/01 Attacks

Originally Posted by Tranquil Toad

Also keep in mind he denied involvement in the attacks initially. Osama bin Laden Denies Involvement in the 9/11/01 Attacks

Terrorist cells operate independently. He probably wasn't informed until after it happened.