9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Click Here.

This has been out for quite a while...but I'm a little worried that most of you conspiracy theorists have never bothered to research the counterpoints to your favorite 9/11 tidbits.

So. Check it.

PS. I also find it extremely amusing that people who call the government a bunch of dimwitted, corrupt morons incapable of coordinating any kind of important project are the same people who support the myth that the same government was able to carry out the largest, most complex and secretive military operation ever...on US soil...with compliance of hundreds of individuals who haven't spoken up yet.

So, what do you suggest? That the governement is corrupted or the society is so blind and allows the things that happen?

Well the biggest reason for all the theories is that all 3 buildings fall and they all look just like a controlled demolition. So theres really only three views on the subject. Either, you believe all buildings fall straight down like that, that no building would fall like that unless you plan it, or that some times it does and some times it don't and its a coincidence that all 3 fell exactly the same.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradybaker

Click Here.

This has been out for quite a while...but I'm a little worried that most of you conspiracy theorists have never bothered to research the counterpoints to your favorite 9/11 tidbits.

So. Check it.

PS. I also find it extremely amusing that people who call the government a bunch of dimwitted, corrupt morons incapable of coordinating any kind of important project are the same people who support the myth that the same government was able to carry out the largest, most complex and secretive military operation ever...on US soil...with compliance of hundreds of individuals who haven't spoken up yet.
[/b]

---

That is such a good point! I agree with you so much on that. The Bush haters switch back and forth between calling him an absolute imbecile and calling him what amounts to the greatest conspiracy genius in history. He can't be both.

Have you seen the South Park about 9/11 conspiracy? It is hilarious. You should see it if you haven't already.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bradybaker

Well the biggest reason for all the theories is that all 3 buildings fall and they all look just like a controlled demolition. So theres really only three views on the subject. Either, you believe all buildings fall straight down like that, that no building would fall like that unless you plan it, or that some times it does and some times it don't and its a coincidence that all 3 fell exactly the same.
[/b]

---

So they weren't really hit by airplanes? Or perhaps they were hit by airplanes, but only to create an illusion to distract everybody from the McVeigh style bombings? Wouldn't it have been easier to just make it a McVeigh style bombing without the airplane effect?

Which of these two proposals makes more sense...

1. The people who crashed the 9/11 airplanes were jihadists who were willing to kill themselves and tons of innocents in the name of Islamofascism, a very common phenomenon.

2. The people who crashed the 9/11 airplanes were Bush lovers who were willing to kill themselves and tons of innocents in the name of a conspiracy they get absolutely nothing out of.

?

Is this even subject to debate?

Nice article, Brady. :goodjob2:

No one really believes the theory that no planes hit the tower. Anyone who says that is either a trouble maker or an idiot. Also how you said that question was totally biases. If I wanted to I could ask something the same way. Which makes more sense?

1. Some people living in a cave actually succeeded in a plan to hit the pentagon and both towers, which involved people who could barely fly a plane taking them over with boxcutters then flying them into a target miles away. And them doing it because they "hate freedom".

Or

2. The most advanced government in the world figuring out a way to remotely fly a plane, which they already have the technology to do and then actually doing it so they can pass more laws to gain more power.

Anyway its a pointless arguement. I am sure everyone has their mind made up by now on what happened and its unlikely that they are going to let the facts get in the way of what they believe.

... and by the time we can trust a true truth, no one cares no more ...

OK brady, I'm sorry, but your website has done very little to convince me that 9/11 was not at least partially helped along by the government.
Your site does clear up a couple of things, such as the supposed bomb strapped to the undercarriage of the second plane, and the white jet seen flying over flight 93's crash site. Yes, those are almost certainly stupid theories that have rightfully been dismissed, in my mind at least.
But the fact still remains that the events of 9/11 are still extremely suspicious in nature, mostly with regards to the scrambling of jets, the buildings collapsing, and the pentagon. The evidence you've provided on this site is incomplete, and some very debateable.

This "debunking" of conspiracy theories commits the Straw Man fallacy.

You've taken a lucdicrous, OBVIOUSLY stupid version of a conspiracy, and by pointing out the obvious holes, purport to have "debunked" 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I believe, for my own part, that 9/11 may have been a kind of "conspiracy". But, here is the version I would be inclined to believe:

Elements within the American administration were aware of an impending terrorist attack on the united states.
They were aware that the attack would be prominant and get a lot of publicity.
For a combination of reasons, including the desire to generate a pretext for a future war, elements within the American administration talked down the possibility of attack to those beneath them and prevented adequate "follow-up".
These elements, however, were not aware of the nature or full scale of the attack, though to what extent I am unsure.

Now, I anticipate that this theory will never be proven, and that it is extremely difficult to disprove such theories, because of the nature of a "conspiracy theory" - it entails the idea that the conspiracy will be hidden and attempts made to cover it up.

But, I believe there's a good deal of sense behind the theory. I'm not saying I believe it outright, but just that this would be a much more credible version of a 9/11 conspiracy theory.

I watched this one (pentagon). Ok I understand they were "debunked", but why aren't there any videos of the plane ? I'm no expert but some things don't make sense. Eaven if it was a plane, who can say that it was because Osama felt like it.
We will probably find out the truth in 50-100 years :P

Question: If the Government was planning on killing thousands of innocents anyways...why the hell would they care if the buildings fell straight down?!

If they're smart enough to mastermind this incredibly complex operation...you'd think they'd be smart enough to make the buildings fall in a more 'natural' way.

PS. Alric: that 'people living in caves' comment is one of the most ignorant and stereotypical 'American' comments I've ever heard. No wonder they hate you.

As south park proves: The 9/11 conspiracy theories are actually a government conspiracy to make them look all-powerfull. :)


I don't think 9/11 was planned by the government. I do think they eighter let it happen a bit, or did some things wrong to prevent it. Allso, planned or not, they Used it to their own benefit.

Yea they hate us, thats why they want to kill us. Even though there hasn't been a terrorist attack since then and they probably couldn't give a damn what the average US citizen does. All you really have to do is ask the question, "Who gains from it?". The terrorist sure don't gain from it. How does getting hunted down by the US help them?

So if it doesn't help the terrorist, who does it help? The government, which gets more funding, more power, and more control over our every day lives. I really find this arguement irrelvent. Because it doesn't matter if the government had anything to do with it or not. The fact is, they took advantage of a horrible situation, and that is bad enough for me.

About the whole thing of the buildings falling straight down... from what I understand their actual collapse had nothing to do with the force of the planes hitting them. Sure, the planes were travelling pretty fast, but they're made out of pretty flimsy material. It was the heat from the concentrated fires that weakened the supports of the building enough for the weight of the building above the impact sites to collapse down. I don't see any reason for the buildings to have fallen sideways.

The difficulty about conspiracy theories is that they're impossible to prove wrong, because by their very nature they are a 'cover up'. They set out from the start to look for strange facts about any major event or disaster, and then claim that the face interpretation of the event is unlikely. Instead, much more dramatic theories are postulated which are by all means much more unlikely than the original turn of events. They're a product of the human fascination with mystery. Mostly they're loaded with a grab-bag of strange events, ready to throw at anyone questioning the theory. That's just my view on conspiracies in general - I can't say I know much about the different 9/11 theories, although I've heard the one about the Pentagon crash being a missile etc.

They didn't blow up the twin towers themselves, they could just have used a bomb in the first place. However they might have blown up building 7. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F6QV6LK8j1Q

It certainly looks like controlled demolition to experts. At least to some dutch one that was on tv some time ago in the netherlands.

Its not so much that it went straight down, but that it all went straight down at the same time. With the huge steel columns in the center the most likely thing I believe would happen is that the outside would collapse first. I mean, it makes sense the weakest point would collapse first, which is where the plane had hit. With a hit like that you would expect just part of it collapsing. Maybe the rest would come down after but thats not what happen. The entire building all went down at once. Its not even like it collapse on the side then a split second later the rest followed, it all went at once. Not only that but all three buildings fell like that. And building 7 is even more strange since it wasn't hit, plus its much longer, so the lenght of the entire building falling at once is really weird.

Plus the flames of the fire wasn't all that hot. Well yea it was hot but we are talking huge steel beams here. There is even video from 9/11 showing people standing right in the big hole in the side of the building. How do you explain that if there was a fire strong enough to melt steel beams literally a floor below them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alric

No one really believes the theory that no planes hit the tower. Anyone who says that is either a trouble maker or an idiot. Also how you said that question was totally biases. If I wanted to I could ask something the same way. Which makes more sense?

1. Some people living in a cave actually succeeded in a plan to hit the pentagon and both towers, which involved people who could barely fly a plane taking them over with boxcutters then flying them into a target miles away. And them doing it because they "hate freedom".

Or

2. The most advanced government in the world figuring out a way to remotely fly a plane, which they already have the technology to do and then actually doing it so they can pass more laws to gain more power.

Anyway its a pointless arguement. I am sure everyone has their mind made up by now on what happened and its unlikely that they are going to let the facts get in the way of what they believe.
[/b]

---

#1 is correct, except they weren't cave dwellers, except for the Al Qaeda leadership when they are in hiding. The hijackers came here and took flying lessons, so there is no mystery in the fact that they could fly planes. They could learn to fly planes in Saudi Arabia and other countries too, even if they did live in caves. Box cutters are all it takes to take over a cockpit and lock it. I see no holes in explanation #1.

#2 is just insane. Do you have any idea how many people would have had to have been in on such a large scale conspiracy? The number of people who would have known that a huge remote control passenger jet is flying would have been gigantic. The owners and even maintenance workers of those jets would have known something was funny, the air traffic controllers of many airports plus the other airport personnel would have had to deal with the crazy fact that the pilots were either nonexistent, nonresponsive, or in a state of panic, the people at the airport would have seen something crazy going on in the cockpit, and the great many family members of victims on the jets would have to be lying about the cell phone conversations they had. This would have leaked all over the place and never even been pulled off in the first place.

Besides, I thought most of you think Bush is an absolute idiot. By saying he pulled off this stuff, you are calling him a supergenius mastermind. Which is it?

:shakehead2: ...................

wow. more America hating.

Maybe the administrators could make up a whole new section where all the America haters can get together and have America hating orgys together. :hump: :hump: . It sure would be one BIG orgy.

I can see where you are coming from, though (about the frames falling at the same time). We do not know this for sure, however. The support structures (SS (nothing to do with Nazis)) nearest to the explosion of the planes would have fallen first, due not only to meting, but structural damage and breaking due to a plane hitting it. But when those collapse, it puts more stress and weight on the remaining SS, causing them to break. Considering the steel frames were extremely hot and ready to collapse anyway, this process could have taken milli-seconds. Think about it. Maybe it wasnt the actual "melting" that brought the towers down.

1. Initial structural damage from the plane hitting caused instability, which makes THOSE structures collapse (heat may have also been a factor here)
2. The extremely high temperature of the steel frames causes them to be less stable, but not melted.
3. The most damaged structural frames (from the plane) break due to the weight of the building (this is why the second tower fell first (the plane hit lower=more weight on top of it)). All of a sudden TONS AND TONS of weight then transfers itself to the remaining frames, which are already unstable.
4. Collapse

There. I solved 9/11.

..............atleast it makes sense, right?

by the way, i consider myself a conservative libretarian, or a "south park" republican. but i dont consider bush to be that smart.

....................i think we need McCain to be president.

Hard as Nails, could you please stop labelling everything you disagree with as "America Hating"? It's kind of annoying.

Secondly: I think that ANY sane person would not dispute for a MOMENT that the world trade towers, built out of glass and steel, collapsed because two almost fully-fueled 747's smashed into them, causing a burning inferno of jet fuel and oxygen which literally MELTED parts of the building. Like thousands, likely HUNDREDS of thousands if not millions around the globe, I watched as the second plane crashed into the building. LIVE, I believe. My mum woke me up in the morning at breakfast when she switched on to CNN and saw that the first plane had crashed.

Any conspiracy theory that says that the world trade towers didn't collapse because of the planes, but was instead a big elaborate conspiracy with detonaters in the buolding, or WHATEVER... is out of their minds.

HOWEVER.

I don't neccessarily discount the veracity of a conspiracy theory that proposes that the US administration knew about the impending attack and did nothing to stop it. BUT I think it unlikely the US knew of the nature or scale of the attack.

I'm not saying I BELIEVE such a conspiract theory, but, I do admit that I find it to be a possibility.

Yeah, the US probably knew about the attack beforehand, or at least knew of the potential for an attack, and chose to ignore the evidence, or use that as a diversion from the actual Gov. issues...However, everyone knows the fucking towers were hit, and crumpled under impact and were destroyed as a result. Why is that part hard to believe?

ok. but people who say my government would kill 3000 of its own civilians, as well as commit genocide on the middle east are America haters. They know it, you know it, and i know it.

I suppose i will just call them "persons with political differences"

just as a point, werent you telling me a couple of posts ago to "deal with it"? This shark guy's picture annoys me, but you were PRO keeping the picture there. You wanting me to change my form of expression contradicts your previous statement, so I guess we are both hypocrits.

anyway. Yea, my government may have heard second or third hand that the terrorists were planning something big. It is very easy for us to stand back now and say "they should have done this" or "we should have taken these measures". After we see the outcome, it is easy for us to judge. The government has the difficult job of making decisions before bad things happen rather than after. What should they have done? Close down every airport in the world "until further notice".

If we raised our terror level to red every time we heard terrorist chatter about attacks, we would never be at peace. We cannot live in constant fear. That is what terrorists want.

So, my question to you is what should my government have done? Remember, you are supposed to be looking at this from a perspective BEFORE the attacks. Before we got any information about Al Quaeda's involvement. what should have been done?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

ok. but people who say my government would kill 3000 of its own civilians, as well as commit genocide on the middle east are America haters. They know it, you know it, and i know it.
[/b]

---

Argh, there you go again. They're not "America Haters", they're just nuts, is all. Anyway, hating and mistrusting the american government isn;'t the same as hating AMERICA. A country is more than its government... at least, I sure hope so, else we're all knee-deep in trouble.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

just as a point, werent you telling me a couple of posts ago to "deal with it"? This shark guy's picture annoys me, but you were PRO keeping the picture there. You wanting me to change my form of expression contradicts your previous statement, so I guess we are both hypocrits.
[/b]

---

The "deal with it" was in another thread.

I'm not offended by you saying "America Haters", and to be honest, if you want to keep using it, go ahead. All I was saying, is that it's kind of annoying.

It's like calling people "poo-poo heads". I'd have the same reaction. It's just kind of an annoying label that doesn't really help anything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

So, my question to you is what should my government have done? Remember, you are supposed to be looking at this from a perspective BEFORE the attacks. Before we got any information about Al Quaeda's involvement. what should have been done?
[/b]

---

Again, I'm not saying I BELIEVE this conspiracy theory. BUT.

I think it's common knowledge that the American Govt. had some advance warning of an impending terrorist attack. Now, if that were ALL, then SURE, I agree. America can't close everything down every time they have a threat.

THAT situatuion would not be a conspiracy, you're completely right. But, that wasn't the "conspiracy theory" I was giving.

The Conspiracy Theory I was putting forward (but not that I necessarily believe) was that the Govt. had more specific knowledge of the impedning attack to the extent that they KNEW it was going to happen, and they had enough info to stop it had they wished too, without closing everything down. But, they let it go ahead, perhaps unaware of the SCALE of the impending attack, to generate a pretext which the administration could then use to declare war on a middle-eastern country.

Now, I'm not saying I BELIEVE that, but I;m not saying I think it's crap, either. It's a possibility, and is a "Conspiracy theory" with more sense than the OBVIOUSLY stupid one about the trade towers being a faked-up hoax.

ohhhh!! The blue meanie, i wasnt refering directly to you in my last post, except when i adressed you.

The truth is that if my government knew about the attacks beforehand, they would NEVER let it out. I believe we will always be out in the blue on the 9/11 subject.

It certainly is possible. I am not one of the conspiracists that believe "THE GOV. CONTROLLS EVERYTHING" But they do know a lot more than we do.

and also, i do not like being a hypocrit. I asked shark to change his ways, just as you did to me.

From now on, i will only refer to people who hate America as America-haters (god, that sounded stupid as hell). That way, no generalizations are made.

First off the buildings where actually designed to take multiple plane crashes into them and still stand. Now does that mean it works? No but its something to think about. Secondly I don't remeber anyone saying Bush did it. Anyone who believes the government begins with and ends with Bush is a moron. We have a HUGE government. If you think Bush is a moron, the most logical answer is they did it without him even knowing because he would never figure it out. Anyway it really wouldn't take that many people to plan something like that. If you know anything about people, you know most don't care about what happens around them at work, they wouldn't notice. You don't schedule a plane to be checked out, and maybe 1 person at the airport would notice. Everyone else has other things to worry about.

As for acting like the government would do no wrong, talk about naive. History is full of events where governments has harmed their own citizens. Yes even in the US, the government has killed their own citizens. Unlike 9/11 where you may have doubts, there are other cases that are well known as fact and can be outright proven. I really don't care what you think about 9/11 but anyone who uses the reason "the government wouldn't harm their own people" is totally clueless. That should never be an acceptable argument.

Very true. Other high-ranking gov. officials coudl have gone behind Bush's back. Heres a theory, but i dont even think this is remotely possible.

1. The government tries to get Clinton to carry out this little plan. He refuses
2. The gov. learns not to go directly to the president, so they go behind his back
3. BOOOOMM!!!

There is no fluctuation among anyone who likes and dislike bush, please do not get it confused. If the polls has dropped in favor of him to no longer favorable for decision making, it's from confused Republics who can't make up their mind. "Oh I used to like him, I take back what I said, I no longer want to be his friend". There is a shear difference in loving a country and loving someone who governs a country. I love this country I hate "Big Fat Ass Wigs" in D.C. stripping this country and it's people of all that can be good.

"You hate america" is an arguement from people who can't find a logical way to argue with you. The fact is government do stupid and some times even evil crap all the time, and they should never be blindly trusted. People forget that dictators are normally voted into office and people normally like them, at first. Saddam was really the "president" of iraq. If you were an iraqi and you hated saddam does that mean you hated iraq? Of course not.

Heck our government is based on the fact that the people who made america did not trust the government. Why is there 3 branches of government? Because they knew the government would try to gain power over the people and they thought the 3 would keep each other in check. Why do we have a bill of rights? People thought if we didn't the government would take our rights away.

How did we go from a country of people who knew the government would cheat them if given the chance to a country where we accept it as a given that the government will never do us wrong? Is it that our government has gotten better and more trustworthy over the years? Or has everyone just become extreamly naive?

I think people have just gotten to emotionally and dramatically charged. I blame hollywood and their movies (NOT because they are liberal). Atleast in America, we are obsessed with drama. It is a part of our daily lives. That is why people come up with these fascinating conspiracy stories about everything from 9/11 to Katrina. To create drama. That is what the news does. I hate it, and i wish we could have a reliable information source. But that will never happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

1. The government tries to get Clinton to carry out this little plan. He refuses
[/b]

---

Ehhhh... Clinton?

I watched this show about all of this and the one main thing that got me to believe it MAY be a conspiracy theoy is because they showed the very bottom of the frames that go straight up the bulidings and they looked like this \ / then they showewd a actual building that was demolished and the central frames looked like this \ / they said that to get that percise angles they put this like wire bomb in the shape of the angle to make the buildings fall straight down. Also if you watch the towers closely right before they fall you see an explosion at teh base of the buliding...

Ok, now that I’ve finally had some more time to go over the text of the article and some of the replies, I’ll bring up a few things, starting with the fact that “debunked” is a very strong word. It implies being “proven false beyond a shadow of a doubt.” Any report riddled with the words “possible explanation” and “still undergoing investigation” is not a report depicting something that has been “debunked.”
Just some food for thought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

That is such a good point! I agree with you so much on that. The Bush haters switch back and forth between calling him an absolute imbecile and calling him what amounts to the greatest conspiracy genius in history. He can't be both.
[/b]

---

You’re implying that everyone that believes there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 (call them ‘Bush-haters’ or ‘inquisitive minds’, whatever you feel most comfortable with) believes that Bush is the mastermind behind said conspiracy.

Incorrect.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

This "debunking" of conspiracy theories commits the Straw Man fallacy.

You've taken a lucdicrous, OBVIOUSLY stupid version of a conspiracy, and by pointing out the obvious holes, purport to have "debunked" 9/11 conspiracy theories.

I believe, for my own part, that 9/11 may have been a kind of "conspiracy". But, here is the version I would be inclined to believe:

Elements within the American administration were aware of an impending terrorist attack on the united states.
They were aware that the attack would be prominant and get a lot of publicity.
For a combination of reasons, including the desire to generate a pretext for a future war, elements within the American administration talked down the possibility of attack to those beneath them and prevented adequate "follow-up".
These elements, however, were not aware of the nature or full scale of the attack, though to what extent I am unsure.

Now, I anticipate that this theory will never be proven, and that it is extremely difficult to disprove such theories, because of the nature of a "conspiracy theory" - it entails the idea that the conspiracy will be hidden and attempts made to cover it up.

But, I believe there's a good deal of sense behind the theory. I'm not saying I believe it outright, but just that this would be a much more credible version of a 9/11 conspiracy theory.
[/b]

---

Well said.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

Question: If the Government was planning on killing thousands of innocents anyways...why the hell would they care if the buildings fell straight down?!

If they're smart enough to mastermind this incredibly complex operation...you'd think they'd be smart enough to make the buildings fall in a more 'natural' way.
[/b]

---

As much as you may want to say I’m pulling bullshit arguments out of my ass, take note that I’m only presenting possibilities to consider. Take them as you want:

1) The cleanup (which was completely Rushed, before a proper investigation could be done) would have been a thousand times harder if the buildings had fallen in a more ‘natural’ way.

2) The fact that the government leased out space for a “post” on one of the central floors in Tower 7 (coincidentally?) just before the attacks leaves open the possibility that the buildings falling in a more ‘natural’ way might have jeopardized the safety of those in said post.

3) I’m not familiar with the area around the towers but, why sacrifice more surrounding (possibly capitalistically important?) buildings than is necessary to complete the objective, which was, as it seems, to bring down the twin towers?

4) I’m confused. Of all the theories why the government “wouldn’t” be involved in something like this, why would their “inability to pull it off” even be an argument? I doubt we'd have just about the strongest, most capable, military on the planet if our government, as a whole, is a bunch of sniveling idiots. That particular argument doesn’t even make sense, to me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

About the whole thing of the buildings falling straight down... from what I understand their actual collapse had nothing to do with the force of the planes hitting them. Sure, the planes were travelling pretty fast, but they're made out of pretty flimsy material. It was the heat from the concentrated fires that weakened the supports of the building enough for the weight of the building above the impact sites to collapse down. I don't see any reason for the buildings to have fallen sideways.

The difficulty about conspiracy theories is that they're impossible to prove wrong, because by their very nature they are a 'cover up'. They set out from the start to look for strange facts about any major event or disaster, and then claim that the face interpretation of the event is unlikely. Instead, much more dramatic theories are postulated which are by all means much more unlikely than the original turn of events. They're a product of the human fascination with mystery. Mostly they're loaded with a grab-bag of strange events, ready to throw at anyone questioning the theory. That's just my view on conspiracies in general - I can't say I know much about the different 9/11 theories, although I've heard the one about the Pentagon crash being a missile etc.

[/b]

---

As far as the buildings falling: I’ve gone over the vids more times than I’d care to admit and I feel much more comfortable with the notion they fell naturally (though I’m definitely Not ruling out demolition on my list of possibilities.) There was a lot of weight on top of those impact points and even the debris clouds at the epicenters of the falling towers, as they came down, were almost unfathomably large. Who knows what was going on with the support within those clouds? It could be legit. The pancaking concept is very possible (and probably most likely) as an explanation for the puffs of smoke jetting out of the windows, in succession, as the buildings fell. No problem with that. We can’t, though, ignore a few facts:

1) No steel enforced structure has ever collapsed from fire. Ever. Not even that one overseas (Japan I think? Forgot. I’ll look it up later.) that burned for over a dozen hours straight.
2) Three of them came down within hours of each other. One of them having not even been hit by a plane. (They gave a nice, blanket, speculative answer for that, but one that can hardly, with any sort of seriousness, be classified as "debunking the theory")
3) The second tower was hit off-center, yet the collapse was completely level and uniform.
4) The contractors themselves stated that a plane hitting the twin towers would be about the equivalent of someone punching a hole in a screen door with a pencil. True, they could have miscalculated in the design, but it’s, again, something to consider.

On conspiracy theories, in general:
I believe that anyone expressing an automatic disbelief in a claim because it can be classified as a “conspiracy theory” has a bit of a self-defeating argument as no conspiracy theory can be labeled, by default, as false, because of it’s nature as a “conspiracy theory.” Too many “conspiracy theories” have evolved into proven scandals by people who refused to lie down and write them off as “conspiracy theories” for anyone to try to stereotype “conspiracy theories,” in general, as “this-and-that.”
Not only do we have subjects like Operation Northwoods and the, more recent, proposal (never implemented, as far as I know) to blow up a decoy UN jet over Iran and blame it on them, as a pretext for war, to go by, but also smaller scale “truth-bending” such as the “subtle” efforts to link Saudi Arabia to 9/11 in order to rally the American people toward an invasion and the formation of law, by Bush to implement more “effective means of interrogation” for terror suspects, while telling the American people over and over that America does not torture. Look up torture, then look up some of the unclassified (to say nothing of the secretive) methods now acceptable for interrogation, and judge for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

There is no fluctuation among anyone who likes and dislike bush, please do not get it confused. If the polls has dropped in favor of him to no longer favorable for decision making, it's from confused Republics who can't make up their mind. "Oh I used to like him, I take back what I said, I no longer want to be his friend". There is a shear difference in loving a country and loving someone who governs a country. I love this country I hate "Big Fat Ass Wigs" in D.C. stripping this country and it's people of all that can be good.
[/b]

---

Exactly.

There was no explosion at the base. The building fell by one floor falling ontop of another from the top to the bottom, starting at the level where the plane hit. That is indisputable. If there was an explosion at the bottom, the 2nd floor would crush the 1st, the 3rd would crush the 2nd, and so on. If you watch the videos of the collapses, you will see the collapses start at the level where the plane hit (about floor 80 on the second tower) Really, its just simple physics that disprove this theory of an explosion at the base.

If there is an explosion on some video, it could have easily been photo shopped in. Right now i could make a picture of Osama holding an American flag in the middle of central park. That doesnt mean it's real.

Dont get me wrong, i am not being agressive toward you. If you saw an explosion then you saw an explosion. I am not saying otherwise. I am just saying that all evidence says contrary to that theory.

Have you ever watched video of how they blow up buildings? Thats exactly how they fall. Especially building 7. Building 7 looks like the bottom is pulled out and drops straight down. I still say thats one of the biggest things in support of it. It really is strange what happened, and it didn't even get hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

You’re implying that everyone that believes there is a conspiracy behind 9/11 (call them ‘Bush-haters’ or ‘inquisitive minds’, whatever you feel most comfortable with) believes that Bush is the mastermind behind said conspiracy.

Incorrect.
[/b]

---

The inividuals who are both Bush haters and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have in 100% of the cases I have seen claimed, "Bush was behind 9/11." I have come across that exact sentence zillions of times. So far, everybody I have heard make the claim thinks Bush staged 9/11 himself to have an excuse to go to war in Iraq and steal oil. I have yet to see anybody express a belief in 9/11 conspiracy and not hate Bush, so that means that the "Bush was behind 9/11" mantra is the only version of the conspiracy I have come across yet. I haven't heard anything like, "The Democrats were behind 9/11." If anybody here wants to claim something like that, please be the first I have seen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dropout14

Also if you watch the towers closely right before they fall you see an explosion at teh base of the buliding...
[/b]

---

:shock: What what what???? Can you post this? If you can show it, you will really have my attention.

the democrats caused 9/11.

there....i said it. :bigteeth:

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.

and, alric, no. The buildings did not fall from the bottom. Just watch the videos.

I have seen a lot of people who think Bush is just a puppet and believe that it would have happened with or without him.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.
[/b]

---

You mean except for the dozens of people who have said they heard explosions? Yes if you discount the story of the people who where there, that said there was explosions, there are no reports of explosions.

Quote:

---

the democrats caused 9/11.

there....i said it. :bigteeth:

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.

and, alric, no. The buildings did not fall from the bottom. Just watch the videos.

---

[/quote]What what what???? Can you post this? If you can show it, you will really have my attention.[quote]

there you go
BTW at Min 8:30 is where you should watch thats when it gets good
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vd1-Dp_-7WI...ted&search=

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

The inividuals who are both Bush haters and 9/11 conspiracy theorists have in 100% of the cases I have seen claimed, "Bush was behind 9/11." I have come across that exact sentence zillions of times. So far, everybody I have heard make the claim thinks Bush staged 9/11 himself to have an excuse to go to war in Iraq and steal oil. I have yet to see anybody express a belief in 9/11 conspiracy and not hate Bush, so that means that the "Bush was behind 9/11" mantra is the only version of the conspiracy I have come across yet. I haven't heard anything like, "The Democrats were behind 9/11." If anybody here wants to claim something like that, please be the first I have seen.
[/b]

---

How about if I were to say "the Republicans may have caused 9/11?"
Is that good enough?

I'm not a Bush fan, by any means. (if you want to throw the blanket of 'Bush Hater' over me, that's your prerogative) Maybe he means well, in his ignorance, maybe he doesn't. 9/11 could have been staged as a pretext to carry out a, truely well-intentioned, "liberation of the middle east" beginning with Iraq, as far as I know. It's a possibility, but it's neither here nor there. My point is that (though I'm not excluding him), if there is a conspiracy behind 9/11, I believe that it has less to do with Bush than with his more military advisors (possibly with a little help in the conceptional phase, by his father.) Though it doesn't mean Bush wasn't informed.

So I'd be proud to be recognized as a deviation from your 100% statistic. :teeth:

I don't know if this has been posted already, etc, but it gives a rather strong, if not amateur documentary on why, and with what logic the 9/11 and UK bombings could have been carried out with. I wouldnt believe everything stated, but I would believe the obviously factual, non-misinterpretable content:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dYWP9AOGBo

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hard

the democrats caused 9/11.

there....i said it. :bigteeth:

people who think there were explosions at the bottom of the towers are mentally disturbed. There are survivors who were on the ground floor at the time of the collapse that reported no such explosion.

and, alric, no. The buildings did not fall from the bottom. Just watch the videos.
[/b]

---

Wow, way to put forward your argument in an objective, non-biased, balanced and politically correct way. Traumatised people see what they want to see, it's no real evidence for or against. The videos may not show any visible explosions, but we live in an age where 'explosions' arent just nitroglycerin-fuelled infernos

Consider the following, 9/11 conspirators:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O

Consider the following, 9/11 conspirators:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

~
[/b]

---

Again, thats just the one stupid conspiracy theory. It doesn't instantly disprove all conspiracy theories -.-

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O

Consider the following, 9/11 conspirators:

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse....i?u=911_morons

~
[/b]

---

Hehe. That was pretty funny. A whooole lot of rhetoric, but funny, nonetheless. :goodjob2:
Now to play a little more Devil’s Advocate!

Quote:

---

The fact that this man is alive…
[/b]

---

So basically what the author is saying is that, should homeboy and his friends/family/etc. end up at the bottom of a river, somewhere, after releasing a video that talks about the government having a hand in what is, allegedly, one of the (if not the) biggest conspiracies of all time, the public at large would be dumb enough to say “Wow, what a coincidence. What are the odds that this guy, and everyone he’s close to, would just up and die, within a year or so after posting a video accusing the government of killing thousands of Americans? Damn, it must suck to be that unlucky.”
Are you kidding me?
The best thing the government has going for them, hypotheticizing (– is that even a word?) that the conspiracy did happen, is that so many people think the idea is absolutely ludicrous. The only thing (ok, not the Only thing) that would be more idiotic than letting the person who sets out to prove something that a majority of the people would never believe, do so, would be to bring attention to yourself by silencing said whistleblower by killing him, his family and all of his friends.
That’s what you call “shooting yourself in the foot.”
The present “conspiracy theorist banter,” easily suppressed by ridicule and dissent, would become a virtual Shit-Storm of probes into why this whistleblower’s life ended in such coincidence. The fact that the author didn’t even take this into consideration raises a red flag, to me. (not to mention his tactical use of "provoking conformity through fear of intellectual persecution," by throwing over-the-top insults into every sentence. A dissenter's best friend. :wink: )

Also, by the author’s logic, the government would have known, within minutes, that this website was posted, and it would have been taken down before it had a chance to reach the eye of the public.
So basically, what the he is saying is that all of the pedophiles, rapists, serial killers, terrorists, wtf-evers, that broadcast their lifestyles, in some way, over the internet are being Allowed to go on about their twisted business because, if the government wanted to, they could have them all tracked down and located within minutes because the government monitors all internet communications. Seems pretty sadistic of government, if you ask me, to allow these people to go unpunished, like that, for so long.
I’m assuming that it would take a little longer than “within minutes” for the government to sift through the infinite amounts of internet data transferred every day (even using the “keywords” methods that they are using now) to weed out that specific site, not to mention the probably hundreds of thousands like it, and shut it down. By the time they did that, it would have likely reached the eyes of so many people that shutting down the site would do nothing more than arouse further suspicion, for the same reason stated above, and give a specter of credibility to what is now the “mindless zealotry” of the belief of something being covered-up, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

not to mention his tactical use of "provoking conformity through fear of intellectual persecution," by throwing over-the-top insults into every sentence. A dissenter's best friend. :wink:
[/b]

---

You summed up everything I thought there!

Not only this, but his references are fire-and-brimstone skeptics, hypocritically using exactly the same methods as the documentaries to apparently 'debunk' these myths with their 'FACT'-'CLAIM'-'FACT', ad nausiam. On top of this, a government agency giving all this scientific evidence--none of which is available to be looked at by the reader--purely from some scraps of steel from the crash and studying of video evidence. To be honest, their explanations seem as equally unlikely as the extremist theory they're supposedly debunking.

Not much really to add here, except to say that if 9/11 were in fact an inside job, theories such as "the pod" on the 757 or the "no plane at the pentagon" would in fact be encouraged by the conspirators, to discredit all theories and make the ignorant public dismiss all matters of legitimate consideration. Of course there was a plane at the pentagon; countless people saw it, but to turn around and not even question all of the odd occurences of that day is just mindless. No offense to anyone intended.

I have no answers and draw no conclusions, however I DO acknowledge that something is just not right about what we all saw that day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Never

Not much really to add here, except to say that if 9/11 were in fact an inside job, theories such as "the pod" on the 757 or the "no plane at the pentagon" would in fact be encouraged by the conspirators, to discredit all theories and make the ignorant public dismiss all matters of legitimate consideration. Of course there was a plane at the pentagon; countless people saw it, but to turn around and not even question all of the odd occurences of that day is just mindless. No offense to anyone intended.

I have no answers and draw no conclusions, however I DO acknowledge that something is just not right about what we all saw that day.
[/b]

---

Agreed

Im not going to delve into entire theories
or I'm going to say is
Lets examine who benifitted form 9/11
what about Mr Bin Laden and his motely crew
I wou;d say the Taliban have suffered greatly since 9/11

Lets see whose benifitted
well without 9/11 there would never have been a defense budget of world conquest of proportions
so aha we find, that the arms industry benifits here and therefore the Maerican economoy and its "free market"
without 9/11 there would enver have been a war on Iraq, Mr Bush would not ahve had the backing of his own people
so there again we see the US economoy benefits
now who else beneifits?
Lets see, whose a middle eastern country, frirendly with the US, very friendly and felt threatend by MR Hussain

aha, I think I know, could it be the Zionists

Could it be the State of Israel! (which I may just open a thread on)

so you see America benfits, (oil, & arms indsutry) and so does Israel, removes a regional competetior and a great threat

Mr Hussain you see was an ardent anti-Zionist

I dont think Bush did it, well I think he knew it was going to happen, but come on, a man who would b better fitted as a zoo animal than the American President pull off somethng to that scale,

No, we must look to the geniuses, the cleverest people on this Earth
the zionists - Einstien himslef was one

No, the war in Iraq is about sand. Haley Barbour is the Governor of Mississippi, and he used to be the leader of the Republican National Committee. He is a very good friend of G.W. Bush. Mississippi has Biloxi Beach, the world's largest shipped in sand beach. And what do Iraq and Afghanistan have?

And what state has the greatest amount of beach tourism? Florida. Who is the Governor of that state? Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother! Not only is there an ocean of sand in the Middle East. It is also a jackpot of towels. I think Barbour and the Bush's are up to no good. They don't pass the smell test.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

No, the war in Iraq is about sand. Haley Barbour is the Governor of Mississippi, and he used to be the leader of the Republican National Committee. He is a very good friend of G.W. Bush. Mississippi has Biloxi Beach, the world's largest shipped in sand beach. And what do Iraq and Afghanistan have?

And what state has the greatest amount of beach tourism? Florida. Who is the Governor of that state? Jeb Bush, George W.'s brother! Not only is there an ocean of sand in the Middle East. It is also a jackpot of towels. I think Barbour and the Bush's are up to no good. They don't pass the smell test.[/b]

---

LOL. Though I totally disagree with you over the reasons for the Iraq "War", and though I do still entertain the POBBILITY of some sort of conspiracy surrounding Sept11...

That WAS funny.

Ok i just want to say that when I first heard of the 911 conspiracies i didn't believe them because of how they were presented. However, the facts speak very clearly, as well as a number of scholars who have amassed a lot of information about the evidence that supports some sort of conspiracy. Check out this site:

http://www.scholarsfor911truth.org/

When you really start thinking logically about the destruction of the 3 world trade center buildings, its pretty obvious they were brought down with explosive charges. Now i say 'obvious' because of a few rock-solid pieces of evidence that have been brought to my attention (and many other not so rock-solid pieces). Namely:

1. Huge segments of the steel structure of the towers were found implanted into nearby buildings. Many, many humongous steel beams were found jutting out of the sides of nearby buildings hundereds of feet away from the towers. How did they fly such long distances? If the towers had simply collapsed, all of the structure would have fallen downward, and you wouldn't find 30ft long beams being shot horizontally, (and vertically if you watch the videos.)

2. Melted steel was found, as well as the chemical signature of the thermite compound required for such melting. Read the article published by the BYU physics professor, Steven Jones. There are also easily available videos of the thermate reaction spilling literally tons of melted steel out of the side of one of the towers.

3. The symmetry and speed of the collapse of the WTC 7 really can only be explained by controlled demolition if you consider the number of steel columns that would have to be simultaneously severed, at regular intervals, if not on every single floor. The building falls directly into the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall speed.

So, why do explosives necessarily mean a government conspiracy, as opposed to clever terrorists with secret building access? For most it would be because of the actions of the government immediately afterward, such as the refusal to release the tapes of firefighters and other emergency people saying that they heard explosions (and there are over a hundred such cases). Why did the 911 families have to go to court 3 times to get those tapes released?

Bush didn't do it. But right now im leaning towards the international military and oil/energy companies, as well as those who've always been ready to make a killing on war: the international banks.

heres a few good vids:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...90071483512003
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...60790371560078

I am not an engineer, so I cannot argue those particular points. However, engineers are a dime a dozen, and if what you are saying is true, why is that not the biggest news story of all time? Engineers don't even say anything about any of that to their friends and family members. Why might that be?

I remember reading somewhere that it looked like a controlled explosion because of the way the building was built, which caused the floors to collapse on top of each other neatly. I haven't seen any reliable/believable evidence that would suggest it wasn't exactly what it looked like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Universal

I am not an engineer, so I cannot argue those particular points. However, engineers are a dime a dozen, and if what you are saying is true, why is that not the biggest news story of all time? Engineers don't even say anything about any of that to their friends and family members. Why might that be?
[/b]

---

Im not sure that you have to be an engineer to decide for yourself that the simple physics of what took place on 911 can only be explained by explosives. How did steel beams weighing many tons get thrown upwards during the "collapse" of the twin towers? How did the beams get shot like javelins up and out hundreds of feet with enough velocity to puncture and implant into other buildings?

As to your point of why this story is not bigger, and why engineers across the country havnt spoken up, well, they have. In fact dozens of scientists and engineers have created a number of scholarly organizations to deal specifically with this issue. Look up on google Scholars for 911 Truth, Pysics 911, and the Journal of 911 Studies - all created and organized by PhD professors and professional engineers and scientists.

The word is spreading rapidly. Even MSNBC had Steven Jones on a little while back explaining how the 8 second collapse of WTC 7 was the result of explosive "cutter" charges. Heres a link to a google video of this national coverage on MSNBC: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5...+jones+msnbcWTC

And heres a video of WTC 7's implosion:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...87288866368337

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

1. Huge segments of the steel structure of the towers were found implanted into nearby buildings. Many, many humongous steel beams were found jutting out of the sides of nearby buildings hundereds of feet away from the towers. How did they fly such long distances? If the towers had simply collapsed, all of the structure would have fallen downward, and you wouldn't find 30ft long beams being shot horizontally, (and vertically if you watch the videos.) [/b]

---

Did you watch the videos from near ground zero when they collapsed? Yeah, they went almost straight down, but the dust and fragments shot out and down through several city blocks. Some larger fragments were bound to get stuck in buildings.
Further, this goes AGAINST the claim that it was an intentional explosion--demolitions are set so that NO fragments are launched, and all the energy is spent on downing the building, not throwing rubble around.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

2. Melted steel was found, as well as the chemical signature of the thermite compound required for such melting. Read the article published by the BYU physics professor, Steven Jones. There are also easily available videos of the thermate reaction spilling literally tons of melted steel out of the side of one of the towers.[/b]

---

One, no melted steel was found, excepting aluminum, which melts at relatively low temperatures--you could melt aluminum on a campfire.
Two, do you even know what thermite is? It's relatively easy to produce, because it's so ridiculously simple. Iron oxide and aluminum powder. Iron oxide is just rust. When it burns, it produces molten iron and aluminum oxide.
So what is this chemical signature you're talking about? Oh no everybody! They found traces of rust and aluminum in the wreckage of a massive steel building! Who could have ever predicted that plot twist?!?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

3. The symmetry and speed of the collapse of the WTC 7 really can only be explained by controlled demolition if you consider the number of steel columns that would have to be simultaneously severed, at regular intervals, if not on every single floor. The building falls directly into the path of greatest resistance at nearly free-fall speed.[/b]

---

Not quite the path of least resistance. Moving it to the side would require overcoming the inertia of the building--getting up enough momentum to push it down sideways. Also, consider that in buildings, once the first floor collapses it builds up massive amounts of momentum which adds an incredible amount of stress to the floors below, causing a chain reaction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

For most it would be because of the actions of the government immediately afterward, such as the refusal to release the tapes of firefighters and other emergency people saying that they heard explosions (and there are over a hundred such cases).[/b]

---

Withholding sensitive tapes while they are reviewed in such cases is commonplace. Evidence is almost exclusively kept from the public while it is reviewed, this is no landmark case.
Now, to say that this is all a conspiracy is MASSIVELY overestimating the abilities of the government to keep things quiet.
Ever heard of a "black ops" project? Basically, it's a government action kept entirely silent from the public, and from most of the government. Leaks are their biggest problem, so they keep the number of people "in" on the projects to a minimum--almost always under 100. That's not 100 working on the project, that's 100 who even know it exists. And even then, they suffer a LOT of leaks.
And you're suggesting that a number of people likely nearing the 1000 mark, and a significant number of whom have no prior security clearance, and hence no accumulated trust build up, are keeping perfectly silent? That none have come forward to confess or point the finger, despite ample opportunity to do so?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Bush didn't do it. But right now im leaning towards the international military and oil/energy companies, as well as those who've always been ready to make a killing on war: the international banks.[/b]

---

And now you're blowing the conspiracy up even BIGGER! Keeping that many people silent is IMPOSSIBLE. Period.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

Did you watch the videos from near ground zero when they collapsed? Yeah, they went almost straight down, but the dust and fragments shot out and down through several city blocks. Some larger fragments were bound to get stuck in buildings.
Further, this goes AGAINST the claim that it was an intentional explosion--demolitions are set so that NO fragments are launched, and all the energy is spent on downing the building, not throwing rubble around.
One, no melted steel was found, excepting aluminum, which melts at relatively low temperatures--you could melt aluminum on a campfire.
Two, do you even know what thermite is? It's relatively easy to produce, because it's so ridiculously simple. Iron oxide and aluminum powder. Iron oxide is just rust. When it burns, it produces molten iron and aluminum oxide.
So what is this chemical signature you're talking about? Oh no everybody! They found traces of rust and aluminum in the wreckage of a massive steel building! Who could have ever predicted that plot twist?!?
Not quite the path of least resistance. Moving it to the side would require overcoming the inertia of the building--getting up enough momentum to push it down sideways. Also, consider that in buildings, once the first floor collapses it builds up massive amounts of momentum which adds an incredible amount of stress to the floors below, causing a chain reaction.
Withholding sensitive tapes while they are reviewed in such cases is commonplace. Evidence is almost exclusively kept from the public while it is reviewed, this is no landmark case.
Now, to say that this is all a conspiracy is MASSIVELY overestimating the abilities of the government to keep things quiet.
Ever heard of a "black ops" project? Basically, it's a government action kept entirely silent from the public, and from most of the government. Leaks are their biggest problem, so they keep the number of people "in" on the projects to a minimum--almost always under 100. That's not 100 working on the project, that's 100 who even know it exists. And even then, they suffer a LOT of leaks.
And you're suggesting that a number of people likely nearing the 1000 mark, and a significant number of whom have no prior security clearance, and hence no accumulated trust build up, are keeping perfectly silent? That none have come forward to confess or point the finger, despite ample opportunity to do so?
And now you're blowing the conspiracy up even BIGGER! Keeping that many people silent is IMPOSSIBLE. Period.
[/b]

---

My friend...I implore you, logic can be very useful. Basically everything you've concluded is dead wrong and can be proven so with a few minutes research and common sense.

Now, what you're actually saying is that since the debris spread across the entire city, then we can expect pieces of the structure weighing several tons or more to be ejected vertically and horizontally with tremendous momentum? This is not logical, and circular reasoning to boot. You are exactly right that a massive cloud of debris exploded outward into the city, but the energy needed to create so much fine particulate matter, while virtually decimating and ejecting all the massive structure is not possible from a collapse due to fire.

While you are correct that traditionally controlled demolitions are just that - controlled - why do you ignore the classic example of WTC 7, which folded neatly and symmetrically into itself? The twin towers were obviously not downed in a controlled manner, but this does not mean they did not contain many more times the explosives needed to create what we saw (a mushroom cloud of debris). Logic...

Now, how in the world can you say that "there was no molten metal, except aluminum"?? Not only have there been many reports of molten steel by firefighters and observers at the scene but there are tons of pictures and videos of previously molten metal, fused together and contorted into all kinds of shapes impossible without extremely high heat.

As far as thermite goes, it is not an easily produced substance in natural catastrophes or collapsing buildings. Where did you get this idea? Do you have a source? There are in fact videos of a thermite reaction which show tons of molten steel (not aluminum, as aluminum when melted does not appear bright orange yellow, just look it up if you are skeptical).

And lastly, you think a black ops project can only be concealed when confined to 100 people? Who are you trying to kid? Ever hear of the Manhattan project? How about the holocaust? True these things are eventually revealed, and with time the truth about 911 will all be considered public knowledge.

i could go on forever, but i won't. just want to say this: they have larry silverstein on tape on a tv program saying that they "pulled" building 7. pulled, of course, is a term for controlled demolition. interesting, considering other buildings that he DIDN't own (and therefre didn't have an insurance policy on) were more heavily damaged and yet were in no danger at all of collapsing. how long does it take to set up a demolition like that? a day? a week?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And lastly, you think a black ops project can only be concealed when confined to 100 people? Who are you trying to kid? Ever hear of the Manhattan project? How about the holocaust? True these things are eventually revealed, and with time the truth about 911 will all be considered public knowledge.
[/b]

---

don't forget the nazi's burning of the reichstag in order to instill fear, suspend civil liberties, and consolidate power! (sound familiar?)...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Now, how in the world can you say that "there was no molten metal, except aluminum"?? Not only have there been many reports of molten steel by firefighters and observers at the scene but there are tons of pictures and videos of previously molten metal, fused together and contorted into all kinds of shapes impossible without extremely high heat.
[/b]

---

You seem to be ignorant of the definition of "molten". Molten: "reduced to liquid form by heating".
The steel wasn't liquid in those pictures, it was only red-hot--a phenomenon that requires MUCH lower temperatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

As far as thermite goes, it is not an easily produced substance in natural catastrophes or collapsing buildings. Where did you get this idea? Do you have a source?[/b]

---

Sure. From Wiki: "A thermite reaction is a type of aluminothermic reaction in which aluminium metal is oxidized by the oxide of another metal, most commonly iron oxide."
Aluminum, Iron Oxide. It's ridiculously simple. I've made it in my backyard a couple of times--all you need to do is grind some rust down to a powder, then break open an Etch-A-Sketch and mix them at the right proportion.
Now, what are these "chemical traces" you're talking about? Because like I said, the products of a thermite reaction are only molten iron (which we have no evidence of any melted iron, only heated) and aluminum oxide. Both are prevalent already in modern buildings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

videos of a thermite reaction which show tons of molten steel (not aluminum, as aluminum when melted does not appear bright orange yellow, just look it up if you are skeptical).[/b]

---

One, that looks more like sparks and embers than molten steel to me--have you ever SEEN a thermite reaction? They produce TORRENTS of liquid iron. Two, get your terminology right. Thermite doesn't produce molten steel. It produces molten iron. It can melt the steel indirectly, but it doesn't produce molten steel in the quantities it produces molten iron. Third, if they HAD used thermite to cut the steel supports, they'd be using it INSIDE the building, on the supports, not on the edge near a window. Fourth, in order for this to be true, they'd have to either plan the exact floor the airplane struck, then plant the thermite there, then crash the plane and have it all work out all hunky-dory. Which, since they had amateur pilots at best, would not be easy. Or, they could wait until AFTER the planes struck to plant the thermite, which is simply impossible.
What are you suggesting?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

And lastly, you think a black ops project can only be concealed when confined to 100 people? Who are you trying to kid? Ever hear of the Manhattan project? How about the holocaust? True these things are eventually revealed, and with time the truth about 911 will all be considered public knowledge.[/b]

---

For your info, Manhattan Project was only kept black by moving the scientists working on it to a remote desert so they COULDN'T tell anybody. With the advent of cell phones, it would be nearly impossible to pull the same manner of cover again.
In the case of the holocaust, that wasn't kept secret at all. At least not well. The Jews most certainly had it figured out right away, and the rest of the world was only clueless because it wasn't paying attention.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

In the case of the holocaust, that wasn't kept secret at all. At least not well. The Jews most certainly had it figured out right away, and the rest of the world was only clueless because it wasn't paying attention.[/b]

---

Ehhh, careful. This is a highly controversial statement. Firstly, when you're talking about the holocaust with respect to what ordinary people knew at the time, the mere USE of the word "holocaust" creates an inference in the modern, RETROSPECTIVE mind that any knowledge or indications of knowledge of any part of what is now known as the "Holocaust", infers a fiuller knowledge of the full extent of the holocaust.

In short, there is certainly evidence that contemporary Jews, Germans, and people in the wider world had some measure of understanding that some manner of racial segregation and perhaps persecution was going on at the time, that's a far cry from saying that they "Knew about the Holocaust".

Yeah, I see your point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tsen

One, that looks more like sparks and embers than molten steel to me--have you ever SEEN a thermite reaction? They produce TORRENTS of liquid iron. Two, get your terminology right. Thermite doesn't produce molten steel. It produces molten iron. It can melt the steel indirectly, but it doesn't produce molten steel in the quantities it produces molten iron. Third, if they HAD used thermite to cut the steel supports, they'd be using it INSIDE the building, on the supports, not on the edge near a window.[/b]

---

Well thanks for ignoring WTC Building 7 completely, which could not look more like a controlled demolition.

But as for the thermite issue, we would do well to listen to an expert. You are right that the byproduct of a thermite reaction is iron as professor Jones shows us, but what he also makes clear is that its easy to calculate the amount and nature of the molten substance flowing out of the tower, which in fact collapses at the corner column where we see the reaction.

Steven Jones, PhD. explains how thermite was used in the twin towers.

I would like to know what most people think upon hearing this testimony by a highly credentialed professor who has done actual experiments, published papers on the issue (which have not been refuted), and corroborated his findings with many other highly credentialed physics professors - see Dr. Judy Wood, and Dr. Jeff King.

Duh his papers haven't been refuted--they weren't trying to prove anything. The most he's ever done in his papers is say that he wants more research done and wants more relevant data released by the government so that we can make an informed and scientific probe into the real cause of the collapse.

Just want to add that in regard to the beams, there is one that weighed some 600,000 pounds (imagine that now) and it was blown 350 feet away and was implanted deep inside a building. Think about this for a minute. Did it fall there? No. This is fact. What is guessed from this fact is something else.

Just a thought I came across, regarding motivation for a 9/11 conspiracy (and I'm no historian, so someone let me know if I'm out of line):

Are we (the US) not the same force that dropped Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - killing an estimated 210,000 people between the combined, initial blasts and their associated effects?
Is there any argument that the overwhelming majority of those killed were civilians?
Was this not done in the name of (perceived) peace? To put an end to the war (which is still debated today)?

What part of that scenario would make someone completely disregard the US governement as ethically capable of killing 3000 civilians as a pretext for a war in the Middle East that (I'm sure they believed) could be much more easily won, offers a democratic, possibly relatively peaceful future in one of the most volatile regions in the world and virtually gives us residential access to the most coveted natural resource there is?

Is it because the attack was on our own soil?
Is it because the civilians killed were Americans?

Do you really think that matters to people who's job it is to look at the "Bigger Picture?" (besides as a campaign platform)
Do you think the US feels the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less of a right to live than the Americans killed on 9/11? If you don't think it, then it's conceivable that civilians on our own soil are just as expendable, given a "greater good." If you do think it, then you imply recognition of a government mindset that proves my point just as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Oneironaut

Just a thought I came across, regarding motivation for a 9/11 conspiracy (and I'm no historian, so someone let me know if I'm out of line):

Are we (the US) not the same force that dropped Atomic Bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - killing an estimated 210,000 people between the combined, initial blasts and their associated effects?
Is there any argument that the overwhelming majority of those killed were civilians?
Was this not done in the name of (perceived) peace? To put an end to the war (which is still debated today)?

What part of that scenario would make someone completely disregard the US governement as ethically capable of killing 3000 civilians as a pretext for a war in the Middle East that (I'm sure they believed) could be much more easily won, offers a democratic, possibly relatively peaceful future in one of the most volatile regions in the world and virtually gives us residential access to the most coveted natural resource there is?

Is it because the attack was on our own soil?
Is it because the civilians killed were Americans?

Do you really think that matters to people who's job it is to look at the "Bigger Picture?" (besides as a campaign platform)
Do you think the US feels the civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki had less of a right to live than the Americans killed on 9/11? If you don't think it, then it's conceivable that civilians on our own soil are just as expendable, given a "greater good." If you do think it, then you imply recognition of a government mindset that proves my point just as well.
[/b]

---

Maybe it is the case that these neo-con/shadow government types are really only interested in spreading democracy, and they knew people who not support unmercifully spreading democracy by waging war, so they "sacrificed" a few thousand citizens (less than 10% of the number that die every year in car accidents) to have an excuse to spread American imperialism, i mean democracy, into the most oil rich parts of the world.

Seriously though, the people who still believe the government about 911 probably think preemptive war in general is a good thing, whether in Iraq or Japan. Of course, in Japan, civilians were the main target - yes a true low for the American empire. Even 911 does not compare in my mind, if it was in fact the government that orchestrated that event (which at this point is proven to some degree given the number of whistleblowers who have said as much, i.e. Sybil Edmonds.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Maybe it is the case that these neo-con/shadow government types are really only interested in spreading democracy, and they knew people who not support unmercifully spreading democracy by waging war, so they "sacrificed" a few thousand citizens (less than 10% of the number that die every year in car accidents) to have an excuse to spread American imperialism, i mean democracy, into the most oil rich parts of the world.

Seriously though, the people who still believe the government about 911 probably think preemptive war in general is a good thing, whether in Iraq or Japan. Of course, in Japan, civilians were the main target - yes a true low for the American empire. Even 911 does not compare in my mind, if it was in fact the government that orchestrated that event (which at this point is proven to some degree given the number of whistleblowers who have said as much, i.e. Sybil Edmonds.)
[/b]

---

Nuking of Japan, result: the end of World War II, a war where 52 million people had died, moslty civilians (the vast majority of whom were not killed by Americans)

9/11, result: mindless mass civilian killing that backfired many fold on those who did it

I already told you that the war in Iraq is about sand. It has something to do with what the queers are doing to the soil.