9/11 Conspiracy Stuff

First topic message reminder :

Hammersmith harrier wrote:You're clearly an imbecile who probably believes 911 was an inside job.

I actually do believe that

Rowley wrote:As I alluded to earlier one other thing that never stacks up with a conspiracy theory, this one in particular is where are all the people approached to take part who decline? Most have acknowledged on here this scheme would require a cast of hundreds, many of whom require quite niche and specialist skills.

Think about this sensibly you're approaching these people with the proposition of murdering thousands of innocent people and devastating a major city. Where are all the people asked to participate who say 'no of course not, that's absolutely mental' are we meant to believe everyone agrees or those that don't will say 'it's not for me but I wish you all the best'

This is the way of most conspiracy theories, happy to talk about such things as structural engineering despite having no qualifications to do so but when it comes to asking common sense practical questions any one of us are capable of asking, happy to ignore them.

But you are assuming that people were approached. You're making assumptions. I don't see why it would need to go any further than the organisations involved.

And just say it was necessary to involve people in that way. Does everybody not have some form of leverage or another?

Just say hypotheticaly, on Monday you are in work, and a government organisation approaches you with the proposition of doing something illegal etc etc. They threaten your family if you don't comply or try to make a public fuss. Simple as that. Who do you go to, what do you do? I appreciate that sounds silly, and I'm not saying that's what happened. But just say it did, what would you do?

Rowley wrote:
This is the way of most conspiracy theories, happy to talk about such things as structural engineering despite having no qualifications to do so but when it comes to asking common sense practical questions any one of us are capable of asking, happy to ignore them.

This is the main thing for me, I don't have a clue about structural engineering and never will so won't comment on it.

You can guarantee that anyone who was part of the investigation is the creme de la creme in their field, not just an expert but the very best, their level of knowledge will far outstrip that of anyone making a video on Youtube using pretty basic physics. It is the first and only time a 104 floor building has collapsed, the level of engineering it takes to keep that building standing is beyond my comprehension and most the conspiracy theorists. All I do know is that a plane loaded with fuel crashing into a skyscraper 80 floors up is going to cause quite catastrophic damage.

I would not muder 5000 people! Also what organisation has specialist demolition experts, limitless funds, the ability to influence and silence the media, to influence the military and government in their response and so on and so forth and to do all this without their existence being known to anyone other than a few people on YouTube apparently?

At the risk of appearing like I have my head in the sand I'm going to suggest they don't exist.

Rowley wrote:I would not muder 5000 people! Also what organisation has specialist demolition experts, limitless funds, the ability to influence and silence the media, to influence the military and government in their response and so on and so forth and to do all this without their existence being known to anyone other than a few people on YouTube apparently?

At the risk of appearing like I have my head in the sand I'm going to suggest they don't exist.

If they're going to bring the towers down using controlled explosions wouldn't they have just down that and done away with the use of the plane which seemingly crashed into it for no reason. If an organisation has the power to orchestrate the elaborate murder of it's own people i'd have thought they would know if a plane crashing into the Twin Towers would bring it down but seemingly they knew it wouldn't but did it anyway.

So you think that the major news organisations, financial institutions, construction companies and governments colluded to set up the scenario that unfolded on September 11th in order to get the us government public approval for various legislation and wars.

I find this hard to believe for several reasons. One is that this would involve huge numbers of people and all would have to be complicit and never say anything about it.

The other and my main one is that this would require meticulous planning by fairly intelligent people for what is a very very convoluted event to co ordinate. That they could arrange all these things yet make a balls of something like collapsing a building a plane didn't hit and mistiming the announcement in the media just doesn't make sense.

OK guys,  you've got me. It does all sound ludicrous when you actually think about it.

Now excuse me whilst I go and cry into my pint about all the time I've wasted looking into the alternative theories. I'm an idiot.

Even when I explain it in laymans terms why it cannot be chemical explosives, conspiracy theorists ignore the explanation, while also admitting they are clueless regarding the physics.  

That's the problem with conspiracy theorists they are discussing things beyond their own intelligence and education.  They ignore my expertise for another "expert" they claim has greater authority and ignore all the experts that have researched the specifics of the collapses and have shown exactly how the buildings collapsed without chemical explosives.

This playing one expert against another proves the conspiracy theorists are just "gaming" the system.  The whole concept that secret agents rigged the floors of WT1 and WT2 with chemical explosives and had other secret agents flying precisely into those floors with chemical explosives is a delusion.  The whole concept that secret agents rigged every single floor of WT1 and WT2 below the aircraft impact site with explosives without anyone knowing is a delusion.

There is another proof that the floors were not all set up with chemical explosives - you wouldn't get the bang - bang - bang noise as the top part of the building fell into the lower parts of the building one floor at a time. Instead you would get one bang with the building collapsing following the chemical explosive bang.

http://www.garlicandgrass.org/issue6/Dave_Heller.cfm

Do people genuinely take any notice of what these random articles written by nobodies say?

There is something called the scientific process. Research papers written by "experts" has to be read by other experts before judgment is made whether or not it is publishable in a peer reviewed scientific journal. Research proposals written by "experts" has to be read by other experts and graded before a final decision is made regarding what to fund. Even research articles that have got through the peer review process and have been published in an esteemed scientific journal is subject to criticism - sometimes being found to be wrong following later research.

Now stuff posted onto the internet or onto youtube does not necessarily constitute reliable information. One can find text masquerading as evidence on almost anything on the internet, from alien abductions to fake moon landings to a secret organisation of illuminati to racist organisations with certain fixed world views.

I'm still trying to get my head around this.

So the US government collapsed the Twin Towers using a controlled explosion but decided to cover it up using two planned plane crashes, a way in which it was impossible for the buildings to collapse?

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around this.

So the US government collapsed the Twin Towers using a controlled explosion but decided to cover it up using two planned plane crashes, a way in which it was impossible for the buildings to collapse?

The trouble with conspiracy theorists is that they are often lazy in their thinking.  Some of them also admit they are clueless in their knowledge - so say something along the lines of.  "Well that's strange.  I don't understand that.  But I read this on the internet regarding these illuminati folk being behind it all.  Look at this person, he says he is an expert with a degree in scientology, and he says this and so he must be right."  Then when you question the conspiracy theorists with the details of their theory, they say they don't worry about the details - and then they provide a link to another illuminati fellow who compares building structures to cardboard boxes.

Hammersmith harrier wrote:I'm still trying to get my head around this.

So the US government collapsed the Twin Towers using a controlled explosion but decided to cover it up using two planned plane crashes, a way in which it was impossible for the buildings to collapse?

And they told he BBC they were going to do it!!!

http://www.livescience.com/16179-twin-tower-collapse-model-squash-9-11-conspiracies.html

I'm guessing a mere Science writer knows all the answers.

'But do you thing just having planes flown into the WTC will give us enough of an excuse to invade Afghanistan and then, in a few years time, Iraq?'

'Nope, reckon we will have to destroy them using controlled explosions and just deal with all the questions and suspicion surrounding that - just in case.'

https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-twin-towers-fall-at-free-fall-speed-without-the-aid-of-explosives

These articles are fascinating, not a single one written by anyone worth a damn.

Just plucking articles out randomly really i have no idea the truth:

https://m.reddit.com/r/911truth/comments/2066xi/ace_elevator_is_key_in_investigating_911/

One of the comments in one of the link that Herman Jaeger posted was correct in saying it was incorrect to say that the building fell in "free-fall".  I just used the term in one of my earlier comments because it was mentioned by one of emancipator or ex7ley or both.  In teaching sometimes you have to teach using terms the audience uses in order that you might impart something to them in terms that they already understand.  Furthermore the technical definition of a given term doesn't always match up with the every day language use of that term.   Basically the fall of WT1 and WT2 can be likened to a line of dominoes - each domino being knocked over in turn, creating a certain speed.  Similar but not the same.  So each floor represents a domino and each floor failed in turn during the collapse as a result of having a multi-storey building falling upon them, snap - snap - snap - snap ...

At 6.20 approx. of this video what do we make of the puffs of smoke coming out of the building?:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=MvyBY8d554I

As a lay person not privy to all the details I don't need to provide a comprehensive explanation for why and how. Suffice to show that the official line does not add up. It's now over 2000 experts that have signed a petition to say that the official explanation is scientifically impossible.

http://www.ae911truth.org/about.html

What caused WTC7 to collapse? A 47 storey building. According to NIST it was due to 'normal office fires'. You can see the pictures before its collapse. It wasn't a raging inferno, the fires were not even visible from outside, and even if it had been a blazing big fire, there is no way that it could melt steel - just impossible - yet that building too collapsed like a cheap deck of cards.

Look at the recent fire of the hotel in Exeter - burning for over 24 hours and yet still standing. WTC fell just 7 hours after the start of the events - supposedly due to normal office fires according to NIST - impossible.

There's a lot more to this but this'll be my last contribution. There are lots of documentaries exposing the holes in the official story. Here's one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Nmj6t51Wz8

Watch it with an open mind and then decide for yourself.

Yet there are countless more trusted experts who say it is scientifically possible, people pick and choose what they want to believe.

If you're not privy to all the information how can you say that the official line doesn't add up?

WTC7- asymmetrical damage, perfectly symmetrical fall

Just doesn't add up

Titanic, unsinkable boat, sunk on first voyage. Just doesn't add up. I blame Taft, he always looked a bit shifty.

Can you explain how it doesn't add up or has some nut on the internet said it doesn't?

So hang on a minute here

You two are saying that you don't think WTC7 is a controlled demolition?

Saying it doesn't add up is basically saying I can't comprehend something hugely complex in a subject I know nothing about and have no qualifications in.

That's not a problem, it's perfectly reasonable and understandable, where you choose to go to fill in these gaps in knowledge is where the issue comes.

You think that perfect implosion was caused by fire?

This stuff is beyond your comprehension Herman and it's beyond mine, reading random crappy articles you've found on Google written by fellow conspiracy theorists is not the best idea.

Where has this idea that it was perfect implosion come from? WTC7 was hit by large amounts of debris as one of the towers collapsed, that is not consistent with 'perfect implosion' nor is it something you have a single clue about.

Herman Jaeger wrote:You think that perfect implosion was caused by fire?

It's not a question I ask myself, I don't have the qualifications or expertise to answer it. The question I ask myself is if it is not a fire what would the alternative theories actually entail. Normally when I ponder this question I come to the conclusion the other theories are completely implausible.

That looks to my untrained eye as a controlled demolition and nothing but a controlled demolition

If they did a controlled demolition for WTC7 then not so unreasonable to think they might have done the same for the other two

Why are the mods so rude on this forum lol

Herman Jaeger wrote:That looks to my untrained eye as a controlled demolition and nothing but a controlled demolition

If they did a controlled demolition for WTC7 then not so unreasonable to think they might have done the same for the other two

That's the important bit, you don't have a clue about the subject.

I wonder how many scientists involved with CERN have put their names forward to back these conspiracy theories, i've not seen any.

We're not, or at least I'm not. Think you may be confusing who wrote what mate.

I can imagine George W and Tony Blair discussing it now...

Tony Blair : So, ah, how are you planning to coerce your nation to embark upon these wars, George?

George W explains Sept 11th plot in full detail

Tony Blair : Umm.... Are you sure you don't just want to do the fake photo thing I'm doing?

Rowley wrote:We're not, or at least I'm not. Think you may be confusing who wrote what mate.

Has he met Dolph?

emancipator wrote:

Hammersmith harrier wrote:The facts have no relevance at all, the WTC was 104 stories high, no controlled explosions have been attempted on a building of that size, the largest being the 47 storey Singer building back in the 1960's. The vast difference in size makes the articles your reading irrelevant, they make no reference to buildings that large and all you can take from it is that a few companies demolish 20+ storey buildings, beyond that is your own mind connecting dots that aren't there.

This really is the stupidest thing I've read for a long time. In this one ignorant statement you've managed to consign all scientific endeavours to the waste bin of history. Science is built on principles and extrapolation of those principles. What applies to a twenty story building applies to a 100 story building, if anything it's even harder to get a 100 story building to collapse on itself - which I believe if the point EX was trying to make - yet we're supposed to believe that 3 of the tallest structures in the world collapsed right onto their own footprints at the same speed that it takes a stone to fall from the sky (ie no resistance) after being struck by a plane (coming at an angle) and a few floors burning for less than a couple of hours? Doesn't stack up. What about all the floors that were not damaged by fire? How did they just collapse so fast?

Nice talk about science.  But your unwillingness to read the NIST reports of how the buildings fell and your unwillingness to engage in any detail of the science that I have raised with regard the collapse,  suggests your belief in this particular conspiracy is driven by something unrelated to science.  
It seems to me you don't really understand anything about building collapse, that you believe the US gained an advantage on the world stage because of it and that the US government must therefore have done it.  

You then selectively choose items in support of the conspiracy while ignoring, not bothering to read and engage with, all the scientific research showing how the buildings collapsed without having the buildings jam packed with chemical explosives.

Why does Blair have to be involved?

Herman Jaeger wrote:Why does Blair have to be involved?

He's hardly the most far-fetched of those who have been suggested to have been involved on this thread

Seeing as how Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda would have to be on side, you'd probably have to let your allies know what's going on too as you go to war against those who you're also working with. How does that work in itself, they'd have to force feed him what to say in his videos and then be compliant in the kidnapping and beheading of innocent westerners in the middle east. The 7/7 bombings, Madrid and every other Al Qaeda attack would also be a part of the wider conspiracy just to make it look legitimate.

What have you lot got to say about ACE then?:

http://aneta.org/911experiments_com/articles/HowCouldExplosivesBePlanted/index.htm

They start by saying they don't how explosives could be planted in the World Trade Centre, that's the start of an article that i'm sure is bang on the money.

http://www.cleveland.oh.us/wmv_news/jherr17.htm

Let's deal with the big issues rather than this 9/11 nonsense. When is The King coming back?

Conspiracy theorists try to be as vague as possible so that they can avoid being pinned down on the science.  If we take the North Tower.  They claim a drone or an aircraft crashed into the building.  They claim the aircraft was flown by government agents or that it was an automatic large drone.  They also claim that every floor of the North Tower was packed with chemical explosives with some sort of delay fusing for a coordinated explosion.  They then claim that the chemical explosives wouldn't go off when a Boeing aircraft full of kerosene smashed directly into it, they claim that the explosives wouldn't go off when the floor was full of burning kerosene.  They also claim that no-one could see all the chemical explosives and fuse wire that had been rigged up.  They then claim that after two or three hours engineers started the controlled detonation - they first detonated the chemical explosives in the floor that the plane crashed into.  They then had delayed explosions on every single floor below the crash level.  When you tell them to read the NIST reports etc they say they don't have the time or the patience or the aptitude to read it.

They also have a conspiracy theory for the south tower.
They also have a conspiracy theory for WT7.
They also have a conspiracy theory for the Pentagon and the third aircraft.
They also have a conspiracy theory for the fourth aircraft - flight 93.

They don't have the time to read the scientific reports. They accept they don't understand how buildings collapse.

I just want to clarify- are people saying they believe fire could have brought down WTC7 in that fashion?

Herman Jaeger wrote:I just want to clarify- are people saying they believe fire could have brought down WTC7 in that fashion?

Do you believe a man can fly Jaeger? Have you read the NIST report Jaeger? Do you think there is any utility in reading a report that documents the research and findings of a three year multimillion dollar study into the collapse of the WTC7 building?

Sorry mate this is just to you- DO you specifically believe that fire brought down WTC7 in that fashion?

Just a yes or no will suffice

Nore Staat wrote:

Herman Jaeger wrote:I just want to clarify- are people saying they believe fire could have brought down WTC7 in that fashion?

Do you believe a man can fly Jaeger?  Have you read the NIST report Jaeger?  Do you think there is any utility in reading a report that documents the research and findings of a three year multimillion dollar study into the collapse of the WTC7 building?

This reminds me of an opening gambit often used by Vincent Bugliosi, who debunks JFK conspiracies. When speaking to a room he often opens by asking 'how many people believe the conclusions of the Warren Report?' this is normally greeted by 90% of hands going up.

His next question tends to be how many people have read all of the Warren Report? Less than 10% of hands tend to stay up. I've not read something but remain fairly confident it's nonsense. For people who put such stock in science this is a thoroughly unscientific approach to a subject.

That isn't a relevant question, the NIST say that is the manner in which it collapsed and there is no viable evidence to suggest they are complicit in a cover up, if you'd read the reports you would know that fire isn't the sole cause of collapse.