Thread: Do you think 9/11 was staged?

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....

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 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.

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.

Originally Posted by cmind

Building 7 was actually a controlled demolition due to damage suffered from the collapse of 1 and 2.

You are half correct. A controlled demolition yes. But not because it was somehow damaged. Fires have never before or since destroyed a steel skyscraper. What should disturb you about this is two things. Firstly it's impossible to plan a controlled demolition in the space of a few hours from when the attacks happened. No-one would admit its normal to plan a demolition of building 7 days before the towers were even attacked. The attack had not even happened when they would have had to set it up the demolition. If you realized that and were not bias and more sensible you might have the ability to stop and think "hang on what was even inside building 7 and what was it used for?".

Buildng 7 : At the time of its destruction, it exclusively housed government agencies and financial institutions. It contained offices of the IRS, Secret Service, and SEC.

I would also add that to say such a thing as cmind has said bout wtc7 without thinking anything is suspicious you would have to fail to grasp the technical complexity of engineering the controlled demolition of a skyscraper and its contradiction with FEMA's account of the collapse, and the illegality of such an operation. But people will believe anything that suits them so its not always about what makes sense but what they want to believe. So even if such a thing was grasped, they may want to ignore it.