"Truthers", 9/11 and Operation Northwoods [Archive]

Catfish

06-01-12, 06:03 AM

So people who criticize and want to know what the truth is are laughed at - i also did.
I have watched some documentaries and did not believe most, and now watched this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k6pEZf8P_RE&feature=related

Technical details, also explanations why we see what we see, and what is missing. Of course I do not believe that NO plane crashed into the towers ..

Statement from Jowenko, Jowenko Explosieve Demolitie BV, when they show him the video of collapsing building Nr. 3:
"Does the top go first ?"
"No, the bottom. It starts on the bottom. yeah. They simply blew up columns and the rest caved in.
- yes you see the bottom floors go first ... and the rest implodes.
That is controlled demolition .. absolutely. .. there were explosives at the crucial points ...
it's a hired job, done by a team of experts. Thermite is the word."
"This video was recorded at 9/11"
"That can't be."
"Seven hours after the WTC"
"Really ? ... Then they worked hard."

And another detail: Operation Northwoods
1952: Published under the "Freedom of information act": Plan to take a civilian aircraft, replace it with a drone, shoot it down, and
"... proposed launching a secret and bloody war of terrorism against their own country in order to trick the American public into supporting an ill-conceived war they intended to launch against Cuba."
(Original text and comments):
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/northwoods.html

Sounds familiar ? Operation Gladio ? State terrorism ?

This is only one argument in an endless chain of lies, cover ups and deception. Indeed this film (b.t.w. backed up by explosives specialists (this concrete powder everywhere) from Denmark at other places) makes the official statement look like the proverbial conspiracy theory.

I guess i have become a "truther" :doh:
You may now laugh at me - but watch the video if time permits.

Skybird

06-01-12, 06:30 AM

I don'T know whether these conspiration claims are right or wrong. I don't think they are, but I cannot rule out that they maybe hold some truth nevertheless.

But what I always have said is this: Bush was openly ridiculed by his own people, his respectability was at a complete low, already his inauguration started with a demonstration of how low respect for him was, hjust remember how his car helplessly waited for around a quarter of an hour in the rain when they realised the demonstrations ahead and did not know whether to proceed or not.

9/11 was the best thing that has happened to him in his whole presidency. It saved him and tremendously helped in reelection (which was, that is fair to say, at least in massive doubt), it minimised resistence to Wolfowitz 10+ years old plan to attack Iraq although the strike was prepared and launched from Saudi Arabians staged in Afghanistan, allowed long-wanted limitations of freedom and civil liberties, and enabled Bush to act strong on the only "quality" that he really had: to act pathetically, to make pathetic adresses, and by playing strong the pathos chord pull sympathy of the wide public back on his side.

9/11 was the best thing that could have happened to the Bush adminsitration at that time.

So yes, they would have had a motive, a terribly strong motive. Which is no evidence, to make that also clear, that they did it. They benefitted from the crime - only this is certain.

Tribesman

06-01-12, 10:55 AM

You may now laugh at me
Thank you
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Herr-Berbunch

06-01-12, 11:14 AM

Thank you
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

Like you needed telling. :o

August

06-01-12, 11:27 AM

That's funny because *I* heard that 9-11 was actually orchestrated by Germans in a bid to destabilize the US and prevent us from stopping the reemergence of the nazi regime.

It didn't work... :yep:

flatsixes

06-01-12, 11:32 AM

I lost some friends on that day. In those buildings.
Please stop with this crap.
Thanks.

Catfish

06-01-12, 12:19 PM

I take it you did not see the vid then, the beginning deals just with those who died and suffered. Which makes the whole thing even more atrocious.
Close your eyes, nothing to see here.

mookiemookie

06-01-12, 01:09 PM

Catfish

06-01-12, 01:17 PM

What would you say about Operation Northwoods then, or all those interventions done in middle and south America - i think some people want to be blind on one eye.

You may be right though, i just think it pays out to think about who has the most advantages of situations and events.

Stealhead

06-01-12, 02:02 PM

So you believe a documentary by people that call themselves "truthers".I question any person that runs around trying to tell you something having to use the word truth in their name to me that screams liar.Then the person mentions a factual idea North woods that was never carried out and he puts that in there to fit his story even though that plan called for the drone to be shot down over Cuba more or less an entirely different plan.And lastly why spend billions on a "fake" 9/11 attack when you could have drummed up suppoort for a war much more easily and cheaply via other means.Just lie and say that a US Air Force,Navy or Marine aircrew got shot down over one of the then still enforced no-fly zones and that the Iraqis killed them bam war declared easy sleazy.Why get into one war to falsely get into another?That is stupid as hell when you can easily just find a false reason or provoke your way into the war that you want and not spend billions of dollars.Iraq was the war that was wanted and they got it after 9/11 and the openness towards conflict that the War on Terror allowed.

Anyone that trusts their government without question is asking for trouble but so is anyone who believes the many conspiracy theories that are out there.I find the Global Hawk idea to be utterly ridiculous.As with other "truther" "docs" this guy is just filling in any holes with what he wants to find when he can not prove a thing he spouts.The mystery people in the line that is what is done by the military at any crash it is the exact same thing as a FOD(foreign object detection ) walk you look for small bits of trash after a crash or other accident the same thing only you are also looking for any human remains as well that is what they are doing anyone that served in an aviation branch of the military would recognize that I guess Mr. Truther he does nt ask that and get the answer because it is not mysterious then.I find the Global Hawk idea to be utterly ridiculous. Just look at any "truther" video "kin"(what suggestions show up) "The True Facts About FEMA Camps" ,goody gumdrops! and "Pole Shift May Be Imminent".

Halgarre

06-01-12, 02:32 PM

kraznyi_oktjabr

06-01-12, 03:24 PM

I keep an open mind when I read and watch this stuff. Three things that does have me scratching my head.

One, The hole in the Pentagon, look at the Trade center hole, see where the wings cut into the building? where is the wing cuts in the Pentagon? :hmmm:If I remember correctly Pentagon is built of steel reinforced concrete maybe it was strong enough to take the hit from the wings but not fuselage? I haven't seen pic of the damage in looong time so can't this is guessing.

Second, How did he fly into the Pentagon without shearing his wings off and crashing long before he hit the building? why isn't there a trail of broken street lights and signs? If he was only flying inches above the ground, why isn't there a trail of blown cars and destroyed windows in the parking lot?:hmmm:I would assume that he flew high above street level while approaching target and then made steep dive to target. Could he have torn wings out of place just before impact due excessive loads? :hmmm:

Third, Flight 93. There is too many questions about that. I won't even touch it.Don't know what you mean...

I think of 9/11 as our generations JFK/Grassy Knoll.I agree. :yep:

Takeda Shingen

06-01-12, 03:30 PM

The claims of the 9/11 truthers have been debunked over and over, years ago. There's nothing new in this video.

My pet theory on it is this: 9/11 truthers are scared and frightened people. It's a scary thought that 3000 people, just minding their own business, can be killed in an instant by some crazed extremists who hijacked a plane. And they're not wrong - it is a scary thought. But rather than face the truth that the world is a scary place, full of bad things that happen irrationally and seemingly at random - they believe there has to be more at work. This has to be a conspiracy - things have to be under control, there has to be a rhyme and reason to it. They think that the government or the Israelis or whoever plotted and planned this whole thing. Yes, it's for an evil purpose, but things were under control. But unfortunately, the truth is that not everything makes sense. Bad things happen to good people for no other reason than pure random acts of malice and lunacy.

My personal view is that these so-called truthers are objects of pity. They are so shallow and sad in their real life affairs that they cannot possibly fathom that the affairs of 9-11 were as mundane as Islamic terrorism. No, it must be a conspiracy; a twisted morass of machinations designed to intrigue. To them, no event is ever 'big' enough. It must always go deeper in an effort to afford them action in their sad little lives. The truth is out there.

mapuc

06-01-12, 04:13 PM

I presume that most of you have heard of Hans Christian Andersen and his story "Emperors new clothes"

The US government have told us that this "emperor" have new clothes on him. The problem is that most of us do not dare to speak otherwise, we are afraid of being mocked or laughed at.

Markus

flatsixes

06-01-12, 04:46 PM

"Sometimes a pipe is just a pipe."
-S. Freud

Karle94

06-01-12, 05:39 PM

Also, the narrator got it all wrong. The RQ-4 Global Hawk is a UAV, not a drone. A drone is a very simple unmanned vehicle that can only do the simplest of manouvers. A UAV is either controlled from the ground or is completely self steered. A UAV is capable of doing anything that a plane can, and can in some cases do more since the only limitation on the plane is removed, the pilot.

I have to agree with you guys about these conspiracy theories. Ofcourse the government is hiding something, what government doesn`t? Why would the Bush administration kill 3000 civilans just to boost the ratings? That`s insanity.

One plane can easily slip through when the plane is no longer transmitting any information from the transponder. All it is, is a small blip among hundreds, if not thousands of blips. Even if they had intercepted them, they would`t shoot them down. Oh, and jet fuel can get hot enough to melt metal. Even if it can`t, how come planes are always completely destroyed when they burn long enough?

August

06-01-12, 06:57 PM

Sailor Steve

06-01-12, 07:05 PM

Ducimus

06-01-12, 07:11 PM

It must be true. I saw it on the internet. :shifty:

Karle94

06-01-12, 07:36 PM

And they never quite explain how people planted tons of explosives on every floor of these buildings without anyone noticing. Yes, they have tried, and no, their "explanations" don't cover the time and work involved.

He said it in the video. It takes at least two week to just plan it. And from two weeks to two months to execute. A lot of work over a large time span to go unnoticed. Too long.

Stealhead

06-01-12, 08:29 PM

Still the Twin Towers where occupied 24/7 so people would have noticed the all the noise made when they place explosives for a demo.Anyone that believes that part of the theory just is not using common sense to think that not one person would say why are these guys drilling holes :hmmm:.

I think also it would take much more than just two weeks two months sounds more believable and that would be at a demo job where they worked all day and where not trying hide anything.

How is a demo job done?
http://science.howstuffworks.com/engineering/structural/building-implosion1.htm

Notice what the supports look like? they removed all of the concrete around them to make them even weaker that would make a ton of noise and nobody in two buildings that where occupied 24/7 noticed all that noise?Right.................:06:

Sailor Steve

06-01-12, 10:18 PM

He said it in the video. It takes at least two week to just plan it. And from two weeks to two months to execute. A lot of work over a large time span to go unnoticed. Too long.
As I said, they never explain how no one noticed all that going on.

[edit] Ah, Stealhead beat me to it. :sunny:

Hawk66

06-02-12, 01:11 AM

For me it is really amazing with what conspiracy nonsense people on the net fill their spare time...9/11 is just one example; the other is the moon landing.

Their are a lot of well-researched books and papers available, which explain the root cause of this tragedy, mainly the ineffective cooperation between the government agencies.

Tribesman

06-02-12, 02:55 AM

Like you needed telling. :o
I was being generous and only laughing at the sillyness of the "truther" theories.
If I was being less generous I would go to the source for some nice comments by the author of that video he linked to like....

The sheeple cannot cope with the truth about 9/11, but most people who can face reality are now learning that Israel - along with Jews around the world - are responsible for the 9/11 attack and numerous other horrible crimes, and that the Jews are using the "Wolf in Sheep's Clothing" trick to manipulate and deceive us. As a result, this minority of higher-quality people are moving to such issues as:

....and say .....Catfish you really are something special to be linking to idiots like that and asking to be taken seriously, you would be lucky if people only laughed at that bigoted rubbish you are pushing

Egan

06-02-12, 04:56 AM

Ah yes, the Jews. Always the Jews, isn't it? Considering how few of them there are, they must all be very busy, what with all the world domination and international finance and media and stuff. Personally, I think it's nice to see some motivated self starters making something of themselves.

I'm with Tribesman on this. I have become increasingly impressed with the way so many conspiracy theories these days eventually boil down to 'Teh Jews Did it." So much of the troofer movement just seems to be good old anti-semitism in a modern guise. Unfortunately, it's beginning to feel like I can say that about a number of things these days.

JU_88

06-02-12, 05:41 AM

The fatal flaw of all 9-11 conspiracies is that they fail to account for the massive coverups necessary to pull them off. We're talking about a conspiracy involving thousands upon thousands of people. We can't keep an illicit oval office BJ a secret but we can successfully pull off the biggest criminal conspiracy in human history? Not likely.

Agree with that, Governments are notoriosly bad a keeping secrets, and if 9/11 were a conspiricy, it would have involved an awful lot of people, thats said what so called 'whistle blowers' that have surfaced have either been ignored or ridiculed at nuts.

The claims of the 9/11 truthers have been debunked over and over, years ago.

The problem being, that the debunking is supported by the same type of speculation and straw man arguments that support the very conspiricy theories they intend to debunk. There is no conclusive or solid evidence to support either.
The fact that the full ins and outs of what happened on 9/11 is not supported by by any real substance or scientific fact is why the whole thing is left wind open to speculation, that is the bottom line.
People are left to 'choose' what to believe.

I guess my real question is why was the official investigation so poor? ground zero was crime scene and it was destroyed before any proper investigation or forensics could be carried out, that is what troubles me the most.

The other problem is this attitude that any one who questions 9/11 automatically deserves to be laughed at, insulted or ridiculled, some times the response is 'HOW DARE YOU'. that kind of attitude is dangerous, history has proven that the majority who hold poplular opinion can indeed be easily misled.
Also, questioning 9/11 is no more disrepectful to the the victims, than questioning the sinking of the titantic is disrespctful to the victims of that, people should really stop playing that song.

On the flip side, some 9/11 truthers do set themselves up for this kind of response but posting some ridiculous videos on youtube, with claims of orbs or holograms and god knows what else. ususually showing freeze framed zoomed in footage of the same grainy videos we have all seen a thousand times - while claiming is proof of <insert conspricy>
Some are way too obsessive, constantly looking for things which arent there....now that is rather sad and desperate.

So yeah Im still on the fence for this one.

Catfish

06-02-12, 06:58 AM

Where did some of you get the "jewish conspiracy" from ?

On the fence, right - i don' really believe either side.

I did not say i believe it "just so", without lots of doubt left - there are.
But most of you evade the questions and facts posted in the vid. It is of no importance for me whether it was a UAV or a missile, as long it obviously cannot have been a jet airplane. From parts found to such jet parts missing, to the plane then having made a 270 degrees manoeuver to hit that reinforced and empty part of the pentagon.
Or the WTC's concrete being pulverized below the actual impact, as the explosives specialists from all over the world explain (also not all in this vid). From the explosions happening far below the impact, the outblowing concrete cannot have been pulverized by a fire - and this happens before the top crumbles.
B.t.w there has been an assassination try before that, where explosives were hidden in the WTC some time before 9/11. There are also videos of tons of material being brought into the building, if not in this video.

Let's end it here, i am not convinced - by either side.

Tribesman

06-02-12, 07:31 AM

Where did some of you get the "jewish conspiracy" from ?

From the person who made the video you linked to on the "truther" website he is promoting in his video.
Its very easy, you can either look at his name or you can look at the web address, both are in the opening titles of that stupid crap you posted and asked people to look at.
I am terribly sorry, I didn't realise that when you were asking people to look you didn't want them to look or that you hadn't looked yourself.

Am I feeling free to laugh again?

Platapus

06-02-12, 10:15 AM

For me it is really amazing with what conspiracy nonsense people on the net fill their spare time...9/11 is just one example; the other is the moon landing.

Well 911 is real, but the moon landing was clearly faked

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mouUUWpEec0

Sheeesh, This is easy to settle. Why don't we just ask one of the crew members of this "so called moon landing"?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUI36tPKDg4

Uh on second thought, let's not ask him. :D

gimpy117

06-02-12, 10:44 AM

August

06-02-12, 11:48 AM

I think you hit the nail just about on the head. 911 wasn't an inside job, but it was an opportunity for the bush administration (one that had obviously just botched the whole role of national security and allowed it to happen) to cash in on the tragic deaths of Americans on that day. They used it as a PR fiesta. The wold was sympathetic to our plight, american people were united...and what did they do? Get us into 2 pointless wars for no really good reason.

Yep, they pretty much cashed in and tried to ride that gravy train to 2008. and they really almost did

You Democrats just won't accept responsibility for anything you did now will you? :dead:

Why don;t you man up a little?

Bush was in office for nine months before 9-11 that's hardly time to get settled in, especially after 8 years of Democratic foreign policy mismanagement. The intelligence and political failures that led to 9-11 and the two subsequent happened long before he ever took office.

kraznyi_oktjabr

06-02-12, 12:00 PM

You Democrats just won't accept responsibility for anything you did now will you? :dead:

Why don;t you man up a little?

Bush was in office for nine months before 9-11 that's hardly time to get settled in, especially after 8 years of Democratic foreign policy mismanagement. The intelligence and political failures that led to 9-11 and the two subsequent happened long before he ever took office.Could you elaborate to foreigner what you mean with those "intelligence and political failures"?

Tribesman

06-02-12, 12:17 PM

Could you elaborate to foreigner what you mean with those "intelligence and political failures"?
He means the decision to invade Iraq was down to the democrats and their made up intelligence which they sent Powell to the UN with, and then it was the democrats who went ahead with their pushing on plan after the UN said "meh" and the french said "thats made up bollox not intelligence".
Get with the program kraznji and man up, the 2 wars after 9/11 are down to the democrats especially the one that had absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely connected to 9/11

Sailor Steve

06-02-12, 01:26 PM

No, he doesn't mean that at all. The Clinton administration had Osama at one point but let him get away.

Takeda Shingen

06-02-12, 01:42 PM

No, he doesn't mean that at all. The Clinton administration had Osama at one point but let him get away.

There were Republicans on those committees as well. Team R likes to forget that. Team D likes to point the whole mess at Bush 43. This is the problem with modern politics. 9/11 represented a failure of the entire system. Every foreign policy entity. Every intelligence service. Every aspect of American leadership. For the past 30 years they have failed the people.

JU_88

06-02-12, 01:59 PM

He means the decision to invade Iraq was down to the democrats and their made up intelligence which they sent Powell to the UN with, and then it was the democrats who went ahead with their pushing on plan after the UN said "meh" and the french said "thats made up bollox not intelligence".
Get with the program kraznji and man up, the 2 wars after 9/11 are down to the democrats especially the one that had absolutely nothing to do with anything remotely connected to 9/11

Ahem, yet they still happened under Bushes watch and it was the bush adminstration who pushed for them, not that it matters :yawn: - since the Dems would have done no different anyway, When it comes to the big issues like foreign policy, monetry policy, national security etc the Dems and Reps hardly differ at all.
I cant believe people still buy into these petty partisan theatrics.

Look at the 2012 election its Goldman sachs vs Goldman sachs, oh sorry I mean Romney vs Obama. kindly explain to me what is the difference? as best i can tell they agree on just about everything.
Both candiates are hollow men, serial flip-floppers who seemly dont have any conviction or a solid opinion on anything, Obama will likley win - his only real advantage being that his flip-flop track record isnt quite as long as Romney's.
America is on a fixed course and has been for well over a decade, Weather its Reps or Dems at the helm is just apples and oranges. Two wings of the same bird.

Platapus

06-02-12, 02:22 PM

There were Republicans on those committees as well. Team R likes to forget that. Team D likes to point the whole mess at Bush 43. This is the problem with modern politics. 9/11 represented a failure of the entire system. Every foreign policy entity. Every intelligence service. Every aspect of American leadership. For the past 30 years they have failed the people.

but but but I have to be able to blame the opposing political party don't I?

How can my side be better than your side if you insist that it was everyone's mistake????

Someone has to be the point of blame and it better be on the other political party's side. Get it?

What kind of an American are you anyway?????

It is ALWAYS "their" fault. :D

Sailor Steve

06-02-12, 02:24 PM

There were Republicans on those committees as well. Team R likes to forget that.
Of course there were. I was just clarifying August's statement. Everybody likes to point the finger anywhere but at themselves.

JU_88

06-02-12, 02:30 PM

Tribesman

06-02-12, 02:31 PM

No, he doesn't mean that at all. The Clinton administration had Osama at one point but let him get away.

No, the two subsequent actions are the attempt to do Afghanistan on the cheap and the entirely unrelated waste of time in Iraq.
One can be linked as it involved trying to get to Bin Laden, but since he includes both he cannot have meant that.

August

06-02-12, 02:43 PM

Could you elaborate to foreigner what you mean with those "intelligence and political failures"?

There are many, they are bipartisan and they go back to the 1970's. To blame either side is hypocrisy.

Safe-Keeper

06-02-12, 05:50 PM

This has all the makings of a typical CT-er post:

Closed mind: predetermined conviction that his claim is "the truth".
Poisoning the well by painting anyone who challenge his view as "blind" or "narrow-minded". See above.
The "I was a sceptic at first, too" gimmick.
The red herring tactic: pulling in various unrelated topics as if they somehow constitute evidence of the CT claim.
"Argument by YouTube" in place of actual discussion.
Cherry-picking: taking quotes that seem to support the CT out of context; cherry-picking expert statements.

9/11 was the best thing that has happened to [Bush] in his whole presidency.Firstly, one could argue that dumping such a huge crisis in the lap of an incompetent leader isn't a good thing for him. If I was in charge of something right now and felt I wasn't doing a good job, an emergency would be the last thing I wanted.

Sure, someone benefited. Someone always does, whenever something bad happens. The anti-nuclear lobby has benefitted tremendously after the tsunami hit Japan and caused one of the Fukushima reactors to melt down. But do you see anyone claiming that Greenpeace was behind the tsunami:yawn:?

As you said yourself, it's not evidence. In fact, it's completely irrelevant.

I lost some friends on that day. In those buildings.
Please stop with this crap.
Thanks.We did. All of the CT-er claims were shot down almost as soon as they were thrown out. Rational answers to every single CT-er argument are a google search away to be scrutinized by those with a true open mind. The movement has nothing new to contribute. The crap has stopped, which in a way is a detriment to the 9/11 "truth" movement. Had they had anything new to contribute in place of the same old jargon and misconceptions and lies, they'd actually serve a function.

Instead we get endless reruns, which is worse by far.

I keep an open mind when I read and watch this stuff. Three things that does have me scratching my head.You then proceed to ask questions that have been answered over a decade ago. So much for your "open mind".

I think of 9/11 as our generations JFK/Grassy Knoll.I'm glad, despite your ignorance, that you're able to see this. Good on you:up:.

Catfish

06-06-12, 02:23 PM

Dowly

06-06-12, 02:31 PM

I'll just leave this here:
http://www.youtube.com/user/RKOwens4/videos

06-06-12, 02:50 PM

This is the initial post that made me search for evidence of either kind - in german :
http://www.heise.de/tp/artikel/35/35438/1.html

They call it "debunking of the debunking" - there is so much desinformation by now.

Read this again from end to the beginning...skip the bull part about RC planes and it will all make sense.

mapuc

06-06-12, 02:52 PM

"debunking of the debunking"

There is so much desinformation by now ..

Indeed it is.

And it's up to one persons to believe what they want to believe.

Me, my self have chosen to believe the official statement, thou I have difficulty to get a straight and clear answer why these 3 building had a free fall(like a demolition team had made it)

There have been made test(They had buld a three storage replica of one the twin towers), in Denmark and Sweden and they could NOT get the same result. YES they even used jetfuel. and they even let it burn for two days(Denmark)

But as stated before. If this was an inside operation, then how could they keep it a secret? It must have been hundred of people involved and when should they have got the time to install all these explosive
(Some days before the two towers was closed due to something, can't remember)

But I wait for an answer on how it could be possible to get THREE buildings to collapse as it had been done by some demolitions expert.

There's one possiblity and that is, that those building was build in a very poor standard(money under the table, to get some authorization or something in that way)

Markus

Catfish

06-06-12, 03:01 PM

Hello MH,

Read this again from end to the beginning...skip the bull part about RC planes and it will all make sense.

I guess it is more about cancelation of certain defence funding, and governmental/military shortfalls of internal security - which is why there is no further official examination, and publishing.

Greetings,
Catfish

Tribesman

06-06-12, 03:22 PM

The truthhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGeU_KDU_J4&feature=related

Dowly

06-06-12, 03:25 PM

The truthhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGeU_KDU_J4&feature=related

Well obviously! D'uh! :88)

Tribesman

06-06-12, 03:30 PM

Well obviously! D'uh! :88)
You should see his stuff on the lizard men, its fascinating, the troof is out there.

Dowly

06-06-12, 03:31 PM

You should see his stuff on the lizard men, its fascinating, the troof is out there.

No thanks! I got enough of that watching Gorilla199's videos. :haha:

JU_88

06-06-12, 04:30 PM

mapuc

06-06-12, 05:11 PM

Oh You should see the hostility you get when you openly question a a conspiricy theory in the face of its followers, even in a non-offensive manner - "Go back to sleep and carry on drinking flouride you brain washed sheep" (as one said to me to me once. :O:)
This is brought to you by the same people who preach "Question everything" except for the Alex Jones channel,
hypocracsy at its finest.

I do like question to things when I feel that I cannot rationally digest what is presented at face value, but in doing so I tend to get branded as a 'foil hat' and a 'sheep', depending on who or what im questioning, 9/11 is a perfect example :haha:

That made me remember a feature on the danish News-program (TV-Avisen) some years after the 9/11. I remember that this person, who was some kind of expert on construction engineering if there weren't some of his kind in the USA that had raised questions about the official NIST-report

This is what he said and what I can remember:

Not officially, if they do, they can start to find them self a new job.

That and many other thing like some peoples response in this forum have made me convinced that his looks more and more like the story of The Emperors new cloethes

Markus

Tribesman

06-06-12, 05:57 PM

Not officially, if they do, they can start to find them self a new job.

Probably because they would have just demonstrated that they are rubbish at the job.
Would this "expert" be anything like the person doing a three story replica of one of a pair of 110 story buildingsto measure results?:doh:

mapuc

06-06-12, 06:07 PM

Probably because they would have just demonstrated that they are rubbish at the job.
Would this "expert" be anything like the person doing a three story replica of one of a pair of 110 story buildingsto measure results?:doh:

No, not if I do remember it correct.

It's not just in Sweden and Denmark they have made this test, but in several other countries they have made test and even they can't get the same result as the original collapse.

And that makes me wonder.

Markus

August

06-06-12, 06:08 PM

No, not if I do remember it correct.

It's not just in Sweden and Denmark they have made this test, but in several other countries they have made test and even they can't get the same result as the original collapse.

And that makes me wonder.

Markus

None of them used a 110 story building in their model did they?

mapuc

06-06-12, 06:16 PM

None of them used a 110 story building in their model did they?

I'm not an expert on constructions and metall, a.s.o but the result of an collapse should be the same if some made a 2-3-4 storage high replica of these two twin towers.

I could offcourse search the internet to find some expert that makes my statement correct, but i wan't

I have chosen to believe the official NIST-report, even thou I have these qeostion about the free fall of those three buildings.

Markus

JU_88

06-06-12, 06:28 PM

Probably because they would have just demonstrated that they are rubbish at the job.
Would this "expert" be anything like the person doing a three story replica of one of a pair of 110 story buildingsto measure results?:doh:

ha yes, the Central core was comprised of 47 steel columns, but for the sake of this simulation I have used 4 made of whipped cream and cake.

Maybe they could have figured it out if they actually bothered to examine the WTC steel instead of selling it off to china with out any forensics, Depending on what you believe, they either made a blunder in the midst of chaos or they had traces of thermite to hide.
The only real truth is that the truth has been recycled into slinky springs and affordable cuttlery. :down:

Tribesman

06-07-12, 01:47 AM

I'm not an expert on constructions and metall, a.s.o but the result of an collapse should be the same if some made a 2-3-4 storage high replica of these two twin towers.

Think about that again then try and answer Augusts question and see the relevance.

I could offcourse search the internet to find some expert that makes my statement correct, but i wan't

They wouldn't be making your statement correct, it would be just another person making the same very basic error.

Catfish

06-07-12, 03:06 AM

In that case it is indeed details, that matter.
Just do pick up a material book, will you ?

I have a bit of experience myself from my service days, would someone with more experience then please tell me how ignited jet fuel can burn heavy-duty steel girders ?
The jet fuel did not burn for hours but blew up in minutes, maybe leaving small quantities behind, but mind you, even then it is impossible to melt such steel.

From another report:
" [...] .. Jet A is the same hydrocarbon burned in conventional steel wall heaters. In an open-air office fire (called a "dirty burn") kerosene or any hydrocarbon will burn at around 500-700F (260C to 371C).
The FEMA report on 9/11 said that the jet fuel burned off after a few minutes and the fires from the office furniture and carpets were about 560F (293C) The special structural steel of the WTC has over 98% of its strength at those temperatures, and the WTC was built to hold 5 times its load. [...]

Standard A Jet fuel, like it is used in the US, burns at less than 380 degrees Celsius in open air conditions, and a higher temperature is only achieved in ideal conditions.

" [...] In a "controlled burn" (where oxygen and fuel are regulated in an optimal mix), jet fuel will reach a maximum temperature of 1800F(982C), which is still not anywhere near the temperature required to weaken the steel girders of a building to the point that the entire building plummeted to the ground. Yet molten steel was reported below the towers, suggesting that a very powerful "fuel" was used, set to burn or explode BELOW the building, not at its top. Thermite, an HTA (high-temperature accelerant) typically used in military operations, would have been able to liquefy the steel. Thermite can reach a temperature of 4500F (2482C) in 2 seconds, and steel begins to melt at 2750F (1510C) [...]"

The smoke you see is a sign of oxygen deprivation = even lower temperatures.
An open air burn with that smoke would not have caused enough deformation to result in a collapse, even if it had burned for hours - which it had not. Remember the building collapsed at free fall speed and vertically, without leaning to one side - no way !

The architects of the towers said such a collapse would be impossible - ok, this is like you ask a nuclear operating company to publish their security check and believe it -
But all engineers said the steel used in the towers was tested at 2000 degrees Celsius, while retaining its specification and inner microstructure (steel is a chrystalline structure as i well know).

What is also often overseen is, that those steel girders were buried inside concrete, and reinforced concrete, at that.

I do not doubt that the planes hit the building, but the buildings should have sustained that damage.

Catfish

06-07-12, 04:46 AM

"We no longer have the original tapes of our 9/11 coverage (for reasons of cock-up, not conspiracy)."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2007/02/part_of_the_conspiracy.html

And, on the other hand:
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/jom/0112/eagar/eagar-0112.html

Building 7:
http://www.debunking911.com/pull.htm

Maybe people are so heated up because all those other informations had been lies (Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Powell, and their WMDs in Iraq), so they thought this also was -
Hmm, seems i can make up my mind now.

06-07-12, 05:09 AM

Maybe they could have figured it out if they actually bothered to examine the WTC steel instead of selling it off to china with out any forensics, Depending on what you believe, they either made a blunder in the midst of chaos or they had traces of thermite to hide.
The only real truth is that the truth has been recycled into slinky springs and affordable cuttlery. :down:

Maybe they did not examine everything because it was obvious to everyone what happened there.
Now....imagine them looking for evidence of demolition just in case... so that the truthers in the future had no reason to ask questions about why they did not look for the evidence....of demolition...then again they probably had known something but hid it from the public otherwise why they would look for anything like that unless it was suspected.

Just apply opposite action/reaction logic to any tragedy...in particular with some screw ups involved or lack of foresight(or paranoia) and here we have conspiracy.

Why the building collapsed?
Some steel beams had been destroyed others damaged while the others damaged and heated to high temperatures which made them weaker.
There had been still lots of floors above to support.
It was a big passenger plane went through the middle of WTC :damn:

............

.............

August

06-07-12, 07:29 AM

I'm not an expert on constructions and metall, a.s.o but the result of an collapse should be the same if some made a 2-3-4 storage high replica of these two twin towers.

I could offcourse search the internet to find some expert that makes my statement correct, but i wan't

I have chosen to believe the official NIST-report, even thou I have these qeostion about the free fall of those three buildings.

Markus

Well I know that some things don't scale down evenly. Weight and inertia for example. It's very difficult to make something that weighs an ounce act like something that weighs many tons, especially once you put it in motion. I would look at any attempt to recreate the destruction of the WTC using scaled models with a very critical eye.

JU_88

06-07-12, 08:38 AM

Maybe they did not examine everything because it was obvious to everyone what happened there.
Now....imagine them looking for evidence of demolition just in case... so that the truthers in the future had no reason to ask questions about why they did not look for the evidence....of demolition...then again they probably had known something but hid it from the public otherwise why they would look for anything like that unless it was suspected.

Just apply opposite action/reaction logic to any tragedy...in particular with some screw ups involved or lack of foresight(or paranoia) and here we have conspiracy.

Why the building collapsed?
Some steel beams had been destroyed others damaged while the others damaged and heated to high temperatures which made them weaker.

And how do you know this? because some 'experts' made an educated guess perhaps? why should anyone believe them over the
'experts' that say that it cannot be? (or vice versa?)

It may well be the plausible theory, but it's still just a theory - In terms of the impact damage, all anyone can really establish from the video footage is the exact number of perimeter columns that were completely knocked out..... but thats about it.

Forget about conspiricy claims of 'explosives' because they are totally irrelivent.

The REAL question is this:
Since when are we in the business of accepting 'theories' to provide us with a conclusion on any major man-made disaster such as 9/11?

For example; tell me -how many aviation disasters have there been, where witnesses provided enough visual information so that FFA & NTSB decided, "ah that will do, lets not bother with examining the wreckage this time, its probably just what it looks like, Case closed fellas"
The answer is 'N-E-V-E-R', because it is their duty
to the victims families, to airline passengers wordwide And to the airline & aviation industries - to fully estabish the precise cause. If that means going though every last piece of wreckage with a fine tooth comb (more than once if needed.) then so be it.
We have learned to expect nothing less.

Look at the Titanic also, Sure they knew that it sunk because 'it hit an iceberg' they knew that on the day it happened. And yet, once we got the technology we took the time, effort and money to examine the wreck in detail to deterime the exact point of failiure as poor quality rivet bolts.
But for 9/11, we just couldnt be bothered I suppose?

So going back the WTC Fire collapes.
1) what was the full extent of the impact damage to the central core columns - nobody really knows.
2) where were the exact points of structural failure, was is the columns, the trusses or what? nobody really knows.
3) How much of the steels integrity was lost, before it buckled?, nobody really knows.
4) Are other structures of similar design also at risk of catastrophic failure from fire? nobody really knows.

So I guess it doesnt really matter then, huh.

I no longer care for the arguments of the 'Truther' or the 'debunker', both are based on speculation, crude simulation, probability and even imagination :doh:. All of these things 'prove' stuff all.
I actually dont belive in a re-investiagtion into 9/11, because unlike the Titanic its too late. You cant investigate the 'cause of death' after the body has already been cremated.
But I do believe those who authorised the destruction of this crime scene should be put on trial.

August

06-07-12, 09:30 AM

So going back the WTC Fire collapes.
1) what was the full extent of the impact damage to the central core columns - nobody really knows.
2) where were the exact points of structural failure, was is the columns, the trusses or what? nobody really knows.
3) How much of the steels integrity was lost, before it buckled?, nobody really knows.
4) Are other structures of similar design also at risk of catastrophic failure from fire? nobody really knows.

Except that they do know:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Conspiracy theorists have long claimed that explosives downed World Trade Center 7, north of the Twin Towers. The long-awaited report from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) conclusively rebuts those claims. Fire alone brought down the building, the report concludes, pointing to thermal expansion of key structural members as the culprit. The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

JU_88

06-07-12, 09:46 AM

Except that they do know:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/engineering/architecture/4278874

Except they they dont.
Did they write that report based on analysing the debris? Nope - they conducted it by analysing 'Video footage'.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
last time I checked, that's exactly what the truthers do as well. :doh: That report is just more of the same old crap.

August

06-07-12, 09:52 AM

Except they they dont.
Did they write that report based on analysing the debris? Nope - they conducted it by analysing 'Video footage'.
http://www.nist.gov/public_affairs/factsheet/wtc_qa_082108.cfm
last time I checked, that's exactly what the truthers do as well. :doh: That report is just more of the same old crap.

Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive. The metal compounds also would have been present in the construction materials making up the WTC buildings, and sulfur is present in the gypsum wallboard used for interior partitions

Also they did analyze the debris:

Available measurements of SFRM thickness from inspections made during the SFRM application showed that the SFRM as applied was consistent with the required thickness and that the variability in the applied SFRM thickness was small. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Table 2-2)
Review of photographs of WTC 7 beams and columns taken during renovations showed that the SFRM appeared uniform, and there was no evidence of spalling or gaps. (NIST NCSTAR 1-9, Figures 2-27 to 2-29.)
Inspection of the building at 130 Liberty Street (formerly Bankers Trust or Deutsche Bank building) found no damage to the SFRM after impact by debris from the collapse of WTC 2, except in the immediate vicinity of the debris impact. (NIST NCSTAR1-9, Section 2.5.3)
An analysis of the SFRM thickness for trusses in the WTC towers showed that the average measured thickness exceeded the specified thickness and that use of the specified uniform thickness in the thermal analyses accounted for the effect of variability in the SFRM thickness. (NIST NCSTAR 1-6A, Chapter 5)
A thermal analysis of a steel plate (e.g., modeling a beam flange) with gaps in the SFRM showed that occasional gaps in the SFRM did not significantly alter the thermal response of the structural member. (NIST NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 2)

06-07-12, 10:19 AM

One small point....
It was NOT aviation disaster of unknown cause or suspected terrorist attack.

JU_88

06-07-12, 11:11 AM

Also they did analyze the debris:

"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive."

And Neither is that statement to be honest, anyway who said anything about thermite/themate?, not me! (other than 'lets forget about it')

Anyway.

Available measurements of SFRM thickness from inspections made during the SFRM application
Not an inspection of the Debris
Review of photographs of WTC 7 beams and columns taken during renovations
Not an inspection of the Debris
Inspection of the building at 130 Liberty Street
130 Liberty Street is not WTC building 7
An analysis of the SFRM thickness for trusses in the WTC towers showed
Again this in an 'analysis of messurements, Not an inspection of the Debris.
A thermal analysis of a steel plate (e.g., modeling a beam flange) with gaps in the SFRM showed that occasional gaps in the SFRM did not significantly alter the thermal response of the structural member. (NIST NCSTAR 1-6, Chapter 2)
Analysis of a model is not an inspection of the Debris.

This report is from 2008 and conducted years after the event. And it was conducted as result of complaints that the case of WTC7 was entirely missing from the orginal NIST report that proceeded it.
The Debris was long gone by then anyway, maybe there were a few 'samples' left -as there is for towers 1 and 2, but those were not collected as part of any kind of forensic investigation, it was just a small random selection kept for the sake of preservation.

August

06-07-12, 11:30 AM

"Analysis of the WTC steel for the elements in thermite/thermate would not necessarily have been conclusive."

And Neither is that statement to be honest, anyway who said anything about thermite/themate?, not me! (other than 'lets forget about it')

You said:

4) Are other structures of similar design also at risk of catastrophic failure from fire? nobody really knows.However:

The report also raises concerns that other large buildings might be more vulnerable to fire-induced structural failure than previously thought.

and

NIST is recommending that building standards and codes be strengthened beyond their current intent to achieve life safety to prevent structural collapse even during infrequent building fires like those in WTC 7 when sprinklers do not function, do not exist, or are overwhelmed by fire.

August

06-07-12, 11:35 AM

Also:

To meet these goals, NIST complemented its in-house expertise with an array of specialists in key technical areas. In all, over 200 staff contributed to the Investigation. NIST and its contractors compiled and reviewed tens of thousand of pages of documents; conducted interviews with over a thousand people who had been on the scene or who had been involved with the design, construction, and maintenance of the WTC; analyzed 236 pieces of steel that were obtained from the wreckage; performed laboratory tests, measured material properties, and performed computer simulations of the sequence of events that happened from the instant of aircraft impact to the initiation of collapse for each tower.

http://www.nist.gov/el/disasterstudies/wtc/wtc_about.cfm

Safe-Keeper

06-08-12, 06:05 PM

That made me remember a feature on the danish News-program (TV-Avisen) some years after the 9/11. I remember that this person, who was some kind of expert on construction engineering if there weren't some of his kind in the USA that had raised questions about the official NIST-report

This is what he said and what I can remember:

Not officially, if they do, they can start to find them self a new job.

That and many other thing like some peoples response in this forum have made me convinced that his looks more and more like the story of The Emperors new cloethes

MarkusMore quotes out of context.
I love it when the "your responses suggest a conspiracy" nonsense, though: if people don't seem to care, they're sheep and there's a CT. If they do care, it somehow proves there's still a CT. Somehow.

Really. CTers are a special breed. I honestly don't get them.

They call it "debunking of the debunking" - there is so much desinformation by now. More CT-er jargon. "Disinformation (noun)": any statement or fact that contradicts my preconceived conspiracy theory

Sailor Steve

06-08-12, 06:29 PM

For example; tell me -how many aviation disasters have there been, where witnesses provided enough visual information so that FFA & NTSB decided, "ah that will do, lets not bother with examining the wreckage this time, its probably just what it looks like, Case closed fellas"
The answer is 'N-E-V-E-R', because it is their duty
to the victims families, to airline passengers wordwide And to the airline & aviation industries - to fully estabish the precise cause. If that means going though every last piece of wreckage with a fine tooth comb (more than once if needed.) then so be it.
We have learned to expect nothing less.
No, the answer is 'N-E-V-E-R' (just a little melodramatic there) because the NTSB's job is to determine the exact cause of the crash. In this case the cause was obvious, and the film is there for all to see exactly why the planes crashed. There was no wreckage to examine because the aluminum planes plowed head-on into buildings made of steel, and were vaporized by the impact and subsequent fireballs. Any possible surviving wreckage fell hundreds of feet to the ground, pulverized inside thousands of tons of falling steel.

That is the reason there was no investigation into the crashes, because there was nothing left to investigate.

You really are reaching here, in an effort to prove that there has to have been a conspiracy. You've shown nothing so far, try as you might to convince everyone.

mapuc

06-08-12, 07:27 PM

No, the answer is 'N-E-V-E-R' (just a little melodramatic there) because the NTSB's job is to determine the exact cause of the crash. In this case the cause was obvious, and the film is there for all to see exactly why the planes crashed. There was no wreckage to examine because the aluminum planes plowed head-on into buildings made of steel, and were vaporized by the impact and subsequent fireballs. Any possible surviving wreckage fell hundreds of feet to the ground, pulverized inside thousands of tons of falling steel.

That is the reason there was no investigation into the crashes, because there was nothing left to investigate.

You really are reaching here, in an effort to prove that there has to have been a conspiracy. You've shown nothing so far, try as you might to convince everyone.

When I read your answer, I remember that I somewhere had read that NTSB was prevented to investigate. So I have been searshing the internet and found this

"in one of your articles, you have written that "the NTSB has confirmed that-apparently for the first time from its inception, in 1967, since when it has investigated more than 124,000 other aviation accidents-it took no part in investigating any of the air crashes which occurred on September 11, 2001." Do you mean that the National Transportation Safety Board refused to investigate the 9/11 air crashes? Was it ordered by a superior authority to do so? What does the fact that NTSB didn't investigate the 9/11 air crashes imply?

You have mentioned that FBI similarly refused to release any information about any debris recovered from the crash sites under the Freedom of Information Act. Do you want to imply that the U.S. administrative organizations such as FBI and NTSB have been complicit in the 9/11 attacks?
Anthony Lawson: That is correct. The NTSB did not take part in the painstaking procedure of examining what was left of the four aircraft to determine that they were indeed the same aircraft which were allegedly hijacked that morning. Two of the allegedly hijacked aircraft: American Airlines Flight 11 and United Airlines Flight 175 were claimed, by the Bush administration, to have been the planes which impacted the North Tower and South Tower, respectively, each flown by Arabs who, it later transpired, had never flown a wide-bodied commercial jet before. Aircraft debris, including parts of an undercarriage and fuselage of the North Tower plane were certainly photographed, and the still-smoking core of what must have been the right engine of the South Tower plane can be seen, in several videos, arcing its way down towards Murray and Church streets, were it was videoed and photographed. Later, an identifiable photograph of this same engine core was released, by a former FEMA official photographer, as it was about to be buried in a landfill on Staten Island. This was an important section of a murder weapon, as were the aircraft parts found in or near the North Tower; the debris from the alleged crash site of United Flight 93 and that of American Airlines 77 which allegedly crashed into the Pentagon.

As to the second part of the question, I very much doubt that the NTSB would have been in a position to refuse to investigate the crashes. I should say that were dissuaded from doing so. The FBI, backed up by the Justice Department has refused to release any details about the aircraft parts or the serial numbers of the Black Boxes that may or may not have been found at the crash sites, although the contents of one of them-the Cockpit Voice Recorder from alleged United 93-formed the basis of several documentaries and an Academy-Award-winning movie, yet the transcript of the recording did not carry the serial number of the device on which it was, allegedly, recorded. "
The whole story here:
http://www.rense.com/general93/anthn.htm

I can't say if it true or not, just that I have read it.

Markus

Sailor Steve

06-08-12, 08:26 PM

I'm surprised you would quote that article at all, given the beliefs of the interviewee.
AL: It is no secret that today's mainstream media and the major Hollywood production companies are owned or controlled by Jews, many of them Zionists, and that many if not most are almost certainly biased towards the well-being of the Jewish state of Israel.
I'm so glad you could find an unbiased, honest source.

mapuc

06-08-12, 08:31 PM

I'm surprised you would quote that article at all, given the beliefs of the interviewee.

I'm so glad you could find an unbiased, honest source.

I know, I could have search some more. I was in doubt if I should link to his story or not because of his view on the jews and the Holocast.

Markus

Sailor Steve

06-08-12, 09:38 PM

I know, I could have search some more. I was in doubt if I should link to his story or not because of his view on the jews and the Holocast.
I'm not really so concerned about his feelings in that area. Many people have believed that over the years, and while I don't buy into it at all it's perfectly alright for them to believe what they want to. It just indicates to me that he wants to believe certain things, so anything he says is going to be biased in ways that make him untrustworthy, to me anyway.

Tribesman

06-09-12, 02:26 AM

I'm surprised you would quote that article at all, given the beliefs of the interviewee.

I am surprised given that the very same thing was already done in the opening post of the topic. Then again given that the topic is a conspiracy theory I am not really surprised that it links to other conspiracy theories.

I was in doubt if I should link to his story or not because of his view on the jews and the Holocast.
I am glad you did, it isn't often you get a Holocaust denier put next to a KZ:rotfl2:

JU_88

06-09-12, 03:00 AM

No, the answer is 'N-E-V-E-R' (just a little melodramatic there) because the NTSB's job is to determine the exact cause of the crash. In this case the cause was obvious, and the film is there for all to see exactly why the planes crashed.

Well if you read carefully you would see that I was using the NTSB as an example. I was talking about the speculation over building collapes, rather than the plane crashes.
I appreciate that NTSBs job would have been near impossible in the case of the WTC crashes as the subsequent collapes reduced all (but the buildings stuctural steel) in to peices small enough to hold in the palm of your hand or smaller.

There was no wreckage to examine because the aluminum planes plowed head-on into buildings made of steel, and were vaporized by the impact and subsequent fireballs. Any possible surviving wreckage fell hundreds of feet to the ground, pulverized inside thousands of tons of falling steel.
That is the reason there was no investigation into the crashes, because there was nothing left to investigate.

Well, metal doesnt 'vapourise' but that doesnt really matter - in the case of WTC I was talking about the stuctural failure buildings, all the stuctural steal was still sitting there.

You really are reaching here, in an effort to prove that there has to have been a conspiracy.

Sorry? Where did i say 9/11 has to have be a conspiricy? Is there a rule some where that says we must conform to one of two sides in every argument?
There are conspiricy theories for everything, most of which are just misinterpretations by ecentric people. But for 9/11 there is a bit more than that, You also have fire fighters from the scene, Architects and even Pentagon officials disputing some aspect or another of official story, while thats is not proof or disproof of anything, it suggests (to me at least) that the offical conclusion might not exacly be as water tight as one would hope for something like 9/11.

You've shown nothing so far, try as you might to convince everyone.

I never really expected to convince anyone of anything, its quite hard to do when im not overly convinced of anything in particular myself ;)
I am saying what I think and why, but I am not insisting that you or anyone else must agree with it.
So that sounds rather more like you are trying to pin conspiricy bage to my shirt, possibly because you assume that if have doubts on the offical story -that conspiricy is only other conceivable place that I must be coming from. Wrong, If the question is 'what exactly happened on 9/11, then my answer is: 'I dont know and I wouldnt like to guess. Because If said I did know I might have to be jumping the gun.

Sailor Steve

06-09-12, 06:49 AM

Well if you read carefully you would see that I was using the NTSB as an example. I was talking about the speculation over building collapes, rather than the plane crashes.
I appreciate that NTSBs job would have been near impossible in the case of the WTC crashes as the subsequent collapes reduced all (but the buildings stuctural steel) in to peices small enough to hold in the palm of your hand or smaller.
Yet in that paragraph you talk extensively about the crashes, and not the building collapse. You say that the FAA and NSTB specifically (not as an example) have a duty to the families to find out the cause of the crashes, and you specifically mention "aviation disasters". Also, the National Transportation Safety Board has nothing to do with buildings, only with transportation safety.

Well, metal doesnt 'vapourise' but that doesnt really matter - in the case of WTC I was talking about the stuctural failure buildings, all the stuctural steal was still sitting there.
If it doesn't really matter, why mention it?

Sorry? Where did i say 9/11 has to have be a conspiricy? Is there a rule some where that says we must conform to one of two sides in every argument?
You seem to be very adamant about arguing for one side, despite your protests to the contrary. If all your doing is trying to keep both sides open, I apologize. It just doesn't look that way to me. I've been wrong before.

There are conspiricy theories for everything, most of which are just misinterpretations by ecentric people. But for 9/11 there is a bit more than that, You also have fire fighters from the scene, Architects and even Pentagon officials disputing some aspect or another of official story, while thats is not proof or disproof of anything, it suggests (to me at least) that the offical conclusion might not exacly be as water tight as one would hope for something like 9/11.
True, but again you seem to be arguing specifically for the "Truther" side, and I still have yet to see anything there other than speculation.

I never really expected to convince anyone of anything, its quite hard to do when im not overly convinced of anything in particular myself ;)
I am saying what I think and why, but I am not insisting that you or anyone else must agree with it.
So that sounds rather more like you are trying to pin conspiricy bage to my shirt, possibly because you assume that if have doubts on the offical story -that conspiricy is only other conceivable place that I must be coming from. Wrong, If the question is 'what exactly happened on 9/11, then my answer is: 'I dont know and I wouldnt like to guess. Because If said I did know I might have to be jumping the gun.
No, I and several others see it that way because you argue so vehemently for it. As I've pointed out to so many others, the old saying is true: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And you keep saying it in the strongest terms possible. To me it looks like the old saying "I'm not a racist, but..." In this case it looks like "I'm not a Truther, but..."

As I say, if I'm wrong I apologize, but that's how it looks from where I sit.

JU_88

06-09-12, 08:35 AM

Yet in that paragraph you talk extensively about the crashes, and not the building collapse. You say that the FAA and NSTB specifically (not as an example) have a duty to the families to find out the cause of the crashes, and you specifically mention "aviation disasters". Also, the National Transportation Safety Board has nothing to do with buildings, only with transportation safety.

Ok, well I can only insist that I know what I said and the context I intended by it, I thought I used 2 examples 1) Aviation distasters, 2) The Sinking of the Titanic. Now if I didnt make that clear enough - then I apologise.
You and I have come to blows over a 'context disagreement' once before as I recall, it got rather heated and nobody won. So I'd like to nip this in bud and agree to disagree if thats ok with you.

If it doesn't really matter, why mention it?.

Because you brought it up? Anyway, does 90% of anything that gets said on any internet forum really matter in the end?

You seem to be very adamant about arguing for one side, despite your protests to the contrary. If all your doing is trying to keep both sides open, I apologize. It just doesn't look that way to me. I've been wrong before.

True, but again you seem to be arguing specifically for the "Truther" side, and I still have yet to see anything there other than speculation.

No, I and several others see it that way because you argue so vehemently for it. As I've pointed out to so many others, the old saying is true: "It's not what you say, it's how you say it." And you keep saying it in the strongest terms possible. To me it looks like the old saying "I'm not a racist, but..." In this case it looks like "I'm not a Truther, but..."

As I say, if I'm wrong I apologize, but that's how it looks from where I sit.

All fair comments Steve and I can understand that's how it looks, but please keep in mind that I can only try to defend an opinion against those who rise to challenge it. Simply put, within this thread, I don't have a 9/11 Truther on my back personally challenging what I believe (or there lack of)
Although if I did, i might well have might work cut out by the likes of yourself and August, Aka -The majority of subsimmers tend to fully support the official version of 9/11 100%. Nothing wrong with that, but I dont quite share the same view, that is all.
For this reason also I did not publicly challenge the views of the OP, I knew he was toast from the moment I laid eyes on the topic title,
and I wasn't wrong. In hindsight i should have kept my own mouth shut.

P.S: For what its worth, on Youtube 'Truthers' have called me, a moron, a sheep, a coward and many things I cannot repeat here. It would seem that over there Im one of you, and over here Im one of them, So I'm quite used to getting beaten with sticks from all sides when it comes to 9/11.

"Its not what you say, its how you say it" yes, and also who you say it to.

Sailor Steve

06-09-12, 09:29 AM

Good and fair points. I will only add that on YouTube some people call others the most vile names, usually over nothing. We can't help being who we are, but I'm proud that on Subsim we can have these heated disagreements and still work them out; most of the time, anyway. :sunny:

JU_88

06-09-12, 09:36 AM

here are some of my anti-truther opinions on the collapes of Towers 1 and 2'.

1) The collapes of towers 1 & 2, indisputably started at the point of impact. Inward 'Bowing' or buckling is visible from certain camera angles prior to collapes.

2) The alledged 'bomb damage' to the lobby could well have been caused by the shocks of the impact as they travelled down the building and reached the ground floor, although you cant see it, the impacts caused the flexible buildings to lurch int he direction of the impact and then swing back in to place violently. hence broken glass on the perimeter and broken marble on the central core.

3) When Truthers talk aout collapes from fire, they rather do seem to 'forget' that nobody has fully been able to determine the extent of impact damage to central core columns. They also tend to foget that these building were 'light weight & flexible' compared to most steel skycrapers, there was no vertical floor support between the core and the perimeter.

4) Truthers claim "The towers collapased too rapidly and neatly in to their own foot print and concreate was pulverizes to dust".
My problem with this is that nobody has ever witnessed the destruction of building of that size and type before, so its impossible to say how it should or should not behave in a collapes. Im betting that if a slab on concrete was simply dropped to the ground from the same height as half the WTC, what do we suppose would happen to it?

5) why didnt the top section take the path of least resistance?
- what 'other' path was avliable? gravity makes things goes 'down' - not sideways.

As for the the OPs (Catfish's) video link, Is says little that hasnt already been said. If the offcial story covered all bases adaquetly, and didnt have oddities like the the Pentegon holding back CCTV footage of flight 77, or Bush and Cheney testifing behing closed doors etc, We would not have a truth movement, or at least a much smaller one :)
official reports from the likes of NIST certainly provides some answers that cannot really be disputed in a rational manner.

On the other hand, most of the Truth movment is only based on an alternative 'interpretation' of the events -and they would be wise to remember this when pushing their theories, when they stick to asking valid questions that is not a bad thing, that is what a free people are supposed to do, there is no harm in that.
But when they try to join the dots for themselves or pass off their beliefs as 'proof', they are going way off base.

mapuc

06-09-12, 01:18 PM

Just for your information

Whatever a plane crash in the wood, into the sea, on a cornfield, or downtown Los Angeles, it is NTSB obligation to investigate. It have nothing to do with if it's a single plane or a huge plane(e.g 747-400)

The next thing I wish to point to-is this- Was NTSB prevented to investigate these three crashes?? I can't find any verification on this issue. I have only read about it on different homepage and heard it on youtube.

Markus

mapuc

06-09-12, 01:28 PM

Here's an another video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EavsvUn7QT8

Did she work for CIA??

Is she telling the truth??

If she is telling the truth, then the government knew.

Until It is official, I see her as a good fairyteller

Markus

Sailor Steve

06-09-12, 02:20 PM

Whatever a plane crash in the wood, into the sea, on a cornfield, or downtown Los Angeles, it is NTSB obligation to investigate. It have nothing to do with if it's a single plane or a huge plane(e.g 747-400)
As I explained, their job is to investigate why the crash happened. We already know why the crash happened. Their job is not to investigate why the buildings fell down.

The next thing I wish to point to-is this- Was NTSB prevented to investigate these three crashes?? I can't find any verification on this issue. I have only read about it on different homepage and heard it on youtube.
They did investigate. The reports were held back for a long time, but are now public knowledge.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

mapuc

06-09-12, 03:55 PM

As I explained, their job is to investigate why the crash happened. We already know why the crash happened. Their job is not to investigate why the buildings fell down.

They did investigate. The reports were held back for a long time, but are now public knowledge.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB196/index.htm

Thank you very much.

Markus

Catfish

06-10-12, 04:57 AM

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Vermeule), titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote,

”The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government’s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.”

They go on to propose that,

”the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups”,
[19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#cite_note-conspiracy-19)] where they suggest, among other tactics,

”Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.”

Oh, hi guys ! :D

mapuc

06-10-12, 07:05 AM

Sunstein co-authored a 2008 paper with Adrian Vermeule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adrian_Vermeule), titled Conspiracy Theories, in which they wrote,

***8221;The existence of both domestic and foreign conspiracy theories, we suggest, is no trivial matter, posing real risks to the government***8217;s antiterrorism policies, whatever the latter may be.***8221;

They go on to propose that,

***8221;the best response consists in cognitive infiltration of extremist groups***8221;,
[19 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cass_Sunstein#cite_note-conspiracy-19)] where they suggest, among other tactics,

***8221;Government agents (and their allies) might enter chat rooms, online social networks, or even real-space groups and attempt to undermine percolating conspiracy theories by raising doubts about their factual premises, causal logic or implications for political action.***8221;

Oh, hi guys ! :D

The thought has crossed my mind. Ire there some members here that are doing just that?

I know that it is not sweet to think such a thing. But wherever I go in cyberspace and where there is a discussion about 9/11 those who believe in various conspiracy theories are being, completely belittled or mocked So when I read your answer it came to me that I had read something similar somewhere else. Personally I support the NIST report. However, I respect that others do not support this report and may have an alternative theory. These others do not have to be some some crazy people, it may be a construction engineer, with years of experience

Markus

Sailor Steve

06-10-12, 08:42 AM

The thought has crossed my mind. Ire there some members here that are doing just that?
Of course anything is possible. On the other hand most of the members here who even bother to enter these discussions have been around for a long time, and discuss many other things as well. Most of us are also not too subtle about our posting habits. You would think that a government agent would have better things to do. Also, given the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of chat rooms and web forums, who would be paying the agents required to cover all this territory? It's certainly possible that one dedicated agent would be able to deal with a dozen sites every day, but when would he have time for any other duties.

It's also possible that such accusations are just more paranoid delusions by people who want to believe that everything is a conspiracy by the government. The bottom line for me is that while many people have tried to compile evidence for the conspiracy theories, no one has yet come up with anything that can't be explained by more more conventional means. That, and the fact that after ten years not one of the thousands who would have to be involved has come forward and said "Yep. I planted the explosives and I can prove it."

JU_88

06-10-12, 10:17 AM

The thought has crossed my mind. Ire there some members here that are doing just that?

I know that it is not sweet to think such a thing. But wherever I go in cyberspace and where there is a discussion about 9/11 those who believe in various conspiracy theories are being, completely belittled or mocked So when I read your answer it came to me that I had read something similar somewhere else. Personally I support the NIST report. However, I respect that others do not support this report and may have an alternative theory. These others do not have to be some some crazy people, it may be a construction engineer, with years of experience

Markus

Sure it might happen, but I'd like to think Government agencies have better things to do :)
Seems more likley to me that author is driving a the concept of a conspiricy theory on people who are anti-conspiricy theory :doh:, some conspiricy theroists tend to over-estimate their importance, 'oh the establishment will want me dead' when the far more likey scenario is 'the establishment' doesnt care - or else they would already be dead. :haha:

My 2 cents?
Conspiricy Skeptics should be careful not to be naive enough to believe that people who lead civilised nations would NEVER deceive their own people or abuse their power to commit unspeakable acts to fulfill an agenda. History says that from time to time - they do.
The fact that most people are so quick and willing to reject these notions of conspiricy as 'wing nut paranoia', is somewhat dangerouse too, it would in fact work very well in favor of someone in power who really did want to carry out an act of mass deception.
If we refuse to entertain the possibility of conspiricy outright, then by default we are pretty much giving some one ample opportunity to actually pull one off.

Conspiricy belivers need to be careful they themselves dont fall into the trap of 'selective skeptisim' whereby anything in the mainstream media must be lies, and anything from some random guys, cousins, friends, brother - who worked for the CIA must be 100% credible.
The general ettiquette of the conspiricy theorist is supposed to be one of 'question everything' that is fine, in fact thats pretty healthy on some level.
But then that surely means you should question conspiricy therories as well as official scources, right?
If not, isnt that double standards?
Alot of these people do tend to get sucked into downward spiral of delusion and paranoia, until as they become a mirror image of the 'ignorant and brainwashed sheeple' that they despise so much. (the elitist types are the worst!)
They would also do well to remember that governments are notoriously bad at keeping secrets, governments are run by people, people talk ...and leave laptops on trains. :)

Penguin

06-10-12, 11:04 AM

I've read through most of the posts here, really don't know why I decided to throw in 2 cents myself, lol. :88)

It is never despictibale to ask for the truth. It is despicable to claim to know and tell the truth like some websites do.

To ask what your country can do against you is not a question that ever should be forbidden by any government or fellow countrymen- and women, and transvestites and who ever the **** feels belonging to a nation entity.
The truth's out there: There have always been shady operations by governments, often claimed to be for the people, for a "greater good", whatever this means. Despicable actions, murder, torture, atrocites, all this fun stuff has been used, often in the name of the truth, by people who claim to know the truth, true believers. People who claim to be moral superior, obligate to the truth and in possession of it.
That's a truth that's out there, delivered by voice and writings, captured by history. "Read my lips" or "I never inhaled" being just two minor examples.

With any source you read, there is always the question who quotes what, where can you find the original source, and cui bono?
That's the question the troopfer of truth do ask: Who gained something from 9/11? The big W? If 9/11 was an inside job, they did it pretty bad job, making him look pretty bad and confused. For propaganda reasons it would have been better to pait him as the glorious hero, waving Old Glory and deciding fast, rightful and conhesive.
Oh of course it's bigger than that: The people behind W? Whoever this. Big Money? The Economy took a hit after 9/11, going even more down as it went before, when the internet bubble burst.
But as everything is planned, it must be bigger: the people who control the world. In the more boring and conventional scenarios these are the jews, freemasons, or both, in the more exciting scenarios it are some freaky lizards from space or also not bad, as I shortly read: The Atlantans! :up:

As I wrote before, a critical look at a news source is always interesting. Often it shows the true intention. Let's check out some websites with the word 'truth' in it. Interesting: Not only 9/11 was fake: no: Perl Harbor was, The Fema builds KZs and we have airplanes flying around the globe, trying to eradicate most of humankind: the whole truth and nothing but the truth. You find the pre-packaded deal there: Everything you need to know, a whole ideology as the Germans say: ein geschlossenes Weltbild ***8211; a closed view of the world. And how convenient: advertisements to buy overpriced goods from the very same webpage. tin foil hats on sale for only $9.99, survival kits for $200, books and t-shirts to spread the message and let's not forget: buy some gold for twice the market price!

If you ask cui bono, you should also see that many people bono who preach all this century old bull. They profit from it: website visitors, book saless, troofer meetinx. Gain followers: profit and fame. Like every good cult preacher does: Gimme your cash: it's all for the truth, bet ole Bhagwan also told the truth to his followers who could see him rolling by in his Royce, one for any day of the year.

I think the cult comparision is right center: Us cult members we know, the other are infildels, sheeple. Too sheep to ask questions, obedient ants. Any attack on us is an attack by the evil forces that wants to shut the true belief down. Any opposition has to come from the evil forces that rule the world. The outer enemy tightens the bonds. If you focus on the outside enemy, the inner discrepancies are conveniently swept under the carpet. A good measure indeed not to focus that 2 troofers have 4 different theories - often in direct contradiction to each other.

The most nerving side of most cults is the missionary crap: winning new believers, hearts & minds, preaching. Same as any cult members, troofers have a nerving tendency to ignore any facts which are presented.

And like with any cult, getting out can be pretty hard: Who wants to reveal to himself to have wasted ennomous amounts of time reading through websites and books, watching grainy videos to find out in the end that it has been all bull. It takes a strong person to realize and accept such an inconvenient truth to oneself.

Personally I find the Southpark theory quite charming: The truther movement was invented by the government to make them look all knowing, powerfull and having everything under control. :know:
In a way the conspiracy guys are useful to the government. Better to have people wasting their time on fake conspiracies than to take a look at all the evident and proven lies which have been presented. Yeah, let them protest FEMA death camps while in the meantime civil liberties get cut and a war that started with a lie goes on.

Who gets taken more seriously:
Person 1:"You lied to us, proven in these statements, revealed by those documents"
Person 2:"Government is arsehole: you are trying to kill us by poison you spray from aeroplanes! I have read it in the web, ye know?"

There is one thing however which I am seriously jealous about: the ability to constantly repaint a picture of the world which fits to their beliefs. That's why discussion is soo tiring and in the end most a moot point.
Any fact brought in gets woven into the conspiracy.
"It was no plane that hit the Pentagon" - "There are pictures of wreck parts, showing clearly debris from an aeroplane" - "See how perfect they are; they even planted fake evidence" :dead:
Any revealed incompentency and failure is just proof about how perfect the conspiracy is.

Not too many troofers seem to shave themselves with Hanlon's Razor.

Tribesman

06-10-12, 11:31 AM

My 2 cents?

You are short changed. you miss a whole category.
Consider the people who ar openminded enough to understand that governments are made up by a bunch of sneaky lying scheming self serving bastards and have looked at the specific "conspiracy" then rejected it because it is clearly and undeniably absolute bollox.

mapuc

06-10-12, 12:29 PM

Of course anything is possible. On the other hand most of the members here who even bother to enter these discussions have been around for a long time, and discuss many other things as well. Most of us are also not too subtle about our posting habits. You would think that a government agent would have better things to do. Also, given the hundreds of thousands, or even millions of chat rooms and web forums, who would be paying the agents required to cover all this territory? It's certainly possible that one dedicated agent would be able to deal with a dozen sites every day, but when would he have time for any other duties.

It's also possible that such accusations are just more paranoid delusions by people who want to believe that everything is a conspiracy by the government. The bottom line for me is that while many people have tried to compile evidence for the conspiracy theories, no one has yet come up with anything that can't be explained by more more conventional means. That, and the fact that after ten years not one of the thousands who would have to be involved has come forward and said "Yep. I planted the explosives and I can prove it."

That's so true and I forgot to mention that in my statement.

However even if we do not support an another person's standpoint, It gives us not the right to mock these people

NO!! I do not support these conspiracy- Many of those are so ridiculous
Just because I fight for their rights to have their own standpoint, does not mean that I believe in these conspiracy

As stated before I'm not an expert on many of these things that have been discussed. F.eks Demolition, construction a.s.o
I do support a second investigation made by expert from other countries than USA.

Markus

Catfish

06-10-12, 01:14 PM

First, you are right:

I do not trust governments, and what is spread via the mass media - and this is quite obvious if you think of Cameron and Rupert Murdoch media alone - not that you hear such things about the US when it comes to CNN and Fox News (of course both are telling lies all the time, and they blatantly support republicans and big business - not common people with common sense).

Second, the claim that the theory that it was staged is absurd, and that there has been nothing gained by it:

Really ?

What about having a new enemy, after the soviet block broke away ?
So no budget cuts and and new funds for all those agencies.

What about a faked reason for wars against nations that never had to do with 9/11 ?
And "b.t.w." thus securing energy resources.

What about an accepted allowance to torture and kill people under the pretext (!) of terroristic threats, without any trial ?
And "B.T.W." being able to so keep Guantanamo, as a torture camp outside of the territory and jurisdiction of the US, without needing to close it down anymore "because of those terrorists".
Imprison people like this taxi driver who was arrested as a terrorist and is still in prison, despite the whole world knows that it is wrong. (Only one example of hundreds)

What about having a pretext to tighten the screws regarding freedom of speech and the NSA being able to read every f'n eMail WORLDWIDE ?

What about killing people worldwide with drones, in territory abroad outside the jursidiction of the US, with "collateral damage" no one dares to doubt "because of the terrorists".

What about an artificial climate of fear making people crazy und uncertain with the argument of a worldwide terroristic orgaization who could attack anywhere, anytime ?

What about now needing a bulwark against Islam, like against the USSR not so long agao ? Israel comes in handy, now lets support and arm them.

Not to forget, a real playground for weapons and a reason to increase the defense funds to never known heights, greatly pleasing the weapon industry, and lobbies.

And a nice argument to mock the 'traitors' who dare to question all those patriotic actions.

If it was not staged, it was surely used to full extent for all kinds of mass influencing and throwing lots of rights and democratic life overboard - among with common sense.
If he could, I am sure Wolfowitz would give the terrorists a gold medal.

Sailor Steve

06-10-12, 01:21 PM

If it was not staged, it was surely used to full extent for all kinds of mass influencing and throwing lots of rights and democratic life overboard - among with common sense.
That is a fair point. It is also not proof, or even remote evidence, that anything was staged.

JU_88

06-10-12, 01:54 PM

You are short changed. you miss a whole category.
Consider the people who ar openminded enough to understand that governments are made up by a bunch of sneaky lying scheming self serving bastards and have looked at the specific "conspiracy" then rejected it because it is clearly and undeniably absolute bollox.

fine, Ill refund you 1 cent then.

Penguin

06-12-12, 11:57 AM

Hey Catfish,

Second, the claim that the theory that it was staged is absurd, and that there has been nothing gained by it:

Nothing was gained by the form, how the attacks wnet down. Look at the bloodiest wars in European history: all that has been necessary to light the fumes was one dead person. One dead by throwing him out ofa window, one shot prince, one dead body who was put into a Polnish uniform. So do you really thing a big 'show' like 9/11 was necessary, even though we live in the media age?
If you'd rely on a false flag operation why doing it so big, the bigger the circle of people involved, the bigger are the chances to get discovered.

You're spot on with your observations about the climate of fear. And this is exactly why I think it's a waste of time to concentrate on shady theories which are unproven, claims that derive from bad research methods and often idiotic ideological bs.

We have the very same derogation of civil rights after 2001 in Europe like in the US. This is the thing we have to defend and this is the thing one has to point out.
In Germany we have already seen this hysteria in the 70s, with the RAF. The government didn't have to invent them, but in this climate they put people out of work for the wrong beliefs (Berufsverbote), used new surveillance measures (Schleierfahndung), not even mentioning the thousands who were searched, controlled, registered as 'sympathizers'. In short: the hardliners used it to come closer to their wet dreams of a police state.

I didn't watch your video link, but I doubt it somehow differs from the vids about 9/11 where I took the time to watch. So my guess is they still found no smoking gun in this either.

Just take your link from telepolis: The pic the author used to illustrate the radar covery was already proven as false in the comment section - it covers only little heights. This is what I mean by bad methodology.

Being critical against the mainstream media, means also that you use the same work ethics criteria for all people, so also for the ones from the alternative media.
Being non-mainstream does not somehow make a source reliable - good journalistic work does. And exactly this is what I miss by the Troofers (and The Sun, Bild, etc...)

Here is a non-mainstream-media link about the conspiracy stuff: http://www.kopfentlastung.de.vu/ some stuff to read, but imo quite well written. (Sorry to the others, site's in German only and too much to translate), coming from a critical postition, certainly not from people who are blind followers, also some critique about the scepticism-guys.
I would be interested what you think about this article.

That is a fair point. It is also not proof, or even remote evidence, that anything was staged.

^this
Cause and effect. Many people gain something from a heritage, this doesn't mean that most kill their relatives.

Catfish

06-12-12, 02:11 PM

All true, however from all i have read, seen, heard, from the weirdest videos to good ones, state representatives, firefighters, explosives specialists from the US and abroad, CIA-whistleblowers, official documents showing reasonable numbers and statics and whatnot, my firm belief is:
The WTC was struck by two big planes/airliners.

My educated guess is:
The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner.
There were also explosives in the WTC towers (sheared off steel girders at the basement).
Some information about this 'attack' has been known or at least been expected before, by at least one foreign secret service agency who did not inform their colleagues.
Either one of the US own secret services also knew it before and used it for whatever, or they failed completely.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

August

06-12-12, 03:30 PM

My educated guess is:
The Pentagon was not struck by an airliner.

Then what happened to the missing airliner with it's load of passengers and crew? Except for the many pieces of aircraft and body parts littering the Pentagon grounds no sign of either has been seen since 9-11.

For your theory to be true government would have had to:

a. Know exactly when the attacks would take place. (not just approximately but exactly)

b. Get trained pilots/assassins aboard the right aircraft.

c. Seize control of said aircraft without the pilot being able to radio for help. (two passengers actually did manage to make calls from hidden cell phones)

d. Fly it to some unknown destination, in broad daylight, without anyone either on the ground or aboard the aircraft seeing what was happening. (anything flying after 10am would definitely have been noticed BTW)

e. Murder 64 people. (or 59 if you think the hijackers were imagined)

f. Dismember and move their body parts along with pieces of the aircraft out to the supposed crash site while making sure that both types indicate damage consistent with an airliner crash. They identified 184 0f 189 victims and all five of those imaginary terrorists so not just any body parts will do.

g. Get the dozens of eye witnesses to lie about seeing the aircraft plow into the side of the building.

h. Fake ATC radar tracks at not one but two different airports.

i. Manage to wire and blow up the Pentagon without anyone spotting anything, especially the 125 military and civilian personnel who were killed in the attack.

That's an awful lot for a two hour window from takeoff at 8:10am to when the world turned it's eyes on the crash site at 9:37am.

There were also explosives in the WTC towers (sheared off steel girders at the basement).

Source? FYI the buildings did not collapse from the basement so even if true that would have been a total failure.

Some information about this 'attack' has been known or at least been expected before, by at least one foreign secret service agency who did not inform their colleagues.
Either one of the US own secret services also knew it before and used it for whatever, or they failed completely.

There were indeed several intelligence agencies both foreign and domestic that had heard something about a potential terrorist attack but you have to remember that they deal with dozens of potential terrorist plots every day. It's a lot easier to pick out the real from the fake after the fact than it is beforehand.

mapuc

06-12-12, 04:03 PM

Takeda Shingen

06-12-12, 04:30 PM

The more that you entertain this line of discourse, the more that you encourage the Truther crowd. Just sayin'.

u crank

06-12-12, 05:06 PM

The more that you entertain this line of discourse, the more that you encourage the Truther crowd. Just sayin'.

I wonder if the Truther crowd needs encouraging? :D

JU_88

06-12-12, 05:08 PM

The more that you entertain this line of discourse, the more that you encourage the Truther crowd. Just sayin'.

You mean every time someone posts, it prompts another response?, isn't that purpose of a discussion board :06:
If we all just ignored threads/post that we didnt agree with, GT would be pretty boring wouldnt it? Just sayin'.

JU_88

06-12-12, 05:19 PM

I don't know if you watched the vido I had linked to in my thread 84.

AS I wrote: Is she telling the truth? If she does then the government knew
But until I got some kind of verification that she is a former asset to CIA I see her nothing more than a fairyteller.

Markus

You mean Susan Lindor, Ive seen her talk and it struck me as a mixed bag,
on the face of it some parts were more believable than others. she talks about her job and arrest in great detail (that part is quite convincing,) then when it comes to thermite bombs etc, it sounds rather vague and over-summarised, like she might just be feeding a bunch of truthers what they want to hear.
If you know that the towers were demolished - then thats rather a big deal, you dont just casually drop it in at the end while smiling, "oh yeah, you guys were right about the bombs, so-and-so said these trucks came at *this time for 10 nights and....thats about it." (applause)

Ive not seen anything that 100% verifies her as a 'former CIA asset', but I believe there are legitimate sources that confirm details of her arrest under the patriot act in 2004 for the reasons she stated.
She could be telling some truth or she be out to sell books - or both, but her words alone are not proof of anything much other than maybe that Bush and friends were itching to get into Iraq for any reason they could possibly find, (but I think we all kinda figured that one out when those WMDs never showed up ;)) And that they knew an terrorist attack was imminent, but they didnt know exactly what it was.

Takeda Shingen

06-12-12, 05:24 PM

You mean every time someone posts, it prompts another response?, isn't that purpose of a discussion board :06:
If we all just ignored threads/post that we didnt agree with, GT would be pretty boring wouldnt it? Just sayin'.

This assumes that the content is a discussion worth having. Not all art is valid, and neither are all opinions. Just sayin'.

JU_88

06-12-12, 06:22 PM

This assumes that the content is a discussion worth having. Not all art is valid, and neither are all opinions. Just sayin'.

Isnt that just an opinion too though? How can one person determine which opinions are valid or which threads are worth discussing in GT? What if that one person is wrong?

With all due respect, If there is an 8 page thread on page 1 of GT, it means at least two people are having a discussion. If we personally think the content of a thread is invalid/irrelivant/pointless/, (Assuming it isnt breaking any rules) Isnt it best we just choose to ignore it and let it die of natural causes - rather than actively discouraging people from posting in it? (while ironically bumping it back up)

Takeda Shingen

06-12-12, 06:32 PM

Isnt that just an opinion too though? How can one person determine which opinions are valid or which threads are worth discussing in GT? What if that one person is wrong?

With all due respect, If there is an 8 page thread on page 1 of GT, it means at least two people are having a discussion. If we personally think the content of a thread is invalid/irrelivant/pointless/, (Assuming it isnt breaking any rules) Isnt it best we just choose to ignore it and let it die of natural causes - rather than actively discouraging people from posting in it? (while ironically bumping it back up)

If speaking as moderator, I would have included the subtext 'The Management'. Since I am not speaking as moderator, I would reply that blue is not red and up is not down. As such, I would reiterate that not all opinions are valid. Irony is not a player in the game.

JU_88

06-12-12, 06:43 PM

:-?.......
Ooo-kay, I'll bear that in mind.

Takeda Shingen

06-12-12, 07:10 PM

:-?.......
Ooo-kay, I'll bear that in mind.

I only with that everyone would do so. It would save a lot time tooth gnashing and grief.

CaptainHaplo

06-13-12, 12:52 AM

up is not down

But leaves fly south for the winter. Just look at a map - South is down. Thus someone standing at the south pole would have to look "down" (toward the north) to see their feet. Thus - they would be looking "up" toward the North Pole.

So in the right circumstances - can't up be down?

Takeda Shingen

06-13-12, 01:16 AM

But leaves fly south for the winter. Just look at a map - South is down. Thus someone standing at the south pole would have to look "down" (toward the north) to see their feet. Thus - they would be looking "up" toward the North Pole.

So in the right circumstances - can't up be down?

I've been looking at this statement for awhile and can only come to the natural conclusion that Dick Lugar and Russ Feingold conspired together with the Reptilians to bring down the World Trade Center in an effort to clear space in Manhattan for a new Wegman's Supermarket. Now I both am scared and at the same time filled with a strange desire to check out the produce isle.

Sailor Steve

06-13-12, 04:38 AM

I'm starting to get worried; not because of the context of the last several posts but because they make perfect sense to me. :doh:

JU_88

06-13-12, 04:52 AM

But leaves fly south for the winter. Just look at a map - South is down. Thus someone standing at the south pole would have to look "down" (toward the north) to see their feet. Thus - they would be looking "up" toward the North Pole.

So in the right circumstances - can't up be down?

In a nut shell, Takeda is saying that if our opinions contradict what he considers to be widely accepted fact, then he would prefer that we dont post them here.
That would be fine if all widely accepted facts were established though a simple a means of 'is it black or white' (as per his example) but not all of them are.
In the case of 9/11, (according to polls) about 60% agree its black, about 20% suggest its some shade of off-white or another -and about another 20% think it still looks pretty grey.
So I guess he is going for a 'majority rule' here. :haha:

Sailor Steve

06-13-12, 05:03 AM

In a nut shell, Takeda is saying that if our opinions contradict what he considers to be widely accepted fact, then he would prefer that we dont post them here.
That would be fine if all widely accepted facts were established though a simple a means of 'is it black or white' (as per his example) but not all of them are.
In the case of 9/11, (according to polls) about 60% agree its black, about 20% suggest its some shade of off-white or another -and about another 20% think it still looks pretty grey.
So I guess he is going for a 'majority rule' here. :haha:
You know what's in his mind? It looked to me like he was joking. You put a horse laugh at the end, but it also looks to me that you're trying to use humor to disguise a certain bitterness. There is no need to be insulting, even when couching it in supposed humor.

JU_88

06-13-12, 05:25 AM

You know what's in his mind? It looked to me like he was joking. You put a horse laugh at the end, but it also looks to me that you're trying to use humor to disguise a certain bitterness. There is no need to be insulting, even when couching it in supposed humor.

A) No, I can only try to interpret it by what he says. But ok fine, I will go with "What Tak 'seems' to be saying is" -instead, that still works for me.

B) Im confused, is he is allowed to joke and I'm not, or rather - how come you detected and chastised me for the underlying feeling of distain behind my joke, but not his? Was it the fact that he didnt use a laughing smiley or....?

C) If you are going to 'unmask' every poster that uses a smiley to aid sarcasm or to disguise another feeling - and flag it as 'insulting', you are going to be a very busy man indeed, as virtually everyone does it to some degree.

Forgive me for saying this, but your points do seem rather selective, Steve.

August

06-13-12, 07:05 AM

Sailor Steve

06-13-12, 07:39 AM

B) Im confused, is he is allowed to joke and I'm not, or rather - how come you detected and chastised me for the underlying feeling of distain behind my joke, but not his? Was it the fact that he didnt use a laughing smiley or....?
I try to keep people from directly attacking each other. I thought his comments were generic, but yours were aimed directly at him.

C) If you are going to 'unmask' every poster that uses a smiley to aid sarcasm or to disguise another feeling - and flag it as 'insulting', you are going to be a very busy man indeed, as virtually everyone does it to some degree.
I see a difference between joking with someone and attacking them. "I disagree with so-and-so and think he's wrong" is debate. "So-and-so is just trying to limit free speech" is not exactly an attack, but it is an accusation that requires either proof or the qualification "in my opinion". That's the difference I see.

Forgive me for saying this, but your points do seem rather selective, Steve.
Of course that's possible. I screw up all the time. I try to be fair in my observations. I just like honest debate, and there's so little of that anywhere. Just one place would be nice.

JU_88

06-13-12, 07:47 AM

My guess it'd be closer to 95% / .5% / 1.5%

Well possibly,
I was basing my approximation on these polls (whos accuracy is entirely debatable of course.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polls_about_9/11_conspiracy_theories
Yes I know its a WIKIPEDIA link and not everything on wiki is automatically Right, (nor is it automatically wrong.)
And I also know polls are just an approximation at best. Ive not found an alternative, but if you have feel free to link.
I still think the poll is kinda intresting though, especially the number of middle easterners who seem think it was Isreal - in their oh so fair and balanced opinion (insert sarcasm).
But yes, in essance 'your guess' is as good as anybodys really. :)

JU_88

06-13-12, 07:54 AM

I try to keep people from directly attacking each other. I thought his comments were generic, but yours were aimed directly at him.

I see a difference between joking with someone and attacking them. "I disagree with so-and-so and think he's wrong" is debate. "So-and-so is just trying to limit free speech" is not exactly an attack, but it is an accusation that requires either proof or the qualification "in my opinion". That's the difference I see.

Of course that's possible. I screw up all the time. I try to be fair in my observations. I just like honest debate, and there's so little of that anywhere. Just one place would be nice.

Fair play Steve, Im not going to argue with any of that, I have nothing personal against you or Takeda or anybody here.
I felt that what Takeda started as a 'semi-joke' ended up sounding slightly tyranical by the end of it.
But hey, I screw up too and im sorry if I caused you, him or anyone else any offence.

Tribesman

06-13-12, 08:21 AM

In a nut shell, Takeda is saying that if our opinions contradict what he considers to be widely accepted fact, then he would prefer that we dont post them here.

I think he should be saying that people bothering to deal with the same old conspiracy theories and the same old debunked claims that are posted again and again only encourages people to keep posting the same old conspiracy rubbish again and again.

JU_88

06-13-12, 08:45 AM

Well, on one side, one mans rubbish is another mans treasure. On the other I side I do see where you are coming from. its not like there is a 'shortage' of places for conspiricy talk on the internet. But the often rather unfortunate compulsion of your average knee-deep conspiricy theorist is to "SPWEAD THE WORD".

Takeda Shingen

06-13-12, 03:45 PM

Catfish

06-15-12, 06:05 AM

Then what happened to the missing airliner with it's load of passengers and crew? Except for the many pieces of aircraft and body parts littering the Pentagon grounds no sign of either has been seen since 9-11.

For your theory to be true government would have had to:

a. Know exactly when the attacks would take place. (not just approximately but exactly)

b. Get trained pilots/assassins aboard the right aircraft.

c. Seize control of said aircraft without the pilot being able to radio for help. (two passengers actually did manage to make calls from hidden cell phones)

d. Fly it to some unknown destination, in broad daylight, without anyone either on the ground or aboard the aircraft seeing what was happening. (anything flying after 10am would definitely have been noticed BTW)

e. Murder 64 people. (or 59 if you think the hijackers were imagined)

f. Dismember and move their body parts along with pieces of the aircraft out to the supposed crash site while making sure that both types indicate damage consistent with an airliner crash. They identified 184 0f 189 victims and all five of those imaginary terrorists so not just any body parts will do.

g. Get the dozens of eye witnesses to lie about seeing the aircraft plow into the side of the building.

h. Fake ATC radar tracks at not one but two different airports.

i. Manage to wire and blow up the Pentagon without anyone spotting anything, especially the 125 military and civilian personnel who were killed in the attack.

That's an awful lot for a two hour window from takeoff at 8:10am to when the world turned it's eyes on the crash site at 9:37am.

Source? FYI the buildings did not collapse from the basement so even if true that would have been a total failure.

There were indeed several intelligence agencies both foreign and domestic that had heard something about a potential terrorist attack but you have to remember that they deal with dozens of potential terrorist plots every day. It's a lot easier to pick out the real from the fake after the fact than it is beforehand.

First, as said before i do not doubt it was an assassination, or attack.

I am not also sure about the Pentagon incident - it is just that officials and witnesses said they did not find "organic rests" (?), in or outside the building, and that the parts found around the point of impact did not match an airliner, from wheels/landing gear to sheet metal (seems it was all plastic).
But i admit i do not know, i just wonder why someone would make al that up, i mean commissioners and officers who were there ?

Regarding information not received or used wrongly - sure, it is not easy parting truth from fiction, what to really expect and then do the right thing against it. Maybe they had no such exact information though, but at least some guys must have known something - this submarine filming the impacts, from the right place at the right time, 5000 miles from its home - coincidence ?

But it seems this has become an opinion piece of how dumb 'truthers' [sic!] are and how dare they challenge official reports, to ridicule them (also know your Cass Susstein). But maybe it just does not fit in some people's paradigms of how the world is supposed to work, for them.

So why don't we just look at facts, evidence and the official reports explaining how it was possible those buildings were able to collapse, by a violent blow of gasoline, and then "office material" fires, and structural failures based on all that.
There is no doubt two planes flew into the two high towers, right ?

And when we read the official explanations and reconstruction (it has been posted here twice, by s.o. else and me), let's once more try a scientific approach. After those official reports were published, what do architects and specialists in building high-rise structures say of that ?

There are 1500 architecture specialists who claim this report is wrong, not even necessarily intentional, or for conspiracy reasons or theories, but because they feel they have the responsability of building and having built similar high rise structures, safe for further use, and finding explanations for the relatives of the people who died.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S7JCqlF24pI&feature=related

Tribesman

06-15-12, 06:36 AM

There are 1500 architecture specialists who claim this report is wrong
Repeating that rubbish again just shows you don't listen and don't learn.:doh:

Catfish

06-15-12, 06:57 AM

Tribesman

06-15-12, 08:10 AM

Constantly denying everything without even admitting there is something strange, and without even seeing that link i posted (indicated by the speed of your answer posted), does not convince me either. :03:
:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:
Read it slowly, look at what it says

Repeating that rubbish again just shows you don't listen and don't learn.
you posted a link to some regularly featured conspircy nuts who have done the rounds more times than a postman, the featured "experts" on structural integrity include....... an actor:rotfl2:

Dowly

06-15-12, 08:32 AM

Constantly denying everything without even admitting there is something strange, and without even seeing that link i posted (indicated by the speed of your answer posted), does not convince me either. :03:

You know, the problem is that "truthers" have lost all credibility over the years.
They have been repeatedly proven to have faked images, outright put words
in other people's mouths and to take things out of context just to try and feebly
prove it was an conspiracy.

And speaking of not checking out links, did you miss the link I posted to RKOwens' YT channel that debunks a lot of stuff?

If you want to hear both sides at the same time, search for Hardfire 911
on Youtube. You'll find many debates where "truthers" and debunkers debate
numerous issues with 911. I really recommend you to check them out,
just to see how ridiculous the "truther" side of things are.

As for your post #124:

If by "organic rest" you mean body parts, then you are wrong. Bits and pieces
were found from Pentagon. Heck, Pentagon even took some flak earlier this
year when it turned out that unidentified remains were cremated and put
to landfills.

The landing gears and engine parts were also identified as airliner wreckage,
so again, you are wrong. Same goes for the rest of the wreckage, never
have I heard someone say that it would've been something else than the plane.

I'll check the link you posted later. :salute:

Repeating that rubbish again just shows you don't listen and don't learn.

Unfortunately, this is the case when trying to debate with these people.
They keep repeating things that have been time and time again been debunked.

Very good example you STILL see after almost 11 years is the claim that
"Fires don't melt steel". Only problem with that: No one ever claimed it did. :O:

Tribesman

06-15-12, 08:54 AM

I'll check the link you posted later.:salute:
Why not spoil yourself by indulging in an experiment?
Do a search function just on Subsims GT section and see how often the same "1500 architects" rubbish has been repeated and linked to.

Dowly

06-15-12, 10:15 AM

Why not spoil yourself by indulging in an experiment?
Do a search function just on Subsims GT section and see how often the same "1500 architects" rubbish has been repeated and linked to.

Heh :)

Well, I've never seen said video, so what the heck. :03:

In fact, I'm not sure if I want to watch the whole 2hrs of it, I'm 8 minutes in
and have heard 2 things already from these supposed "experts" that are wrong.

1. Fires brought down the towers
--- Partly, yes. What amounted was the flippin' airliner that struck the tower(s)
which in turn knocked out the fireproofing from the beams.
So, airliner + structural damage + fire = collapse

2. WTC 7 suffered minor damage
--- This is something you hear all the time from the "truthers", simply not true.
As is their way, the completely ignore photos of the damage taken from another
angle that shows quite a bit of damage.

Like this one:
http://911myths.com/assets/images/WTC7Corner.jpg

I wouldn't call that "minor damage". :doh:

Oh well, nothing better to do, so I'll suffer through the thing.

Hottentot

06-15-12, 10:57 AM

Oh well, nothing better to do, so I'll suffer through the thing.

It's Friday Night™! :o

Catfish

06-15-12, 01:03 PM

[...]
And speaking of not checking out links, did you miss the link I posted to RKOwens' YT channel that debunks a lot of stuff?

If you want to hear both sides at the same time, search for Hardfire 911
on Youtube. You'll find many debates where "truthers" and debunkers debate
numerous issues with 911. I really recommend you to check them out,
just to see how ridiculous the "truther" side of things are.
[...]

As for your post #124:

The landing gears and engine parts were also identified as airliner wreckage, so again, you are wrong. Same goes for the rest of the wreckage, never have I heard someone say that it would've been something else than the plane.

Well the reports i read were not on YouTube, but written reports of several of the officials who were sent there to collect personal material from passenges, and one report of a commissioner who went back, because, as he said, he did not know why he was there - he did not find either. Same with a police officer and some firemen, in their reports. So maybe they did not look properly or make that up - just why ?

The other Youtube link i posted showed wheels and the rest of one small jet engine found in the rubble of the Pentagon's hit section, that were much smaller than those of even a very small airliner (so directly contradicting this statement above, hmm), also showing plastic sheet hull materials and very small and thin hull parts of aluminium skin, not to be found on commercial jets as well. Also the landing gear was not big enough to be of a commercial jet - at least some Boeing engineers said so. So again - why make this up ?
I mean would you trust a politician with an agenda telling you something he knows sh!t about, or some experts and witnesses ?

But thanks, will look at the links you posted, maybe i oversaw this one :salute:

Regarding the link i posted with architects speaking, it seems to be from march 2003, and yes, i did not see it before - :hmmm:

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

Dowly

06-15-12, 01:50 PM

Well the reports i read were not on YouTube, but written reports of several of the officials who were sent there to collect personal material from passenges, and one report of a commissioner who went back, because, as he said, he did not know why he was there - he did not find either. Same with a police officer and some firemen, in their reports. So maybe they did not look properly or make that up - just why ?

Never heard of that, so if you can track down the documents, I'd like to read them.
In the meantime, here's a floorplan showing the locations of human remains
found at the site:

Flight 77 = Blue
Pentagon Staff = Orange
Unintendified = Black

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Pentagonfatalities.jpg

Many who were there, digging through the rubble reported body parts, probably
the most notable being the bodies still strapped to their seats.

The other Youtube link i posted showed wheels and the rest of one small jet engine found in the rubble of the Pentagon's hit section, that were much smaller than those of even a very small airliner (so directly contradicting this statement above, hmm), also showing plastic sheet hull materials and very small and thin hull parts of aluminium skin, not to be found on commercial jets as well. Also the landing gear was not big enough to be of a commercial jet - at least some Boeing engineers said so. So again - why make this up ?

Main gear assembly from Pentagon (bottom right)
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/00Pentdebris-full.jpg

Main gear assembly of a 757:
https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/b757-main-wheel-01-full.jpg

https://sites.google.com/site/wtc7lies/Pentagon757MainGearComparison-full.jpg

And so on.

AVGWarhawk

06-15-12, 02:11 PM

There was not any grand conspiracy. Just very well laid plans by individuals wishing harm, uncertainty and making a point.

Tribesman

06-16-12, 02:42 AM

Main gear assembly from Pentagon (bottom right)

I saw wheels that looked like that on a narrow gauge railway in Wales.
It proves without doubt that the Pentagon was really hit by a Welsh steam train hijacked by the sons of glendower.

Catfish

06-16-12, 03:13 AM

O ... k, you have convinced me. I rest my "case", if there ever was one :-?
It still does not explain the coming down of the 3 buildings, but i really think it was just so obvious that nobody thought about removing evidence when trying to remove the rubble in the heart of a city.

It is interesting though you find more on the web about conspiracy theories and "evidence" about a hoax, than the real thing. Or, the first is at least easier to find .. but maybe this is not so surprising ..

I saw the pictures Dowly posted, for the first time, but they can indeed be found everywhere http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=87594 - thanks !
Of course, this link http://www.oilempire.us/pentagon.html will probably be busted just due to its name, at least by some :03: .. but it is indeed a good collection of thoughts, for the most probable explanation why someone would make up statements contradicting the obvious or official ones.

Thanks and greetings,
Catfish

P.S: of course, Tribesman's theory of a welsh steam train hitting has something ... but why do they need double-rimmed wheels on those tracks ? :shifty: I smell a conspiracy ..

Tribesman

06-16-12, 03:51 AM

S: of course, Tribesman's theory of a welsh steam train hitting has something ... but why do they need double-rimmed wheels on those tracks ? :shifty: I smell a conspiracy ..
It was an experiment into high speed sheep shifting, the need for rapid mass transit was having difficulty over huntings wobblies so they went for the double flange.
Its all available on the interwebs and its all true as it has been written.

JU_88

06-16-12, 03:33 PM

I saw wheels that looked like that on a narrow gauge railway in Wales.
It proves without doubt that the Pentagon was really hit by a Welsh steam train hijacked by the sons of glendower.

:har:

mapuc

06-16-12, 03:59 PM

Those who believe in conspiracy theories about the two towers collapse have an explanation problem according to those who support the official line.

conspiracy believer can not explain how people could manage to place all the explosives in the twin towers. the two towers closed for a few days before 9/11.

According to the rules most people know about the demolition, then these demolitions team, spend several weeks in order to place all the explosives in order to get a proper free fall.

What if both supporter and opponent of these conspiracies are wrong?

What if both parts are partly right?

What if:

It was roughly known where the planes would hit the twin towers?
What if they used the law of gravity to help.
What if they used the upper part of the 110 floors as a kind of pressure on the lower floors.

How much explosive do you need then?
How much time do a team of these demolitons people need?

Remember it is just pure theory-which may not have basis in reality

Markus

Dowly

06-16-12, 04:06 PM

Here's a good two part debate about mainly the usage of explosives.

Hardfire - Mark Roberts vs. Richard Gage (the '1500 architects' guy):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYVUUTeZp0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45Imd5i7IGo

August

06-16-12, 05:46 PM

the two towers closed for a few days before 9/11.

Source?

mapuc

06-16-12, 06:08 PM

Source?

I have that from news channels and articles

It was said that the two towers was closed for some kind of maintance

I can't remember when and for how long. I thought it was for 2 days.

Are you saying that is not true??

I'm sorry, I must have mixed something together.

I seached the internet and found this

I know it's from one of these believes, but is it a lie what this person is telling us???

http://world911truth.org/world-trade-center-employee-discusses-pre-911-power-downs/

Markus

Dowly

06-16-12, 06:27 PM

#1, it's sourced by one person only, Scott Forbes, and
corroboration seems limited.

#2, why would such a lengthy "power down" be necessary for a cable
upgrade? This plainly didn't have anything to do with the main power lines
into the building, as it only affected the floors from 50 upwards. What work
could possibly be done on the floor below, that required turning off the
power for 50+ floors (or whatever it reall was) for 36 hours? If there were
rewiring to be done, isn’t it more likely that this would be carried out in
parallel, and companies would be switched from the old system to the new
in a few minutes?

#3, are we supposed to believe that security systems fed off the same
power system as everything else? So a power cut meant no security at all?
Look at the affected tenants, if the “floor 50 upwards” version is true --
First Commercial Bank (floor 78), Fuji Bank (79-82), Fiduciary Trust,
Atlantic Bank of New York... Do you really think these companies would
live with a situation like that, or not object that all security for their offices
has been disabled?

#4, even if all this were true, it still only provided access to half of one
tower. What about the North Tower? WTC7? No mention of "power downs"
there.

#5, the power down time was initially reported as 36 hours, and a
subsequent interview cut this to 26.

From: http://www.911myths.com/html/wtc_power_down.html

mapuc

06-16-12, 06:38 PM

^ Thank you for the link :up:

If I should meet this Scott Forbes I would not hesitatet to ask him

-Are you lying?

What do you gain from that??

Markus

August

06-16-12, 06:42 PM

Are you saying that is not true??

I'm just asking if you have a source for this claim. As far as I know the buildings did not close.

mapuc

06-16-12, 07:10 PM

I'm just asking if you have a source for this claim. As far as I know the buildings did not close.

And it seems that you were right. I had made some kind of mixup of old news and some other stuf.

Markus

mapuc

06-16-12, 08:28 PM

Maybe I should tell you where I got this theory from.

A few weeks ago, two mini skycrapers(13 and 15 storeys high) in Rødover, a town just outside Copenhagen, was demolished.
This grating / demolition was live transmitted on TV2news

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWBn6j3uaoM

Remember that I was thinking-how would those who believe in these conspiracy theories explain this?
This Danish company(With help from the Scottish explosives expert William Sinclair) used several days of preparation before that blast

Now imagine then how much time and resources a demolition company would need to demolish these three buildings.

It was then I began to rethink- What if ....

Markus

06-17-12, 07:50 AM

http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif
http://static.quickmeme.com/media/social/qm.gif
http://picgusta.com/img/f/GUJ0L.jpg

:yeah:

Dowly

06-17-12, 07:55 AM

Brilliant :haha:

Catfish

06-19-12, 05:41 AM

Umm Dowly, did you really watch the 9/11 hardfire vids, and information ?
e.g. that one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYVUUTeZp0

Dowly

06-19-12, 07:41 AM

Umm Dowly, did you really watch the 9/11 hardfire vids, and information ?
e.g. that one ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlYVUUTeZp0

Yeah, I've seen them several times. Why?

JU_88

06-19-12, 01:48 PM

I have one issue with the 'inward bowing theory', as presented here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMZ-nkYr46w&feature=fvwrel and that is the connections between the trusses and columns.

When the trusses softened and sagged, we are to belive they pulled perimeter columns inwards (also softened) due to the obviouse weight of all the floor concrete and office equipment.

Im no architect, but look at this WTC construction photo, in particular look at the Gussets (G)
http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c23/JPPics/9-11/FloorTrusses-Construction.jpg
I find it hard to belive that those flimsy looking trusses attached to even flimsier looking gussets would have been strong enough to pull those mighty columns inwards, even under the conditions of the steel being softened, I would have though the trusses or gussets would be the first to break, (before the far thicker columns), if so that would cause a floor collapes - Then perhaps the columns might start to break with no trusses to connecting them to the core columns, they would no longer be able to cope with the weight from above?
Does that make sense?

Also Im pretty sure the truss/column connections were not even welded either, the towers were light wieght and flexible -able to sway in strong winds.
But hell, what do I know....

Dowly

06-19-12, 03:15 PM

The floor trusses weren't supported just by the gussets, JU88.

Here's a photo of column 231 of WTC2 I copied from the NIST report.
http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/WTC_Truss_Connectors.jpg

The upper gusset was welded to the truss, the seat plate and the lower gusset
were bolted.

BTW, the video showing the simulation is to my understanding showing the
interior wall connection, which consisted of the upper gusset and the seat
whereas the exterior wall connection also had the lower gusset. Not 100%
sure about this, tho. :hmm2:

JU_88

06-19-12, 03:17 PM

Ah ok, nice one Dowly, :up:

Dowly

06-19-12, 03:40 PM

No problem :up:

Just found this, so gonna leave it here. :yep:

http://i1183.photobucket.com/albums/x462/Dowly/xvrj.jpg

Dowly

06-29-12, 03:53 PM

What if:

It was roughly known where the planes would hit the twin towers?
What if they used the law of gravity to help.
What if they used the upper part of the 110 floors as a kind of pressure on the lower floors.

How much explosive do you need then?
How much time do a team of these demolitons people need?

Remember it is just pure theory-which may not have basis in reality

Markus

Sorry for the bump, but I'm bored and I missed this earlier. Sue me. :woot:

The whole controlled demolition argument can be countered with a few points:

1) No one heard explosions in the manner one would hear them in a CD.
Explosions WERE heard prior and after the collapses, but those could be caused by
anything, plenty of stuff that goes "boom" when exposed to heat in those
buildings. People survived the collapse INSIDE the towers, none reported
hearing explosions.

2) If explosives were near the impact areas (from where both collapses
started), they would have had to be insulated from the heat or they would've
cooked off. And if they were protected from that kind of heat, then surely
the cases would have survived the collapses, yet nothing suspicious was found.

3) WTC2's (South Tower) collapse. The tower was struck to the Southwest
corner, causing huge damage. The collapse starts from that very same corner
(check videos that show the corner as it collapses) which supports structural failure.
The top of the tower also leans as it collapses, which means the start of the
collapse wasnt symmetrical, one side gave up first (the struck corner) creating
a pivot point. If explosives would've been used, it would make sense to blow
all supports at once so to not risk a lean and possible damage in a widespread area.

As for amount & time needed, hard to say. Somekind of shaped charges would
probably be the go-to equipment, but from what I've understood it takes
a lot of preparing to have them blow so that they take out the structure needed.
(pre-cutting the steel, placing the charges properly etc.)

Fish

07-03-12, 02:06 PM

I take it you did not see the vid then, the beginning deals just with those who died and suffered. Which makes the whole thing even more atrocious.
Close your eyes, nothing to see here.

I followed the CT storys for years at Randi's. The discussions are still going on.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=64

krashkart

07-04-12, 08:21 PM

The whole controlled demolition argument can be countered with a few points:

1) No one heard explosions in the manner one would hear them in a CD.
Explosions WERE heard prior and after the collapses, but those could be caused by
anything, plenty of stuff that goes "boom" when exposed to heat in those
buildings. People survived the collapse INSIDE the towers, none reported
hearing explosions.

Quoted only for example, and thanks for bringing it up again. :salute:

...

In college I had to watch this video about the collapses and write an assessment of procedures followed and show my understanding of the basics of building construction, fire damage, etc. At one point in the film we get this shot of some firefighters staging in a loading dock right across the street from the first tower. Everything appears normal at first, then you hear an awful roar from above. Camera pans up and you see the top of the tower already come apart and falling earthward in the Big F'in Nasty. The roar was terrible. I can't imagine what must have gone through their minds at that moment. One thing I don't remember from that shot is ever hearing any explosions. One sound hits our ears (or mics) faster than the sound coming after it, so we should have been able to hear charges going off before we could hear the sound of the collapse. No such thing in the video. No explosion. To my mind there was no explosion.

The 'controlled demolition theory' was debunked for me long before any of this Truther crap came out.

Truthers are stupid beyond repair. I hate saying that about anyone, but it's true in this case. Stupid beyond repair.

Get over it.