Thread: 9/11 Conspiracy

Well the official report doesn't state that the steel "melted" it states that the steel weakened enough to dislodge the joints holding the floors in place, thus starting the domino effect of floors collapsing, therefor the floors that weren't on fire collapsed under sheer weight.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Originally Posted by memeticverb

Neither of these two 9/11 researchers has been refuted. If UM anyone else could find a flaw in either of these two thinkers' argument we can drop the issue of 9/11 being an inside job, (and by finding a flaw i mean show the argument in the author's own words, and then proceed to offer a valid critique. (No straw men)

All the other stuff about fascist military, weapons manufacturing, and oil industries taking over U.S. politics gains credibility from the fact that 9/11 was a converging point for all of them and was in fact carried out thanks to help from within the U.S. government (see testimony by Sibel Edmonds, FBI)

I know you're not challenging me to another demolition specifics debate. You know what I have said about that. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Read my satire and tell me where it is incorrect. Then tell me how demolition disagreements from a handful of experts in a sea of silence from the masses of experts is a basis for jumping to the land of Oz. Are you even reading my posts? Counter something for once.

UMs Logic repeating again.

Originally Posted by universal mind

Well the official report doesn't state that the steel "melted" it states that the steel weakened enough to dislodge the joints holding the floors in place, thus starting the domino effect of floors collapsing, therefor the floors that weren't on fire collapsed under sheer weight.

That theory is disproved beyond a doubt as garbage. The design of the building doesn't allow for such a catastrophic and ridiculous error. A Pancake collapse is not scientific knowledge just imaginary dreaming. Try it in real life it won't work. They already did experiments. The official theory you talk about was based on a computer simulation where the steel was measure 42 inches warped. But in real life it was only 4 inches out of place. So that's a bit of a stupid exaggeration 4 inches compared to 42. To base a computer simulation on evidence of what happened. Real proper experiments are more accurate that have being handled in the normal way. Overall it's a shameful report that is not scientific. So don't say that it's a pancake collapse when we know it's impossible when it happened at freefall speed. The fire nor the damage done to the building could possibly come even close to bringing the entire thing down. Fire can't make everything so weak that it all just falls neatly down. It's absurd and I can't believe anyone would buy into the idea. Look at the picture above. It's obviously not falling down how stupid do you have to be.

I don't know, I am neither a demolition expert nor someone who designed the WTC

If you want to find out more. Start looking at the links provided in the thread or just google it. It's pretty easy to research something you don't need a piece of paper that tells that you are now qualified to know something about it. You can know without being a designer of it. Just go and research the information available from experts and it will become obvious if you don't ignore the information. Normally they explain things that the average person can understand you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize who is talking crap and lieing, avoiding and distracting. Compared to who is being reasonable.

The offocial report lied because like I said witnessed saw melted steel, steel that was not weakened by jet fuel, but completely melted. I don't even see the point of mentioning a single other fact against the debunkers until Um can address how jet fuel managed to melt steel. You can claim it didn't have to in order to topple the buildings, fine, but steel still melted.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

The offocial report lied because like I said witnessed saw melted steel, steel that was not weakened by jet fuel, but completely melted. I don't even see the point of mentioning a single other fact against the debunkers until Um can address how jet fuel managed to melt steel. You can claim it didn't have to in order to topple the buildings, fine, but steel still melted.

Yes, I could argue that, and then I could argue that even if I were wrong your point would not be a sufficient basis for arguing that major airline company passenger airplanes disappeared without being reported or that people were determined to keep working at the place where their bosses shot a missile at them while they were in the building or that a very large number of witnesses who talked to the victims on cell phones heard hijackings and direct reports on the spot of hijackings on those airplanes. And how many witnesses are you talking about any way?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

If you want to find out more. Start looking at the links provided in the thread or just google it. It's pretty easy to research something you don't need a piece of paper that tells that you are now qualified to know something about it. You can know without being a designer of it. Just go and research the information available from experts and it will become obvious if you don't ignore the information. Normally they explain things that the average person can understand you don't need to be a rocket scientist to realize who is talking crap and lieing, avoiding and distracting. Compared to who is being reasonable.

You are so slow. I am going to explain this ONE more time. Some of your demolition points were so irrefutably absurd I already debunked them, and the argument ended when it was your turn. I have already learned about some basic demolition by reading your links and mine, but the problem is that the debates always get into, "Yeah, but this happened too, and that can't happen when those happen," and, "But they could when those happen this other way and those over there didn't happen under these other circumstances." None of us here are qualified to go all the way with that, and I am not going to attempt it because it would be absurd for all of us to do. Perhaps that is why you did not argue against the demolition counterclaim links I posted. However, I know plenty about psychology and logic, and according to what I know about those, the 9/11 conspiracy hypothesis is illogical and out of synch with human psychology, as I have illustrated and you have refrained to debate against.

The burden of proof is on you to argue how what you are saying happened could have even possibly happened, and none of you will do that. Do you realize that? Good lord. You claim something happened, I show how that is far from being in touch with reality, and all you do is insult me personally and harp on your premise you could not know the full scope of and never argue how you go from that premise to your far away conclusion. That is a failure to argue. I have also repeatedly made the point that even if your demolition points were true and you were qualified enough to know the full scope of the situation and be sure of what you are saying, that is not a basis for leaping to the absurd story I illustrated would have had to have happened, the one you keep ignoring. You have not refuted that point or my points illustrated in the satirical story. You have failed to argue your off the wall assertion.

If you are not going to refute that, then I think I have had about enough fun playing this silly game. Good luck.

By the way, carbon dating is bogus. A few scientists say that for such reasons of religious fanaticism and financial greed. Therefore, the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world 300 years ago.

You can't go long without mentioning this Flying Spaghetti Monster.....Even though it is never relevant.

Realistically, it's reasonable to look at the sources provided here and realize that the authority of designers, and what we know about the WTC and it's design. Is well sufficient to disprove that the WTC could have collapsed without being demolished. All you have to do is look at the information and it is irrefutable.

It is true that the burden is on me to explain it to you. But you can only take a horse to water you can't make it drink.

You can say over and over how you refuted it all perfectly. But you don't mention anything that refutes the information.

Your basic argument is just that people at the pentagon would say something about the missile. And the airplane had to be present. And that people inside the aircraft are witness.

This doesn't cut it because the way the 3 buildings that collapsed. Is very impossible without demolition. The pentagon explosion. Impossible without a missile. In addition a plane impact doesn't look like that. All this add to the fact my side isn't the conspiracy side. It's not just the presence of evidence. It's the lack of evidence to prove otherwise. For example how Norad stands down and why the security of the pentagon is shut down to let the airplane hit it. And why no footage of the airplane is released. And why different bits of wreckage was planted from a different aircraft at the pentagon. But no main wreckage from any aircraft or any mark on the ground from it's impact.

You can't understand 911 without realizing the media hoax. That is what is so difficult for you.

Why do you choose to side with the team that is wrong?

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Your basic argument is just that people at the pentagon would say something about the missile. And the airplane had to be present. And that people inside the aircraft are witness.

Until you explain away what I have said about those variables, AND OTHERS, I am not going to be able to believe your bizarre conclusion. It is too illogical. I am not an expert on carbon dating, but you are going to have to talk about a whole lot more than that for me to leap to the conclusion that the Flying Spaghetti Monster created the world 300 years ago.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Why do you choose to side with the team that is wrong?

I am not trying to play a sport here, which seems to be how you see it. I am just telling you that your conclusion is a light years long leap from a premise that neither of us is expert enough to understand the full scope of.

We are proud to scare potential invaders away from you, sis.

you are good at it too.

anyways I hope it wasn't a false flag excersise. or maybe they just got tired of false flag excersises with boats: the spainish american war....a boat was blown up, ww1...usa got in to it...over a boat being blown up, ww2...a lot of boats blown up, vietnam...a boat was blown up, planes sounded like more fun? If it was a false flag I think they would have used iraqi hijackers, not saudis. but who knows

-----------------

Originally Posted by shark!

you are good at it too.

What? Canada got invaded?

Originally Posted by shark!

anyways I hope it wasn't a false flag excersise. or maybe they just got tired of false flag excersises with boats: the spainish american war....a boat was blown up, ww1...usa got in to it...over a boat being blown up, ww2...a lot of boats blown up, vietnam...a boat was blown up, planes sounded like more fun? If it was a false flag I think they would have used iraqi hijackers, not saudis. but who knows

Did the governments we fought in those wars ever say, "Hey, we didn't do that! Why are we at war?"?

Um... I don't care because I have made no claim about what happened on 9/11. All I have claimed is that the United States is holding information back from us and until we hold them accountable and make them explain this information we won't know what really happened, meaning 3000 American deaths will continue to go unsolved.

You however claim there are no unanswered questions. There is this one, the only one I'm going to give you until you answer it because my argument is just that simple, there are discrepencies, you seem to think there are not. Can you atleast admit there are discrepencies then?

Is this article a joke? I hope so. Prevent terrorism by building it again, and this time putting massive holes in the building. I think they are making fun of you guys. This is basically saying, your not safer it's likely to happen again if we don't put holes in the building. So we are 'incompetent' but don't worry, the building has a hole in it for protection. They are also suggesting they are trying to protect the building from attack. Which is insulting considering who designed 911. See what happens when you don't Impeach bush it gets more and more chaotic.

I suppose you should build a wall around the pentagon too. Just incase fingers slip and all security disables when a hijacked plane happens to be heading for it. Or a missile that's being ordered to hit it. Then we can rely on media telling us things before they happen.

I think the article is a joke because the freedom tower is what I thought was going to replace it. Frankly I'd like to see the entire ocean replace the entire country.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Um... I don't care because I have made no claim about what happened on 9/11. All I have claimed is that the United States is holding information back from us and until we hold them accountable and make them explain this information we won't know what really happened, meaning 3000 American deaths will continue to go unsolved.

You however claim there are no unanswered questions. There is this one, the only one I'm going to give you until you answer it because my argument is just that simple, there are discrepencies, you seem to think there are not. Can you atleast admit there are discrepencies then?

Discrepancies among what experts say regarding demolition specifics? Yes.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Is this article a joke?

Probably. It's the first I have heard. Precautions are good just in case something goes wrong, but safety holes in a skyscraper just look stupid.

Originally Posted by Mystic7

Frankly I'd like to see the entire ocean replace the entire country.

Now I am really starting to understand what your perspective is about.

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong because the last thing I want to do is put wordsw in your mouth, but you're then arguing that there are demolitions experts that say jet fuel can melt steel?

yah I'd like to see the ocean replace it too. fuck that shit. total political nihilism, nothing works..

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Okay, so correct me if I'm wrong because the last thing I want to do is put wordsw in your mouth, but you're then arguing that there are demolitions experts that say jet fuel can melt steel?

Jet fuel plus other combustible material.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

Originally Posted by shark!

yah I'd like to see the ocean replace it too. fuck that shit. total political nihilism, nothing works..

Uh, wouldn't Canada be ocean too if that happened? That might make it worth it.

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Jet fuel plus other combustible material.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/tech...42.html?page=4

Okay so burning rugs and stuff made the inside of the building look like an iron works factory (as two firemen put it). Since I'm not an expert I will let the point go and go to the next one.

Puffs of smoke, this article claims that it was dust being pressurized down from the pancaking floors, but if that were the case, then we would see puffs comes out of EVERY open window, not just one every 5 floors.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

Puffs of smoke, this article claims that it was dust being pressurized down from the pancaking floors, but if that were the case, then we would see puffs comes out of EVERY open window, not just one every 5 floors.

I can't really claim I know anything about how that is supposed to work. Could it be that the windows were collapsing simulataneously with the floors?

Well that doesn't really make sense to me. I think one thing we can both concede to is that demolitions experts should be arguing, not us. I agree the 9/11 truth seekers seem to have gotten too attached to their theories to see that some of the stuff they were looking at simply isn't so, like that Romero guy probably didn't intend to claim what he saod. This, I find funny though. The FBI released photos of the hijackers then several of the supposed hijackers came out and said "I'm alive, didn't blow myself up."

The explanation we received was that they simply made a mistake, confusing arab names because their so similar and putting the wrong photos up. Funny the FBI never changed the list or the photos and Osama bin Laden continues to use these same identidies to reference the supposed hijackers.

If this is at all true I don't know, but I heard they found the hijackers passport in the wreckage. That would be bullshit if it is the official report because you are telling me that a fire burning so hot and out of control it collapsed a building left a passport in tact?

But the demolition theorists don't seem to understand that the tower was like a huge steel cone with a suspension of floors, not your usual "grid" of steel bars. That is why it collapsed in the fashion it did.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

I think one thing we can both concede to is that demolitions experts should be arguing, not us.

That is exactly where I stand. I have said that a more extreme example of amateurs arguing about this is a bunch of us arguing about a 9/11 brain surgery report that 99.999% of brain surgeons don't even talk about. It would be embarassing for me to even pretend that I can do that.

Originally Posted by Omnius Deus

This, I find funny though. The FBI released photos of the hijackers then several of the supposed hijackers came out and said "I'm alive, didn't blow myself up."

The explanation we received was that they simply made a mistake, confusing arab names because their so similar and putting the wrong photos up. Funny the FBI never changed the list or the photos and Osama bin Laden continues to use these same identidies to reference the supposed hijackers.

Are you sure somebody hasn't been pulling your leg?

Im sure that article is a bust, they are building the freedom tower which is 1776 feet tall. I know, clever height. anyways... OD and UM are correct that no matter how many articles you read and how many theories you hear, you are not going to be able to intelligently argue these points unless you have been trained in demo yourself.

as for the other questions, I think UM is on the right track with why the hijackers could be heard on cellphones, and why the people even called at all if they were not going to be killed? add to that the flight that was taken down in pennsylvania, are you suggesting that plane just crashed to make everything more believeable and no heroism actually occured? that is an insult to the passengers.

Last note, I dont understand this feeling of hatred for people in the US. Sure, hate our government, thats the trend even inside the US, but the people are just as varied and un-classifiable as any other country.

Originally Posted by tkdyo

Im sure that article is a bust, they are building the freedom tower which is 1776 feet tall. I know, clever height. anyways... OD and UM are correct that no matter how many articles you read and how many theories you hear, you are not going to be able to intelligently argue these points unless you have been trained in demo yourself.

as for the other questions, I think UM is on the right track with why the hijackers could be heard on cellphones, and why the people even called at all if they were not going to be killed? add to that the flight that was taken down in pennsylvania, are you suggesting that plane just crashed to make everything more believeable and no heroism actually occured? that is an insult to the passengers.

Last note, I dont understand this feeling of hatred for people in the US. Sure, hate our government, thats the trend even inside the US, but the people are just as varied and un-classifiable as any other country.

Yes! Thank you.